Potentially no Protestants on SCOTUS

[Guest Jamie]

Exactly what would that look like.

It would look like somebody trying to honestly figure out what a law said and meant, not someone trying to get it to say what they wanted it to say, or what their particular religion dictated it should say.

When I was a LEO, I didn't always agree with the laws I had to enforce. However, it was still my job to enforce them. It's the same with SCOTUS; they may not like what the constitution says or means, but the court's job is still to interpret and enforce it, not to twist it around to their way of thinking.

"Religion" as you say is simply a way for us to express in a identifiable context who we are.

I don't know about you, but I don't need anybody else's belief system to identify who or what I am. And nothing I believe - or don't - could really be described as a religion, I think.

There is no such thing as a person with no belief. Atheist, agnostics, etc. are just as ardent if not more so in their "beliefs" than the so called religious people they oppose.

Personally, as I've said here before, I don't know who's right or who's wrong, and don't particularly care.

And my only opposition is to anyone who claims that they know for a fact that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

So in one regard, I really have no particular belief, other than I don't know which religion/belief may be right or wrong, and that no one else knows either.

J.

[E4 No More]

Just using your quote as thought starter. Why is it people are so worried about "bible" people abusing the laws, when it is exactly the opposite. The dilution of the penal code, abortion laws, death penalty removal, stripping of states rights, etc. all stemmed from agnostic/atheist activism. Not the other way around.

I would classify myself as a "Bible" person, so I don't take your point.

[Smith]

It would look like somebody trying to honestly figure out what a law said and meant, not someone trying to get it to say what they wanted it to say, or what their particular religion dictated it should say.

When I was a LEO, I didn't always agree with the laws I had to enforce. However, it was still my job to enforce them. It's the same with SCOTUS; they may not like what the constitution says or means, but the court's job is still to interpret and enforce it, not to twist it around to their way of thinking.

I don't know about you, but I don't need anybody else's belief system to identify who or what I am. And nothing I believe - or don't - could really be described as a religion, I think.

Personally, as I've said here before, I don't know who's right or who's wrong, and don't particularly care.

And my only opposition is to anyone who claims that they know for a fact that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

So in one regard, I really have no particular belief, other than I don't know which religion/belief may be right or wrong, and that no one else knows either.

J.

So what you are saying is that everyone is wrong which makes you right. Or at least more right? Just poking at you Jaime.

To those I disagree with on this subject, know that what you believe is between you and what is right. I take no offense at being challenged nor do I intend to personally offend. I just like the exercise.

[Guest Jamie]

So what you are saying is that everyone is wrong which makes you right. Or at least more right?

No, what I'm actually saying is that everybody has an equal chance of being right... or wrong. They simply don't know for a fact which it is, and neither does anyone else. I simply recognize that and am comfortable with it. Most people, however, for whatever reason... aren't.

Just poking at you Jaime.

With habits like that, there could be a Darwin Award in your future. :chill:

J.

[enfield]

I'm not scared of Jews and Catholics.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I'm not scared of Jews and Catholics.

So long as there aren't any stones laying around for the Pharisees and Saducees and the Tribunal of the Holy Office of Inquisition is still closed. Organized religion makes for fun wars, if thats a game you like to play.

Oh yeah, grenade out!

[Smith]

So long as there aren't any stones laying around for the Pharisees and Saducees and the Tribunal of the Holy Office of Inquisition is still closed. Organized religion makes for fun wars, if thats a game you like to play.

Oh yeah, grenade out!

In know y'all are having fun but seriously - blaming wars on religion is like blaming guns for murder. They are simply tools that have been misused by people with ill intent.

[Guest SUNTZU]

In know y'all are having fun but seriously - blaming wars on religion is like blaming guns for murder. They are simply tools that have been misused by people with ill intent.

Deus vult!

[Smith]

Deus vult!

Ha, ha. The Crusades were mainly about controlling access to the silk road trade routes and sugar plantations of norther Israel/southern Turkey that got all sorts of out of hand. the religious aspect was just a good motivator.

[Guest HvyMtl]

In addition,the Crusades were a tool to keep population in check as well, as the European population exploded, and a large number of very poor males hanging around was a threat to the King's power... so what better than to send them far, far away to die?

Back to the Topic: I am surprised some of the media named "Religious Right" have not complained of the lack of Protestant Christian representation.

[eapking]

I think this is a non-issue.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Ha, ha. The Crusades were mainly about controlling access to the silk road trade routes and sugar plantations of norther Israel/southern Turkey that got all sorts of out of hand. the religious aspect was just a good motivator.

In addition,the Crusades were a tool to keep population in check as well, as the European population exploded, and a large number of very poor males hanging around was a threat to the King's power... so what better than to send them far, far away to die?

Back to the Topic: I am surprised some of the media named "Religious Right" have not complained of the lack of Protestant Christian representation.

Yes, that is part of what the Crusades were about in reality. However, the fact remains that the majority of people believed they were doing it in the name of Christianity. You and I can both look back on it and discuss the actuality, but at the time, many people used it to spread Christendom...which was about more money in and of itself.

Its akin to saying Muslims are blowing themselves up over the Great Satan because they don't want the oil within their borders going to foreign powers. No, its because of their religious beliefs and the promised reward that they go into stores, schools, and buses with suicidal intent. The same was true of the majority of people fighting in the wars of Crusades. Your duty was to the king who had the God given right to rule.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Someone please tell me where morals came from.

Then please expand how ethical behaviour came about.

And finally how laws were created.

All this time I thought the Bible had something to do with it.

Take religion out of our society and all you have left over is

government, until it gets so oppressive that you see chaos,

lawless and disrespect for others.

Oh, I guess we're already there. Too late.

That separation of church and state was only meant to prohibit

a state religion, not to abolish religion.

It doesn't matter how many of which flavor there is on the

court, only that they have the morals, ethics and understanding

of the law that came from something.

I think it was the Bible

[Guest SUNTZU]

Well, there are civilizations that have never heard of the Bible that don't automatically screw everything in sight and murder every person they see.

[jonlisha]

Someone please tell me where morals came from.

Then please expand how ethical behaviour came about.

And finally how laws were created.

All this time I thought the Bible had something to do with it.

Take religion out of our society and all you have left over is

government, until it gets so oppressive that you see chaos,

lawless and disrespect for others.

Oh, I guess we're already there. Too late.

That separation of church and state was only meant to prohibit

a state religion, not to abolish religion.

It doesn't matter how many of which flavor there is on the

court, only that they have the morals, ethics and understanding

of the law that came from something.

I think it was the Bible

Jesus was not the first person to say "hey thats not yours put it back" or "hey man don't bash that guys head in"

The bible took what was already common knowledge and wrote it down.

Saying the bible was the first time anyone ever made murder or stealing against the law is very wrong. Morals are ever changing with the population, in my opinion morals are nothing more than opinions, "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" vary depending on who you ask and to me thats proof enough that no one is "right" we are just different.

As for the origin of morals, many studies have been done on why we have whats called a conscience, if you like i can find a few videos that pretty much sum it up but if you are a skeptic of a evolution then you won't like their answer.

I don't believe anyone is trying to abolish religion but if you truly believe that the church and state are separate then you need to take a closer look at this nation, i mean the slogan is "One nation under god", i honesty think religion and politics don't mix. I don't care what you do or what you believe in but lets agree to stay out of each others business and leave our spiritual beliefs by the bed or at church, it only leads to trouble when we try to share them in public without the consent of both parties.

I'm sure i will take the unfavorable position in this debate but someone has to so i guess i will play that role today.

[Oh Shoot]

...It doesn't matter how many of which flavor there is on the

court, only that they have the morals, ethics and understanding

of the law that came from something.

I think it was the Bible

Rule by a set of laws has been a part of every significant culture, well documented since at least 3000 BC in Egypt, and seemingly as the much earlier Sumerian culture -- and certainly the majority of them are similar to the basic tenets of our own, as regarding property, theft, murder, etc.

Commonality of laws well pre-dating the Hebrew Bible.

Point is that almost all societies evolved similar basic laws; one might argue that they are are almost innate to the phenomenon of group dynamics, probably because they are simply the most practical way for a population to interact within itself, regardless of whether it's ruled by a parliament or dictator.

It's perhaps instructive to remember that only 3 of the ten commandments are against the law in the United States. (maybe 3.25 if you count isolated Sunday "blue laws").

It's also instructive to remember that there are a bazillion reasons in the Old Testament for which Yahweh instructs us to kill the perp, and it's certainly a fine thing that 99.9% of them did NOT find their way into our laws!

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Jesus was not the first person to say "hey thats not yours put it back....

Well, you are right, but remember, what Christians call the Old Testament was compiled from 1300 BC to 2 BC, long before the Christ story (re)surfaced.

But see my other post, certainly even old Hebrew law did not have a worldwide influence, and many cultures predated it altogether.

- OS

[StPatrick]

I'm not scared of Jews and Catholics either...well said Jamie.

If it's a 10 commandments issue, Moses and the stone tablets makes it into everyone's holy books.

I'm scared of judges that use their feelings and emotions to expand or constrain laws as they are written, or to reinterpret the Constitution.

If you really want to get excited about diversity, what about culture and geography? Ours is a very big country, but only one justice (Kennedy) is from outside the northeast, being from California. Even he went to an Ivy League law school.

If Kagan is confirmed, all nine justices will have been granted their JDs from the following three schools: Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

I don't give a fig for "diversity" arguments, but if you were to make one, I'd think that a good one would be that the next court will have 8 of 9 justices from the northeast, and all 9 attended law school up there. Ours is a big country, and our geographical differences often mean more than our differences in race and religion. Geography, I think, influences common culture more than religion.

For instance: if you're a white male, who do you have more in common with: the black family down the street, or any single member of the Supreme Court?

Again, I don't care about background re: judicial appointees, just their philosophy, but the "6 Catholics, 3 Jews, and 0 Protestants" line made me think. Your thoughts, fellow gun nuts and undesirables?

[Mike.357]

I agree with StPatrick. I am more bothered by the fact the 8 of the 9 are from Harvard or Yale. I could care less about religious beliefs.

[JPS]

Well said StPatrick - you make a great point.

Personally I don't care what color, gender, religion, or race a SC justice is, as long as they follow the constitution and the letter of the law and leave their personal beliefs and/or bias out of the job.

[Oh Shoot]

I certainly don't like that we have an Ivy League SCOTUS, and didn't realize we did until StPatrick's post.

- OS

[helxis]

I look forward to the day when all the Supreme Court Justices are highly advanced robots, and briefs are presented via IBM punch cards. Also, I long for the day that my Coleco® brand Supreme Court Justices graduate from Phoenix University. None of that hoity toity DeVry or ICS for our lawputers.

As a side note, we need to ensure that our cutting-edge Judgebots come with an Extended Warranty. I know it costs a little extra, but those Coleco®'s will rust up on you.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Jesus was not the first person to say "hey thats not yours put it back" or "hey man don't bash that guys head in"

The bible took what was already common knowledge and wrote it down.

Saying the bible was the first time anyone ever made murder or stealing against the law is very wrong. Morals are ever changing with the population, in my opinion morals are nothing more than opinions, "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" vary depending on who you ask and to me thats proof enough that no one is "right" we are just different.

As for the origin of morals, many studies have been done on why we have whats called a conscience, if you like i can find a few videos that pretty much sum it up but if you are a skeptic of a evolution then you won't like their answer.

I don't believe anyone is trying to abolish religion but if you truly believe that the church and state are separate then you need to take a closer look at this nation, i mean the slogan is "One nation under god", i honesty think religion and politics don't mix. I don't care what you do or what you believe in but lets agree to stay out of each others business and leave our spiritual beliefs by the bed or at church, it only leads to trouble when we try to share them in public without the consent of both parties.

I'm sure i will take the unfavorable position in this debate but someone has to so i guess i will play that role today.

I didn't know there would be an unfavorable position. I will say that this

isn't about "evolution vs creation", so I don't understand that in the mix.

I was pointing out the progression of where laws come from. Speaking of

the USA, we didn't have a big buddhist following in the colonies, and I

wasn't addressing the rest of the world.

I think our laws came from moral, then ethical behaviour and a progression

from the Magna Carta forward. I also think our laws are based on the

religious beliefs and background of our founding fathers. I stated what I

believe is true. And I don't think I was preaching.

Jesus wasn't the first to walk the earth and had nothing to do with the

Ten Commandments. That was Moses.

Some say the founders were Deists. Some would rather conveniently

believe what some write in books because it may be comfortable to them

to believe things a certain way, when it may not necessarily be so.

I simply choose to believe they were christians who wanted to be free

from the King's imposed religion. That coming from an Episcopalian and

a buck might get you a cup of coffee.

As far as I'm concerned, atheists, agnostics and the like should never

be appointed to the supreme Court. But that's just me...

Edited May 14, 2010 by 6.8 AR

[Smith]

I agree with StPatrick. I am more bothered by the fact the 8 of the 9 are from Harvard or Yale. I could care less about religious beliefs.

+1 on the first half. However, if there were any justices from the south or darn near any other part of the country sans the coast they would more than likely be protestant. Point being it's all tied together.

[Guest Jamie]

As far as I'm concerned, atheists, agnostics and the like should never

be appointed to the supreme Court. But that's just me...

Why? Do you really believe that right and wrong - or one's understanding of it - has to be tied to religion?

I really hope the human race isn't so screwed-up as to require an instruction manual to tell 'em the difference between the two, or why it's in their best interest to do the right thing instead of the wrong one...

But then again, from what I've seen, even having one - or several, for that matter - doesn't seem to have helped much.

J.