• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A supreme court without protestants

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Do you believe that there aren't others - Buddhists, Hindus, etc. who are competent enough to be on the SC?
Yes, of course I do.
I doubt that there are many in the USA, because we are very prejudiced against anyone who isn't an Abrahamic religionist.
Tom
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Yes, of course I do.
I doubt that there are many in the USA, because we are very prejudiced against anyone who isn't an Abrahamic religionist.
Tom
IMO it would be quite so, especially if the next government decides to appoint yet another Abrahamic to the vacant seat.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Early in this country's history the first state constitutions limited the ability to vote and / or hold public office to white Christians of the Protestant faith. For example in Article IX of Georgia's 1777 Constitution it states:

"All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections fore representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large."

In Article VI of that same state constitution, it reads as follows:

The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this state, ...and they shall be of the Protestant religion,..."

If you back up a few years to the first settlements, you find a lot of things about the founding of America. The First Charter of Virginia (1606) states:

"Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of theire desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to the glorie of His Divine Majestie in propagating of Christian religionto suche people as yet live in darkenesse and miserable ignorance of the true knoweledge and worshippe of God and may in tyme bring the infidels and salvages living in those parts to humane civilitie and to a setled and quiet govermente, doe by theise our lettres patents graciously accepte of and agree to theire humble and well intended desires; ..."

The First Virginia Charter 1606 < 1600-1650 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Early in this country's history the first state constitutions limited the ability to vote and / or hold public office to white Christians of the Protestant faith. For example in Article IX of Georgia's 1777 Constitution it states:

"All male white inhabitants, of the age of twenty one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections fore representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large."

In Article VI of that same state constitution, it reads as follows:

The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, who shall have resided at least twelve months in this state, ...and they shall be of the Protestant religion,..."

If you back up a few years to the first settlements, you find a lot of things about the founding of America. The First Charter of Virginia (1606) states:

"Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of theire desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to the glorie of His Divine Majestie in propagating of Christian religionto suche people as yet live in darkenesse and miserable ignorance of the true knoweledge and worshippe of God and may in tyme bring the infidels and salvages living in those parts to humane civilitie and to a setled and quiet govermente, doe by theise our lettres patents graciously accepte of and agree to theire humble and well intended desires; ..."

The First Virginia Charter 1606 < 1600-1650 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
Thanks for sharing; of course, these are State examples, which are irrelevant to the federal SC.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
I'm an atheist, but I really don't need others of this ilk on the USSC.
I care more that they be constitutioanl originalists, regardless of their
preferred mythological delusions.

Do you believe that genes determine behavior?
Do you claim to 'know' that there is no life beyond death?

Please justify your answers.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Do you believe that genes determine behavior?
To some extent.
Do you claim to 'know' that there is no life beyond death?
Nope....but looks like a pretty preposterous idea.
Please justify your answers.
1) Kids raised in the same environment can sure turn out differently.
2) Consciousness resides in the physical organ called the "brain".
Kill it, & consciousness dies. So without that meat computer, no life after it dies.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
To some extent.

Nope....but looks like a pretty preposterous idea.

1) Kids raised in the same environment can sure turn out differently.
2) Consciousness resides in the physical organ called the "brain".
Kill it, & consciousness dies. So without that meat computer, no life after it dies.

Where in the brain does consciousness reside?
Is consciousness reduced to electromagnetic activity?
Is this computer therefore (potentially) conscious seeing as though it has such?
How can you be so sure that consciousness dies with the body?

Do you believe that if we re-aligned all the bits-and-pieces of a dead person we would
necessarily bring them back to life; and if we recorded such data; we could make people immortal?

If I made an exact chemical replica of you; in which body would you sense of 'I' reside?
The new/old/both?

Is your sense of 'I' NOT unique?
Would you be aware of both 'I''s seeing as though they could both be you?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Where in the brain does consciousness reside?
Is consciousness reduced to electromagnetic activity?
It's an emergent property of the circuitry of neurons.
Is this computer therefore (potentially) conscious seeing as though it has such?
How can you be so sure that consciousness dies with the body?
I don't understand the first question.
Our consciousness is very dependent upon the physical brain.
Damage some portions, & there are psychological consequences.
The link is compelling.
Do you believe that if we re-aligned all the bits-and-pieces of a dead person we would
necessarily bring them back to life; and if we recorded such data; we could make people immortal?
The degradation is physically irreversible.
If I made an exact chemical replica of you; in which body would you sense of 'I' reside?
The new/old/both?
"I" would reside in both.
I could then have some interesting conversations with myself.
On 2nd thought.....I'd likely find myself boring.
Is your sense of 'I' NOT unique?
It seems to be, but I can't say any more than that.
Would you be aware of both 'I''s seeing as though they could both be you?
The other "I" would be an independent being, & because of different external stimuli, would become more different over time.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
The degradation is physically irreversible.

That is illogical.
Surely if neurons are just chemicals, then with good enough nano-bots,
everything could be re-aligned the way it was.

The other "I" would be an independent being, & because of different external stimuli, would become more different over time.

So even if the two you's were identical, there would
not be a sense of 'I' shared by both.
Thus you would not be identical.

Perhaps think about that.
Are the two you's identical?
Yes?
Then your 'I' would be identical to the other 'I'.

But you say it would not be such.

So which is it?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That is illogical.
No, you're doing it wrong.
If you're going to object, you should do something more than
mere gainsaying, & provide reasoning using the correct word.
("Illogical" wouldn't apply to a singular factual claim.)
Surely if neurons are just chemicals, then with good enough nano-bots,
everything could be re-aligned the way it was.
You're sure of this.
I say no.
Even if nano-bots could alter chemicals at the atomic level, they
couldn't do this simultaneously, which would be necessary for an
organism which doesn't exist as separately functioning modules.
Death is a process with chemically irreversible effects at many levels.
So even if the two you's were identical, there would
not be a sense of 'I' shared by both.
Thus you would not be identical.
If we were hypothetically identical at one point in time, that
would end almost immediately because of different environments.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
Yes, of course I do.
I doubt that there are many in the USA, because we are very prejudiced against anyone who isn't an Abrahamic religionist.
I read the other day that all the Republicans currently in Congress are Christians, except 2 Jews, and that only one representative of either party had ever admitted to being an atheist — he lost his next primary. Britain got its first openly atheist MP in 1886!
 
Top