Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 March 17

= March 17 =

Protestant on the Supreme Court?
Who was the last protestant member of the US Supreme Court? Edison (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This page should help you answer your question. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Where on that page are religions stated? Names alone do not denote religions. Your response is not very helpful. Edison (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * David Souter (retired 2009) was Episcopalian (which describes itself as "Protestant, yet Catholic"). clpo13(talk) 05:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wishy, yet washy. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so not so clear who was the most recent Protestant in the strict sense (which I take to mean Lutheran or Reformed, the latter including Presbyterians and Congregationalists). O'Connor was (per our article) again Episcopalian, but Stevens is listed as "Protestant" without elaboration, so hard to tell.  Rehnquist was a Lutheran, so he's the most recent one who's clear. --Trovatore (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked pretty hard, but I cannot find anyone going into more detail on Stevens' religion. I suspect he keeps it private. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Most any denomination that's not Roman Catholic qualifies as "Protestant" even if they weren't around yet when the Reformation occurred. And David Souter is, indeed, the answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think most people would regard the Anglican/Episcopal Church is "Protestant". Even if it calls itself "also Catholic", the key point is that it is not Roman Catholic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure all of the Orthodox Christians will be comforted to know they are all Protestants. Thanks for setting them straight.  -- Jayron 32 14:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Orthodox are only Protestant in the sense they are "not Roman Catholic". Nor are the Anglicans. They're using "catholic" in a different way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Eastern Orthodox are not Protestant at all. Using "Protestant" to mean "not Catholic" is just an error. --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mormons are also most definitely not Protestant and most definitely not Catholic. Jehovah's Witnesses are most definitely not Catholic and almost definitely not Protestant, though they do use the Protestant Bible so you could make a tiny bit more of a case.  It would be odd to call Christian Scientists "Protestant". --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some consider the Mormons not to be Christian, either. As for "Protestant", it has been used as a generic term for "Western church not Roman Catholic" for centuries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth II., being the "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England" swore in 1953 "to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law". The churches of the Anglican Communion are Protestant, but follow (in varying degrees), Catholic tradition. This may seem contradictory or "wishy washy" to some, but that's what we do. Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everything I see out there refers to Stevens as "protestant" without elaboration. This post, which a Politifact article cites while discussing coverage of Stevens being the last protestant on the bench, may be relevant. If we were to exclude Stevens—which I think would be incorrect given there's every indication that the sources out there did a good job identifying and labeling people who identified with a specific denomination—the next most recent protestant, non-Episcopalian justice would be William H. Rehnquist, who was Lutheran. If you include Episcopalian justices, and Stevens, then the order starting with most recent departure would be: Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Blackmun, White, Marshall... which takes us back to 1991. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So Souter was the last one appointed and Stevens was the last one to retire. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you wanted to discount Episcopalians, it'd be Stevens for both. And if you wanted to discount Stevens as well (see my argument above against this), then it'd be Rehnquist for most recent departure, and a tie between Rehnquist and Powell for most recent appointment (they were nominated, confirmed, and took office on the same days). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't omit Episcopalians. They might call themselves "catholic" in the strict definition of the word, but "catholic" or "Catholic" in English equates to Roman Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They are not Roman Catholic, but they also are not "protestant" in the sense of descending from the Protestant Reformation. They come from the English Reformation, which is quite a different thing, the proximate cause being Henry VIII's wanting a divorce.  That's oversimplifying, of course; the English Reformation did lead to a church that picked up a lot of Protestant ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have asked Edison to come here and clarify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you; just providing the alternative answer since the question was put forth. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Edison is a long-standing contributor, so maybe he will clear up the confusion that some here are having over what "catholic" means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See Tobin Grant's History of religion on Supreme Court in one graph, March 16, 2016, Religion News Service -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Who the hell do you intend when you write "J--- K---" Surely not "Jesus Khrist." or "J. K. Rowling." Edison (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Edison, it has to be John Knox; no other "J K" name is so closely connected to Calvin. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job! I had no idea people left out some letters of Knox's name like when some religions refer to "G-d" to avoid blasphemy or something.Edison (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that before; it's probably some sort of joke. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it was just a banned user who's learned how to circumvent edit filters. In this case the edit filter was blocking the banned user's intended posting, though for a wrong reason that was technically a false positive, and the banned user figured out that for some reason it was blocking the addition of the word "John Knox", so he circumvented it . Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The origin of the Anglican Church had nothing at all to do with Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or any of the Reformation figures, and it wasn't about the Catholic Church falling into error, but about a power struggle between a king and a pope. Admittedly the Anglicans adopted some of the reformers' ideas at a later time. --Trovatore (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the common usage in the US, people generally mean "Roman Catholic" when they say "Catholic." Who says "I am a catholic" and means they are a "member of the universal church?" I've never heard of Orthodox or other Catholics than Roman serving on the court. By "protestant" as in common US usage I intended "Christians who are not Catholics." That definition would include Episcopal/Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists,Church of Christ, Congregational, Lutherans ,Presbyterians  Pentecostals and even "Nondenominational Bible Church." (I may have forgotten some who would generally be considered protestant). Some denominations might consider themselves Christians, but that  label would be questioned by some "mainstream" denominations because the borderline denominations have their own prophet and their own scriptures and do not accept the Apostle's Creed, the New Testament (KJV revisions of it or the RSV or NRSV) and deny that Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected.  If a Justice was a   Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or Seventh Day Adventist then they would likely call themselves that rather than generically "protestant." Edison (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, so you actually didn't mention Catholics in your question. You mentioned Protestants.  I don't think your third sentence represents informed "common US usage" anyway; there are lots of Christians who aren't Catholic but who would be very surprised to hear themselves described as Protestant. --Trovatore (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to our very own article on Protestantism, it's considered to be one of three major groupings of Christianity next to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, with Anglicanism (and by extension the Episcopal Church) being either Protestant or Catholic, depending on who you ask (even the Anglicans have gone back and forth on that, according to a note on the Protestantism article). Of note, one official name of the Episcopal Church is "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America". Any debate on non-Catholic Christian denominations that don't consider themselves Protestant is beyond the scope of this question, until a member of such a denomination becomes a Supreme Court justice. clpo13(talk) 04:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hasn't there been a Baptist justice at some point? I can't come up with a name, but you'd have thought so.  Baptists sometimes deny being Protestant &mdash; see Baptist perpetuity. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh, I would have figured Baptists would be squarely in the Protestant camp. Learn something new every day. clpo13(talk) 04:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, according to, there have been three: Howell Edmunds Jackson, Hugo Black and Charles Evans Hughes. clpo13(talk) 05:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC)Trovatore, My third sentence in what post?There was no "third sentence" in my initial post. The third sentence in my last post was " I've never heard of Orthodox or other Catholics than Roman serving on the court." How does it relate to non-Catholic Christians who would be "surprised to be called Protestant?" Please consider answering the question or simply remaining silent rather than lamely attacking the questioner.  Indulging your posting, could you provide reliable sources identifying which non-Roman Catholic, Christian denominations, "would be very surprised to hear themselves described as Protestant?" Do evangelicals deny being protestants? What  point are you trying to make? Edison (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, counted wrong. Fourth sentence: By "protestant" as in common US usage I intended "Christians who are not Catholics."
 * I wasn't attacking you, and my "point" was that "Protestant" is a complicated term, but one that certainly does not mean "Christian who is not Catholic".
 * Non-Roman Catholic Christian denominations who would be very surprised to hear themselves described as Protestant include ones I've mentioned: Orthodox, Mormons, Witnesses, Christian Scientists.  Well, I don't know how "surprised"; I suppose they're probably used to it by now, but in any case I'm fairly confident they wouldn't describe themselves that way.  Anglicans may or may not describe themselves that way, but if they do, it's historically a bit iffy.  Baptists probably do, now, because not very many of them believe in Baptist perpetuity (and may not even have heard of it), but in any case that asterisk does exist.
 * So the bottom line is that you have to be careful with the word "Protestant". --Trovatore (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that counting can be tricky, especially late at night. Certainly I did not intend to include any of the Orthodox denominations, or neo-pseudo-Catholic who have split from the RC denomination in recent times as protestants. Many mainstream protestants would deny that Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists were Christians, since they don;t use anything like the same New Testament, and deny some of the commonly held beliefs of mainstream Christians, such as the divinity of Jesus, his being the Son of God, and his having been crucified, died and resurrected, to absolve our sins. Some of those denominations also have their  own prophets and scriptures, making them outsiders in the view of some mainstream protestant religions.  Anglicans are clearly mainstream protestants. I reiterate, please provide reliable sources and don't just post your opinions, conjectures  and original research. Edison (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All the discussions about fringe groups are not relevant to the main question. The answer has already been clearly given further above, there is an off-topic, rambling discussion which stems from Trovatore's understanding of the word "Protestant", which seems to be different to everyone else's understanding - and an ironclad belief in the correctness of that understanding despite it being out of line with the world. No sane person would suggest the Anglican Church is not Protestant except on a perverse misreading of the word "Protestant". I suggest there is no need to indulge arguments based on such a perverse misreading any further. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist, that denomination certainly adheres to all the criteria enumerated here as indicative of Protestantism (Ellen White et al., like vegetarianism, were considered Adventist options -- unexercised options in my otherwise mainstream SDA family), so it is news to me that SDAs may not be Protestants. FactStraight (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Republican primaries, people feeling betrayed?
As I read media coverage of the US Republican presidential primaries, I keep seeing this result that the primary voters "feel betrayed by party insiders", but I haven't seen anyone actually explain what this means. Who specifically do primary voters feel betrayed them? How? I'm not interested in a debate, and definitely not in editors' opinions. I'm wondering if any experts or polls have gone into more detail about why exactly so many republicans feel betrayed and by whom. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This, from Salon, for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Miniature depicting siege at Fall of Constantinople
This image, supposedly a depiction of siege of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, is also variously described as the siege of Jerusalem during one of the Crusades, the siege of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, or Charlemagne’s troops storming Rome. Especially the last option seems to me more plausible than what the current description says, as the picture shows a kingly-looking figure on the right whose crown appears to have a cross on top of it, and the image itself, a miniature, is sourced to an incunable of the medieval romance Ogier le Danois (Paris, Antoine Verard, c. 1498/1499), which is kept in the Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria di Torino. This romance is set in the time of Charlemagne, whose troops conquer Rome at some point in the story (see, p. 325). A facsimile of the Turin edition was published by K. Togeby in 1967, but it is not available on Google Books. The Turin incunable seems to be a “one-of-its-kind” version with a number of unique illustrations, and I have not been able to find this specific illustration in the digitized edition of Verard’s Ogier in Gallica. Is there someone here who happens to know more about the original context of this picture? (Question also posted at .) Iblardi (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Answering at the article talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to be resolved now - the caption of the file has been amended. Alansplodge (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the syntax of your link, hope you don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

R-World
There's an artist on DeviantArt who makes drawings about "R-World". R-World is a fictional version of our world, where the law requires that all women over 18 years of age must have their hands tied behind their back at all times, except when they're in their own homes, in which case they are allowed to have their hands free. The women themselves have no problem with this, and the men help them in tasks that would otherwise be impossible for them without the use of their hands. Does anyone have any idea how this would actually work in the real world? J I P &#124; Talk 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Poorly. Or maybe well. That's the problem with requests for prediction. You don't want my opinion on what the problem with questions about binding women is. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Taliban treatment of women might be a useful article to consider. Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * People who need to have their hands tied behind their backs are going to have a great deal of difficulty doing work outside of the home, or participating in the workforce at all. Holding all else to be equal, it seems pretty clear that this hypothetical society would be in dire straits economically. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, reducing the size of the workforce through active discrimination (think the US in the 1950s) can increase pay and job security for those who are not discriminated against because of gender, race, religion or other silly matters. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Could always (theoretically) make every work-at-home job for women only. If there aren't enough to go around, cull them till there is. Put special ingredients in the "milk" so the under-18s can be more productive while they're still allowed out. Jack up the cows to provide extra "milk". Employ stay-at-home scientists to develop more efficient "milk" drugs. Never fly them to conferences. There are ways. Theoretical, insane ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This chick gets it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Saudi Arabia to me, more or less....... Wnt (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Factually incorrect: see last year's Fortune article, "Women are taking over Saudi Arabia's workforce". Admittedly that title is hyperbolic, but to describe Saudi women as confined to the home is decades out of date. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of Gor. Fair warning, those books are horribly written and intensely misogynistic. But also very popular. Lifestyle BDSM is of course practiced in the real world, but it's insanely immoral and unethical unless all parties have given clear affirmative consent. It sounds like that is not what happens in this fantasy world, and women do not have an option to withdraw consent. At some point it just becomes sexual slavery. While that also happens in the real world, it is fairly universally classified as a Very Bad Thing, and it wouldn't really "work" as a way to run a society. If you switch the genders, there was Other_World_Kingdom, which was basically a micronation where everybody was practicing lifestyle BDSM. They only lasted 10 years or so though, so that does not speak well for the model. Best is probably to let people live how they want, and not try to force them into bondage without consent. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Living Longer and Population
One question about people living longer is, what about overpopulation? This is a reason why we have to worry about population.

Bonupton (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The more people live longer, the more questions are asked. The more questions they ask, the closer we get to truth. But what is the reason for truth? Is it winning? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The answer about overpopulation is that it tends not to be a problem in the parts of the world where people are living longer. See Total fertility rate and List of countries by life expectancy. With the prominent exception of Russia, the countries where people are living longest often don't even have enough babies to maintain a stable population without immigration. So although the population boom of the last century is largely caused by increased life expectancy (or more specifically, a reduction of infant mortality), this correlation seems to be flipped on its head in the most developed nations. Thus we can empirically say that increasing life expectancy is not a problem. That said, there remains a population explosion in countries where child rearing is cheap and birth control is inaccessible, and we have an entire article on human overpopulation. Now you might go even further and say, but Someguy, what about if we live forever? Then any children will contribute to overpopulation! True, but now we have entered the world of fantasy, and any sources you have about it will also be fantasy. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Overpopulation has many dimensions, not least the carrying capacity of the Earth. For another angle on these issues, you may also find useful our articles on population decline, especially the aging of Japan. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There has been a strong tendency around the World to get fewer children when they have a better chance to reach adulthood. When nearly all children reach adulthood, the population often eventually stabilizes or even declines, while it usually grows quickly in countries where many children die. Humans have increasingly good methods to control their number of children. Many parents just want to have good chances of getting two children who survive. If nearly all children survive then you only need two. If half the children die on average then people often prefer 5-6 or more children because more than half might die in their own case. How old you become after having your last child only affects the total population by one and only for a time (assuming you don't live forever and your death doesn't affect your children). In the long run it is far more important that you have few children. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Check out Zero population growth and Life_history_theory. Carrying capacity is mutable in this case, because we as humans consistently develop new ways to exploit resources. There's some nice theory on how resource exploitation influences population persistence at R*_rule_(ecology). You might also like these organizations that promote research and outreach on population growth issues  SemanticMantis (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The thing about living longer is that it generally doesn't mean that you're going to be fertile for longer (esp. for women) - so increasing longevity while keeping the age of menopause the same doesn't result in more people being born...only more being alive.  This is a subtle, but important, distinction.   If you double people's average lifespans - and fertility is unchanged - then you double the population of the planet.   But if you double the rate of reproduction and double the longevity, you drive exponential population growth through the roof - and "Very Bad Things" happen.


 * Another part of this issue is the nature of productivity in those additional years. If longevity is doubled - and you don't increase retirement age proportionally - then you have a GIGANTIC number of unproductive individuals in the population with very few productive people making them food, clothing, etc.  So increased longevity can only be sustainable if retirement ages go up at least proportionately.  Sadly, that alone isn't enough - even legislating later retirement ages doesn't work if people invest enough of their earnings and can withdraw from the workforce and live off of the interest.  The incentive to do this when you expect to die young is not present - but if you expect to live for 200 years - then saving enough money by (say) the age of 100 so that you can eventually live off of the interest becomes a much stronger incentive.  But if everyone does this - then there will be too much money chasing not enough growth - and interest rates will gradually fall to near-zero levels (this is already happening in places like Japan)...which will leave you with a bunch of starving centenarians and other "Very Bad Things".  Fundamentally, if you're living off of savings, someone else still has to be making your food and other necessities.


 * Decreasing birth rates to keep the population within sensible bounds doesn't help - that just reduces the percentage of young people doing the work even lower - and that pushes the burden on them yet higher.


 * Another consideration is HOW you're getting the average lifespan to increase. If (for example) we were to eliminate car crashes - with self-driving cars, for example - then that increases average lifespan - but doesn't result in healthier life in old age.  So doing that would not only produce more people - but more people who are more dependent on others.  Increasing lifespan by reducing accidental and disease causes of death just results in a bunch of older people with dementia...and that is (in effect) an enforced retirement that drops us into the trap of increasing lifespans without increasing productivity.


 * So no matter what, increasing longevity has to be done WITHOUT increasing fertility and WITH proportionately longer working lives and WITHOUT reducing birth rates to balance the population size and by improving quality of life in old age rather than eliminating causes of death in younger ages...and that's a tough thing to do when you're playing with things like medical tricks to keep us alive longer.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)