Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

America The Theocracy

Expand Messages
  • Tamara
    http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/cover.html America the theocracy - A band of influential preachers is praying for the power to rule America. For those who
    Message 1 of 25 , Mar 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/cover.html "America the theocracy - A band of influential preachers is praying for the power to rule America. For those who disagree, they have a solution -- stoning."

      By John F. Sugg, published in Atlanta Creative Loafing on Saturday, March 27, 2004

      Long but fascinating (and very engagingly written) article, recommended reading.

      Best,
      Tamara

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • mathewmaury
      ... I find the Reconstructionist literature to be more fascinating than this outsider s review. Reconstructionists deal in history and logic and have
      Message 2 of 25 , Mar 27, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Tamara wrote:
        > http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/cover.html
        > Long but fascinating (and very engagingly written) article,
        > recommended reading.

        I find the Reconstructionist literature to be more
        fascinating than this outsider's review. Reconstructionists
        deal in history and logic and have influenced my views.
        Their religious conclusions may be indefensible, but much of
        their latticework argumentation should not be ignored. I
        subscribed for several years to their periodical called
        'Chalcedon' but dropped it as my interests shifted.

        It is a simple thing to say 'Of course America is not a
        theocracy. Look at all the evil doings by the government.'
        But a close look at the founding reveals reliance on rights
        endowed by the Creator and appeals for providential aid.
        America was founded on principles from within the Christian
        world. Noble ideas of freedom and liberty were not anarchic.
        America was not formed as an experiment in John Locke's
        rationalism. Humanism is now the dominant govermental
        religious philosophy, but it was not always so.

        Democracy, income taxes, judicial rulings are not
        automatically right because they exist. The crowd does not
        consider fundamental assumptions. The crowd may be 'in
        power' temporarily, but thought and truth might not be among
        the crowd.
      • Tamara
        I tend to not read one-sided literature by special interest groups because, well, it s completely one-sided. *grin* I prefer to read journalistic views, even
        Message 3 of 25 , Mar 27, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I tend to not read one-sided literature by special interest groups because, well, it's completely one-sided. *grin* I prefer to read journalistic views, even if they aren't written with complete neutrality, because intelligent people such as those on this list are perfectly capable of differentiating the wheat from the chaff and thus draw their own conclusions. But if I run across any of the Reconstructionist literature, I'll read it on your recommendation.

          I do agree that judicial rulings are not automatically right just because they exist. As one of my oft-used examples, the Scientologists are recognized as a "church", and I don't think that's right because I don't believe they are a church at all, nor do I even consider them a religion. I do believe there is an income tax though, and that it's perfectly legal and enforceable. I have not stopped to ponder whether it's "right", because due to the aforesaid the question becomes irrelevant unless I plan to take positive action to enact change in the event I decide in the negative. But off the top of my head, I don't think the income tax is wrong, and I don't think our forefathers thought an income tax was wrong. Their hue and cry was not against taxation itself, but taxation without representation. We have representation.

          I am curious, though. When you say that democracy isn't right just because it exists, are you suggesting that we should have a different form of government? If so, what form? Despite religious references, I don't believe our forefathers intended for us to have a theocracy per se, because there are so many different religions that it would become untenable. In fact, they had fought against a theocratic form of government, because England had an official religion and the leader of that country was also the leader of the religion. Furthermore, even if they considered it, the reality is that doctrinal differences alone would literally freeze the process by which things gets accomplished, and that was true even then. Of course, in those days, there were far fewer religions in this country, and therefore it was less of a consideration. And lest we forget, those in positions of power at that time were largely of the privileged class, and as such did not fully represent the full spectrum of religiosity present in this country even at that time.

          I also must respectfully note that references to the Creator do not necessarily denote Christianity. The Jewish religion, among others, also recognize that very same Creator, although some do so by utilizing different terminology. However, beyond that it gets sticky. There are many religions which do not recognize that same Creator, but does that mean that our forefathers did not intend for them to have religious freedom? I don't think that's the case at all. The fact is that the forefathers were unaware of the existence of many of these other religions, as the world as a whole was largely unknown to them. In many ways, our forefathers were completely ignorant of non-Biblical religious practices, and therefore had no compass by which to measure how such beliefs should properly be expressed.

          So the question becomes, if the Reconstructionists believe in a theocracy, what religion should take precedence? I submit none, because no one person's religious beliefs are any more or less important than another person's religious beliefs. Yet, to propose that no religion take precedence yet there be a theocracy is a contradiction in terms, since all persons have their own interpretations of religious truth. Either argument renders theocracy, in a country based upon religious freedom, a practical impossibility.

          Best,
          Tamara

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: mathewmaury
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:07 AM
          Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: America The Theocracy


          --- Tamara wrote:
          > http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/cover.html
          > Long but fascinating (and very engagingly written) article,
          > recommended reading.

          I find the Reconstructionist literature to be more
          fascinating than this outsider's review. Reconstructionists
          deal in history and logic and have influenced my views.
          Their religious conclusions may be indefensible, but much of
          their latticework argumentation should not be ignored. I
          subscribed for several years to their periodical called
          'Chalcedon' but dropped it as my interests shifted.

          It is a simple thing to say 'Of course America is not a
          theocracy. Look at all the evil doings by the government.'
          But a close look at the founding reveals reliance on rights
          endowed by the Creator and appeals for providential aid.
          America was founded on principles from within the Christian
          world. Noble ideas of freedom and liberty were not anarchic.
          America was not formed as an experiment in John Locke's
          rationalism. Humanism is now the dominant govermental
          religious philosophy, but it was not always so.

          Democracy, income taxes, judicial rulings are not
          automatically right because they exist. The crowd does not
          consider fundamental assumptions. The crowd may be 'in
          power' temporarily, but thought and truth might not be among
          the crowd.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • mathewmaury
          ... Government should ideally be localized as much possible. Our country s Articles of Confederation promoted a better scheme than the Constitution. But
          Message 4 of 25 , Mar 30, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Tamara wrote:
            > I am curious, though. When you say that democracy isn't
            > right just because it exists, are you suggesting that we
            > should have a different form of government? If so, what
            > form? Despite religious references, I don't believe our
            > forefathers intended for us to have a theocracy per se,
            > because there are so many different religions that it would
            > become untenable. In fact, they had fought against a
            > theocratic form of government, because England had an
            > official religion and the leader of that country was also
            > the leader of the religion. Furthermore, even if they
            > considered it, the reality is that doctrinal differences
            > alone would literally freeze the process by which things
            > gets accomplished, and that was true even then. Of course,
            > in those days, there were far fewer religions in this
            > country, and therefore it was less of a consideration. And
            > lest we forget, those in positions of power at that time
            > were largely of the privileged class, and as such did not
            > fully represent the full spectrum of religiosity present in
            > this country even at that time.

            Government should ideally be localized as much possible. Our
            country's Articles of Confederation promoted a better scheme
            than the Constitution. But political considerations (i.e.
            'its the economy, stupid') resulted in scrapping them.

            This country's founders were quite fearful of democracy.
            Democracy is practicably untenable in the long run. That is
            why this country was set up as a Republic instead of a
            democracy. The Republic was based on self-evident Godly
            principles including freedom and liberty. In this way was
            America specifically created as a Theocracy (individual
            rights are from God) and not a democracy (majority
            determines individual rights).

            The reason for the government was to secure our natural
            God-given rights by delegating specific powers from the
            individual to a centralized authority. This central power
            has been expanded through the years by unscrupulous men such
            as Abraham Lincoln and FDR so that our country bears only
            superficial semblance to that which existed over 200 years
            ago.

            State religion in this country was common early. Taxes
            supported the state church. The Constitution prohibited the
            Federal government from interfering with the religious laws
            of the individual states.

            It was not the intention of our country's framers to make
            America a haven for Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Atheists, Pagans,
            Catholics, etc. That these religions exist here is a
            consequence of religious freedom but not its originally
            desired outcome.

            Do you really believe this country is better off because
            women can vote? Or welfare recipients can vote? Or the
            illiterate and non-English speakers can vote? How is this
            country better?
          • Tamara
            You re kidding, right? ROFL! Women work, women pay taxes. Why should they be denied the right to vote? Do you honestly believe this country would be better
            Message 5 of 25 , Mar 30, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              You're kidding, right? ROFL!

              Women work, women pay taxes. Why should they be denied the right to vote?

              Do you honestly believe this country would be better off if only men could vote? If so, why? I'm truly curious.

              ---Tamara

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: mathewmaury
              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:10 PM
              Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: America The Theocracy


              Do you really believe this country is better off because
              women can vote?




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • mathewmaury
              ... I asked first! How is the country better off with women voters? I am not an advocate of removing the voting responsibility from women, but do not think it
              Message 6 of 25 , Mar 30, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Tamara wrote:
                > Women work, women pay taxes. Why should they be denied the
                > right to vote?
                >
                > Do you honestly believe this country would be better off if
                > only men could vote? If so, why? I'm truly curious.

                I asked first! How is the country better off with women
                voters?

                I am not an advocate of removing the voting responsibility
                from women, but do not think it helps anything. If the woman
                votes the way her man tells her it unfairly gives the man
                two votes effectively. If she votes against his instructions
                she is being insubordinate to her role. Until 1920, women
                were not entitled to vote in this country. So what? Is it a
                power thing for women to want to vote? Do they not trust men
                to make the correct decisions? Are women more likely to
                carefully assess the candidates and pick the political
                leaders most able to serve our country's interests? Ha!
              • emilyseyes795
                Now, now, Matthew...just when I said all those good things about you, too. Your assessment of women in general seems to be the equilvalent of those guys who
                Message 7 of 25 , Mar 30, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Now, now, Matthew...just when I said all those good things about you,
                  too. Your assessment of women in general seems to be the equilvalent
                  of those guys who think women are best kept home barefoot and
                  pregnant. Shame on you.
                  em

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                  <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote:
                  > --- Tamara wrote:
                  > > Women work, women pay taxes. Why should they be denied the
                  > > right to vote?
                  > >
                  > > Do you honestly believe this country would be better off if
                  > > only men could vote? If so, why? I'm truly curious.
                  >
                  > I asked first! How is the country better off with women
                  > voters?
                  >
                  > I am not an advocate of removing the voting responsibility
                  > from women, but do not think it helps anything. If the woman
                  > votes the way her man tells her it unfairly gives the man
                  > two votes effectively. If she votes against his instructions
                  > she is being insubordinate to her role. Until 1920, women
                  > were not entitled to vote in this country. So what? Is it a
                  > power thing for women to want to vote? Do they not trust men
                  > to make the correct decisions? Are women more likely to
                  > carefully assess the candidates and pick the political
                  > leaders most able to serve our country's interests? Ha!
                • emilyseyes795
                  As to my husband s vote counting twice because of my voting...I never tell him who I vote for. Once women are in the booth behind that screen, they could be a
                  Message 8 of 25 , Mar 30, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    As to my husband's vote counting twice because of my voting...I never
                    tell him who I vote for. Once women are in the booth behind that
                    screen, they could be a flaming socialist and no one would ever know.
                    Besides what better way for a women to get even with an obnoxious
                    husband than canceling his vote. How do the think the US would have
                    survived the past 30 years if we hadn't canceled all your votes?
                    em
                    (sort of kidding)
                  • mathewmaury
                    ... Pregnancy is best performed by women. They are suited for it. Shoes are overrated for home wear. I like women (in small quantities) but I appreciate there
                    Message 9 of 25 , Mar 30, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- em wrote:
                      > Your assessment of women in general seems to be the
                      > equilvalent of those guys who think women are best kept home
                      > barefoot and pregnant. Shame on you.

                      Pregnancy is best performed by women. They are suited for it.
                      Shoes are overrated for home wear.

                      I like women (in small quantities) but I appreciate there is
                      generally a difference between men and women. Yesterday I
                      was in a jury pool in US District Court (civil case). At
                      the end of the voir dire both sides got strikes to whittle
                      the pool down to eight. They eliminated all the men they
                      could and it was left with 7 women and a kindly male
                      retiree. I could have guessed that from the beginning. Why
                      did they want a jury with as many women as they could
                      possibly get? Do you think it is because they felt they
                      could persuade the women with their smooth words? Or do you
                      feel it was just coincidence?

                      Answer me this political question. I vote in the primary
                      political processes. Sometimes I know the candidates and
                      what they stand for. Sometimes there are races in which I
                      know only the candidates names. Can you identify with this
                      situation? What do you choose to do? Do you skip voting for
                      this race? Or do you use other criteria?

                      My usual practice (presented not as a role model for you,
                      but to contribute to honest discussion) has been to
                      sometimes skip the race, sometimes vote against the less
                      American sounding name, and to vote against the woman.

                      I have recently considered changing my practice to prefer
                      the hispanic surnames to encourage minority participation in
                      the Republican party.

                      This is the democratic way we choose our leaders! Can you
                      not imagine a better way?
                    • emilyseyes795
                      Matthew...I am too tired to answer in detail tonight. My first reaction is to wonder if you have been digging out those old John Birch pamphlets. You are just
                      Message 10 of 25 , Mar 30, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Matthew...I am too tired to answer in detail tonight. My first
                        reaction is to wonder if you have been digging out those old John
                        Birch pamphlets. You are just kidding, right?
                        Em
                        (too sleepy to argue with a man tonight)

                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                        <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote:
                        > --- em wrote:
                        > > Your assessment of women in general seems to be the
                        > > equilvalent of those guys who think women are best kept home
                        > > barefoot and pregnant. Shame on you.
                        >
                        > Pregnancy is best performed by women. They are suited for it.
                        > Shoes are overrated for home wear.
                        >
                        > I like women (in small quantities) but I appreciate there is
                        > generally a difference between men and women. Yesterday I
                        > was in a jury pool in US District Court (civil case). At
                        > the end of the voir dire both sides got strikes to whittle
                        > the pool down to eight. They eliminated all the men they
                        > could and it was left with 7 women and a kindly male
                        > retiree. I could have guessed that from the beginning. Why
                        > did they want a jury with as many women as they could
                        > possibly get? Do you think it is because they felt they
                        > could persuade the women with their smooth words? Or do you
                        > feel it was just coincidence?
                        >
                        > Answer me this political question. I vote in the primary
                        > political processes. Sometimes I know the candidates and
                        > what they stand for. Sometimes there are races in which I
                        > know only the candidates names. Can you identify with this
                        > situation? What do you choose to do? Do you skip voting for
                        > this race? Or do you use other criteria?
                        >
                        > My usual practice (presented not as a role model for you,
                        > but to contribute to honest discussion) has been to
                        > sometimes skip the race, sometimes vote against the less
                        > American sounding name, and to vote against the woman.
                        >
                        > I have recently considered changing my practice to prefer
                        > the hispanic surnames to encourage minority participation in
                        > the Republican party.
                        >
                        > This is the democratic way we choose our leaders! Can you
                        > not imagine a better way?
                      • rlbaty50
                        ... What we have here may be a failure to communicate . My Black s Law ... I think Black s states it better, but if mathewmaury insists on his definition,
                        Message 11 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                          <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote, in part:

                          > The Republic was based on self-evident Godly
                          > principles including freedom and liberty.

                          > In this way was America specifically created as a
                          > Theocracy (individual rights are from God) and not
                          > a democracy (majority determines individual rights).

                          What we have here may be a "failure to communicate". My Black's Law
                          Dictionary defines "theocracy" as:

                          > 1. Government of a state by those who are presumably
                          > acting under the immediate direction of God or some
                          > other divinity.

                          > 2. A state in which power is exercised by ecclesiastics.

                          I think Black's states it better, but if "mathewmaury" insists on his
                          definition, we just might ought to take note that his use of the term
                          may not be such as is generally understood to be the meaning of the
                          term.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty
                        • Chad Longley
                          ... From: mathewmaury Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: America The Theocracy ... Are there actually men out there who tell their
                          Message 12 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "mathewmaury" <sqi7o0hh02@...>
                            Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: America The Theocracy


                            > --- Tamara wrote:
                            > > Women work, women pay taxes. Why should they be denied the
                            > > right to vote?
                            > >
                            > > Do you honestly believe this country would be better off if
                            > > only men could vote? If so, why? I'm truly curious.
                            >

                            > I asked first! How is the country better off with women
                            > voters?
                            >
                            > I am not an advocate of removing the voting responsibility
                            > from women, but do not think it helps anything. If the woman
                            > votes the way her man tells her it unfairly gives the man
                            > two votes effectively. If she votes against his instructions
                            > she is being insubordinate to her role

                            Are there actually men out there who tell their wives which way to vote? If
                            so, the problem is with those men. There is no sort of insubordination
                            there.

                            > Until 1920, women
                            > were not entitled to vote in this country. So what? Is it a
                            > power thing for women to want to vote? Do they not trust men
                            > to make the correct decisions?

                            Have you ever spoken to a woman? I doubt your own wife agrees with all the
                            decisions you make -- she just doesn't tell you. My own wife, on the other
                            hand, is very open about it -- she is often right. Speaking of a very large
                            group of the men (especially older, married, religious types) in this
                            country (I am not assuming/implying that you fall into this category) -- why
                            would a woman trust a man to make correct decisions when so many of them
                            can't even take care of themselves? I see these men, and so many of them
                            are a disgrace. They each leave their mamma to move in with a woman
                            (married or not) -- effectively so that she can continue to take care of
                            them.

                            > Are women more likely to
                            > carefully assess the candidates and pick the political
                            > leaders most able to serve our country's interests? Ha!

                            Does ownership of a penis automatically make one intellectually able to
                            effectively choose a political leader? Don't think so.

                            FWIW, in response to a comment on another post, when I don't know any of the
                            candidates on the ticket (usually local stuff), I vote for the woman or the
                            hispanic if there is one. If not, I skip it.


                            Having said all that, it is good to have you back on the list. You make it
                            more interesting (sorry Robert, but tax cases get old after a while :-)

                            - Chad
                          • Tamara
                            To answer your various queries: No man tells me how to do anything, least of all how to vote. As far as being insubordinate to my role .... you re kidding,
                            Message 13 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              To answer your various queries:

                              No man tells me how to do anything, least of all how to vote. As far as being insubordinate to my role .... you're kidding, right? ROFL! That comment leads me to believe that apparently we haven't met. "Hi, I'm Tamara. Like all females I have a functioning mind of my own, and am thus fully capable of independent thought." I didn't realize that I needed to point that out, but my having done so would have made this discussion far simpler.

                              Women work, women pay taxes, women have a right to representation of their own choice through voting. Simple.

                              No, I don't trust men to make the correct decisions, any more than I trust women to make the correct decisions. Sex is irrelevant to intelligence.

                              Women are just as likely as men to carefully assess the candidates and pick the political leaders most able to serve our country's interests.

                              As for how the larger question, i.e., how the country is better off with women voters .... considering your rather unusual (and I'm being kind here) views on this topic, and the fact that you're a man, you've already answered your own question.

                              By the way, tell your drug-addict buddy Rush that this feminazi said "hi" next time you call in with your dittohead comments. Ha!

                              --- Tamara

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: mathewmaury
                              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:41 PM
                              Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: America The Theocracy


                              --- Tamara wrote:
                              > Women work, women pay taxes. Why should they be denied the
                              > right to vote?
                              >
                              > Do you honestly believe this country would be better off if
                              > only men could vote? If so, why? I'm truly curious.

                              I asked first! How is the country better off with women
                              voters?

                              I am not an advocate of removing the voting responsibility
                              from women, but do not think it helps anything. If the woman
                              votes the way her man tells her it unfairly gives the man
                              two votes effectively. If she votes against his instructions
                              she is being insubordinate to her role. Until 1920, women
                              were not entitled to vote in this country. So what? Is it a
                              power thing for women to want to vote? Do they not trust men
                              to make the correct decisions? Are women more likely to
                              carefully assess the candidates and pick the political
                              leaders most able to serve our country's interests? Ha!

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Tamara
                              It is impossible to answer your question regarding voir dire without knowing specifics about the case. However, based on what you have written in this group,
                              Message 14 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                It is impossible to answer your question regarding voir dire without knowing specifics about the case. However, based on what you have written in this group, I can make an educated guess as to why neither side wanted you on the jury.

                                In discussing your usual voting practices, you have answered your own question regarding how the country is better off with female voters. Based upon your statements, it would appear that women take voting far more seriously than you do. I would never skip voting for an office, nor would I ever vote for or against someone based upon their sex or seeming national origin, or any other criteria except the facts. I am aware of all issues and candidate stances, and have given myself time to make intelligent choices, before I ever enter a voting booth. In this day and age, there is NO EXCUSE for voting in the manner you've described.

                                Yet you want only men - assumably men like you - to make decisions for all of us? Bwahahahaha!

                                ---- Tamara

                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: mathewmaury
                                To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:02 PM
                                Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: America The Theocracy


                                --- em wrote:
                                > Your assessment of women in general seems to be the
                                > equilvalent of those guys who think women are best kept home
                                > barefoot and pregnant. Shame on you.

                                Pregnancy is best performed by women. They are suited for it.
                                Shoes are overrated for home wear.

                                I like women (in small quantities) but I appreciate there is
                                generally a difference between men and women. Yesterday I
                                was in a jury pool in US District Court (civil case). At
                                the end of the voir dire both sides got strikes to whittle
                                the pool down to eight. They eliminated all the men they
                                could and it was left with 7 women and a kindly male
                                retiree. I could have guessed that from the beginning. Why
                                did they want a jury with as many women as they could
                                possibly get? Do you think it is because they felt they
                                could persuade the women with their smooth words? Or do you
                                feel it was just coincidence?

                                Answer me this political question. I vote in the primary
                                political processes. Sometimes I know the candidates and
                                what they stand for. Sometimes there are races in which I
                                know only the candidates names. Can you identify with this
                                situation? What do you choose to do? Do you skip voting for
                                this race? Or do you use other criteria?

                                My usual practice (presented not as a role model for you,
                                but to contribute to honest discussion) has been to
                                sometimes skip the race, sometimes vote against the less
                                American sounding name, and to vote against the woman.

                                I have recently considered changing my practice to prefer
                                the hispanic surnames to encourage minority participation in
                                the Republican party.

                                This is the democratic way we choose our leaders! Can you
                                not imagine a better way?

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • mathewmaury
                                ... Your simple criteria for who should vote is not bad. If you do not work and do not pay in more tax money than you receive in government handouts, then your
                                Message 15 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- Tamara wrote:
                                  > Women work, women pay taxes, women have a right to
                                  > representation of their own choice through voting. Simple.

                                  Your simple criteria for who should vote is not bad. If you
                                  do not work and do not pay in more tax money than you
                                  receive in government handouts, then your vote should not be
                                  counted.

                                  Since women are allowed to vote, I would use the 'family
                                  unit' for the net tax calculation and not penalize a woman
                                  who keeps at home if she were not a burden to society.

                                  What further restrictions would I make on voting?

                                  Raise the voting age. Eighteen is too young. Twenty-five is
                                  the minimum age for a US Representative, thirty-five the
                                  minimum age of a President. Twenty-five seems about right
                                  for minimum voter age. No one unqualified to represent the
                                  United States should be allowed to choose who governs the
                                  nation.

                                  I would consider adding a marriage qualification, but that
                                  might be too troublesome and not quite fair. Maturity and
                                  marriage ought to go together, but often they do not.

                                  Tamara further wrote:
                                  > I would never skip voting for an office, nor would I ever
                                  > vote for or against someone based upon their sex or seeming
                                  > national origin, or any other criteria except the facts. I
                                  > am aware of all issues and candidate stances, and have given
                                  > myself time to make intelligent choices, before I ever enter
                                  > a voting booth.

                                  Tamara is quite politically minded! Very commendable
                                  citizenship! And very unusual! I find information difficult
                                  to find for 'all issues and candidates' for offices like
                                  sheriff, drainage district commissioner, port commissioner,
                                  family law judge, railroad commissioner, justice of the
                                  peace, utility commissioner, city comptroller, county
                                  commissioner, etc. In the general elections I rely on the
                                  party affiliation, but in the primaries there is often not
                                  much issue-oriented campaigning that is reliably accurate.
                                  The 'facts' often depend on which candidate is describing
                                  them!

                                  I did put two local candidates' signs in my yard this primary
                                  season for the first time ever. And I often do not think any
                                  of the candidates for a particular office would necessarily
                                  serve honestly for the good of the community.

                                  It has been a goal of mine for 20 years to be elected to
                                  some public office... preferably one that paid well and did
                                  not require much personal effort. There are many political
                                  skills I lack (fundraising, tactfulness, universal appeal)
                                  which would contraindicate my winning. But if I ran, perhaps
                                  the other candidate would die (everyone dies sometime!) just
                                  before the election giving me the office by acclamation.
                                • mathewmaury
                                  ... I appreciate your inability to intelligently comment on a specific jury selection. Are you qualified to make a comment on jury selection in general? Is a
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- Tamara wrote:
                                    > It is impossible to answer your question regarding voir dire
                                    > without knowing specifics about the case.

                                    I appreciate your inability to intelligently comment on a
                                    specific jury selection. Are you qualified to make a comment
                                    on jury selection in general? Is a woman in a jury pool more
                                    likely to be selected than a man? My theory is 'Yes, because
                                    lawyers are confident that women can be more easily led to
                                    the position they desire.'
                                  • emilyseyes795
                                    Tamara---You go girl!!!! Em :) ... far as being insubordinate to my role .... you re kidding, right? ROFL! That comment leads me to believe that apparently we
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Tamara---You go girl!!!!
                                      Em :)

                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Tamara" <Legal_writer@h...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > To answer your various queries:
                                      >
                                      > No man tells me how to do anything, least of all how to vote. As
                                      far as being insubordinate to my role .... you're kidding, right?
                                      ROFL! That comment leads me to believe that apparently we haven't
                                      met. "Hi, I'm Tamara. Like all females I have a functioning mind of
                                      my own, and am thus fully capable of independent thought." I didn't
                                      realize that I needed to point that out, but my having done so would
                                      have made this discussion far simpler.
                                      >
                                      > Women work, women pay taxes, women have a right to representation
                                      of their own choice through voting. Simple.
                                      >
                                      > No, I don't trust men to make the correct decisions, any more than
                                      I trust women to make the correct decisions. Sex is irrelevant to
                                      intelligence.
                                      >
                                      > Women are just as likely as men to carefully assess the candidates
                                      and pick the political leaders most able to serve our country's
                                      interests.
                                      >
                                      > As for how the larger question, i.e., how the country is better off
                                      with women voters .... considering your rather unusual (and I'm being
                                      kind here) views on this topic, and the fact that you're a man,
                                      you've already answered your own question.
                                      >
                                      > By the way, tell your drug-addict buddy Rush that this feminazi
                                      said "hi" next time you call in with your dittohead comments. Ha!
                                      >
                                      > --- Tamara
                                      >
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: mathewmaury
                                      > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:41 PM
                                      > Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: America The Theocracy
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- Tamara wrote:
                                      > > Women work, women pay taxes. Why should they be denied the
                                      > > right to vote?
                                      > >
                                      > > Do you honestly believe this country would be better off if
                                      > > only men could vote? If so, why? I'm truly curious.
                                      >
                                      > I asked first! How is the country better off with women
                                      > voters?
                                      >
                                      > I am not an advocate of removing the voting responsibility
                                      > from women, but do not think it helps anything. If the woman
                                      > votes the way her man tells her it unfairly gives the man
                                      > two votes effectively. If she votes against his instructions
                                      > she is being insubordinate to her role. Until 1920, women
                                      > were not entitled to vote in this country. So what? Is it a
                                      > power thing for women to want to vote? Do they not trust men
                                      > to make the correct decisions? Are women more likely to
                                      > carefully assess the candidates and pick the political
                                      > leaders most able to serve our country's interests? Ha!
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • rlbaty50
                                      ... I keep trying! Chad, and others, why not do a little recruiting and get some other folks to make this their place to discuss a wider variety of topics.
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Chad Longley <mcl98e@a...>
                                        wrote, in part:

                                        > Having said all that, it is good to have you (mathewmaury)
                                        > back on the list.

                                        > You make it more interesting (sorry Robert, but tax cases
                                        > get old after a while :-)

                                        I keep trying!

                                        Chad, and others, why not do a little recruiting and get some other
                                        folks to make this their place to discuss a wider variety of topics.

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Robert Baty
                                      • rlbaty50
                                        ... I m no expert, though I did see Runaway Jury ! It seems to me that, if we are speculating, the fact that women might be more easily led to the position
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                                          <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote, in part:

                                          > Is a woman in a jury pool more likely to be selected
                                          > than a man? My theory is 'Yes, because lawyers are
                                          > confident that women can be more easily led to
                                          > the position they desire.'

                                          I'm no expert, though I did see "Runaway Jury"!

                                          It seems to me that, if we are speculating, the fact that women might
                                          be more easily led to the position desired by the lawyers may not be
                                          so bad.

                                          It may be because women are more inclined to reason based on the
                                          evidence presented by the lawyers (in an adversarial setting), and
                                          that is what they want to be done.

                                          The men. . .you couldn't change their already made up minds
                                          regardless of the evidence! Just check out Rudy Schellekens view of
                                          that Richmond statue as a good example.

                                          What statue you say?

                                          Sincerely,
                                          Robert Baty
                                        • emilyseyes795
                                          ... (Em is shaking her head) Matthew, Matthew, Matthew....what in the name of Nessie has marriage got to do with voting? It s not like one is up for elder
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"

                                            > I would consider adding a marriage qualification, but that
                                            > might be too troublesome and not quite fair. Maturity and
                                            > marriage ought to go together, but often they do not.

                                            (Em is shaking her head) Matthew, Matthew, Matthew....what in the
                                            name of Nessie has marriage got to do with voting? It's not like one
                                            is up for elder selection. He/she is simply exercising a right given
                                            to all men and women by our constitution and common sense to make
                                            choices that effect his/her life.
                                          • Tamara
                                            Mathewmaury wrote: Is a woman in a jury pool more likely to be selected than a man? My theory is Yes, because lawyers are confident that women can be more
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Mathewmaury wrote: "Is a woman in a jury pool more likely to be selected than a man? My theory is 'Yes, because lawyers are confident that women can be more easily led to the position they desire.'"
                                              ______________________________

                                              Your theory is wrong, as is the basis upon which it is premised.

                                              Jury census rates vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Ideally, any jury pool should be representative of the persons eligible for jury duty, based upon multiple criteria including age, gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity.

                                              Therefore, the actual jury pool for any given case depends upon where the case is being heard. If an area has more men qualified as jurors, there will be more men in the jury pool. If an area has more women qualified as jurors, there will be more women in the jury pool. Usually, there is a roughly equivalent number of men and women. There are of course deviations, generally due to statistical anomalies.

                                              Nevertheless, in the South, there are far more men than women actually chosen for juries. The number of women chosen grows as you head further north, and again tapers off when you get into the far northeast. In the Midwest, more men are chosen, and that trend continues all the way to California, where it evens out again. The only exception to this is the occasional large metropolitan area. Therefore, more men are chosen for juries; and men are more likely to be chosen as jury forepersons as well, even in juries with an equivalent number of men and women.

                                              This is all generally attributed to social norms for a given area, including predominant religious belief systems, and NOT because the lawyers think that one sex or the other is more easily led to their position. Don't forget, there are two opposing sides in every courtroom. Even in cases where one gender is preferred over another, the two sides tend to offset each other.

                                              However, to answer your question more directly, lawyers generally prefer male jurors. Female jurors tend to be more logical, to examine the evidence in far more detail, and to read between the lines. Since no case is perfect, no intelligent lawyer wants that to happen because it exponentially decreases their chance of success. But I will not insult the male members of this group by suggesting, as you did regarding women, that this preference means that men are somehow less qualified or more gullible. Instead, it means only that men and women tend to process information differently, especially in a courtroom setting.

                                              Either way, the US Supreme Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids exercising peremptory challenges based solely upon the gender of a potential juror. The Court noted that "gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality." Yet, proving that peremptory challenges are based solely on gender is difficult, and there is a high standard of proof on appeal which is rarely met.

                                              --- Tamara

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • mathewmaury
                                              ... Thank you for your thorough response. Your answer was non-intuitive. I would be interested in knowing the source of your information.
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Mar 31, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- Tamara wrote:
                                                > Your theory is wrong, as is the basis upon which it is premised.

                                                Thank you for your thorough response. Your answer was non-intuitive.
                                                I would be interested in knowing the source of your information.
                                              • Tamara
                                                I had multiple sources. Among them were the federal bureau of statistics, as well as a few law journal articles; I didn t bookmark the sources, though, so I
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Apr 1 1:25 AM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  I had multiple sources. Among them were the federal bureau of statistics, as well as a few law journal articles; I didn't bookmark the sources, though, so I can't give you URLs. A personal source is a jury consultant.

                                                  --- Tamara


                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: mathewmaury
                                                  To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 2:34 AM
                                                  Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: Women and Jury Selection


                                                  --- Tamara wrote:
                                                  > Your theory is wrong, as is the basis upon which it is premised.

                                                  Thank you for your thorough response. Your answer was non-intuitive.
                                                  I would be interested in knowing the source of your information.

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • rlbaty50
                                                  ... I would also like to thank Tamara for taking the time and showing the interest to inlighten us as to juries. Though not conclusive, based on past
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Apr 1 4:40 AM
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Tamara" <Legal_writer@h...>
                                                    wrote to "mathewmaury":

                                                    > I had multiple sources. Among them were the federal
                                                    > bureau of statistics, as well as a few law journal
                                                    > articles; I didn't bookmark the sources, though, so
                                                    > I can't give you URLs. A personal source is a jury
                                                    > consultant.

                                                    I would also like to thank Tamara for taking the time and showing the
                                                    interest to inlighten us as to juries. Though not conclusive, based
                                                    on past experience I figure her analysis is fairly accurate.

                                                    Robert
                                                  • Tamara
                                                    Thank you, Robert. That means a lot coming from you. Best, Tamara ... From: rlbaty50 To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:40 AM
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Apr 1 9:27 AM
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Thank you, Robert. That means a lot coming from you.

                                                      Best,
                                                      Tamara
                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      From: rlbaty50
                                                      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:40 AM
                                                      Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: Women and Jury Selection


                                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Tamara" <Legal_writer@h...>
                                                      wrote to "mathewmaury":

                                                      > I had multiple sources. Among them were the federal
                                                      > bureau of statistics, as well as a few law journal
                                                      > articles; I didn't bookmark the sources, though, so
                                                      > I can't give you URLs. A personal source is a jury
                                                      > consultant.

                                                      I would also like to thank Tamara for taking the time and showing the
                                                      interest to inlighten us as to juries. Though not conclusive, based
                                                      on past experience I figure her analysis is fairly accurate.

                                                      Robert


                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.