Quoted: Quoted: First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics. +1 The whole 'emotion' thing gets in the way BIG TIME! On the other hand Men should only have the right to vote if they are 'Land Owners' just like our Foundings Fauthers intended!

If my house is worth twice what yours is (trust me that's just a hypothetical) do I get two votes? How about if my buddy sells me 2 square feet of cornfield on his farm, but I live in an apartment in the city, do I get a vote then?

So if a woman is a nuclear physicist she shouldn't be able to vote but some drunk, wife beating bum can if he's a guy? How about if we do it by IQ tests or SAT scores? We don't want dumb people voting do we?

How about by income? One vote for every $ 30k of yearly income?

Quoted: I agree with that.  If you don't own property, then fuck you.  No, I'm not being sarcastic.  I also think that there ought to be a basic course of instruction approximately equal to a modern college government class, with a passing grade required, to vote.

While it's not college level, the instruction you are referring to is high school government or civics class.  EVERYONE in the U.S. is entitled to attend.  They must get a passing grade to graduate from high school.

What a person does with education and information that is offered to them is UP TO THEM.  

As for the founding fathers wanting only land owners to vote, the premise is quite simple.  A person who is INVESTED in this country i.e. a landowner would feel a greater sense of responsibility towards the successful development of this country over, say, a transient who was just passing through.  

arowneragain,  

I know you don't want this to denegrate into a discussion about women's rights but I have to ask... where in the world are you pulling the position that women shouldn't vote out of the Bible?  The Bible says a woman should submit to her HUSBAND but also reinforces that the husband should show deference to his wife's input.  

The Bible was not written in a democratic environment.  Voting as we know it did not exist.  You're comparing apples to oranges and declaring it a pear.  

The right to vote in America has more to do with having a vested interest in the well-being of this country which is now defined by citizenship as opposed to land ownership.    

I agree that a person should be educated about the electoral process and should be familiar with the candidates and the issues.  However, apathy regarding the race is not gender-based.  

At this point, I'd like to point out that offering women an education wasn't even considered necessary until fairly recently in our collective history.  This was a decision made by men.  If a person is not encouraged to learn about issues then how would one make a decision?  Perhaps it would be on "feelings"?  Maybe we should look at the possibility that women ARE genetically predisposed to be more emotional and that the PATRIARCHAL society that we live in has actually encouraged this thought process by limiting the opportunites to gain objective information on social subjects.  Hmmmm??  

Oh... and by the way.... your claim about women not being teachers or preachers in the New Testament having to do with their tendency towards being emotional creatures is crap, Einstein.  WOMEN WEREN'T GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET AN EDUCATION BACK THEN.  Again, by men.  So, um... you were saying???  

But that's just my feeling....

But now... today... women are offered the same educational opportunites as men (for the most part) and YES we do bear a responsibility to vote, to shape the future of our country and have an input on where we are going and how we are going to get there.  

BTW, if we were going back to the aforementioned system of being given votes for mentally sound citizens over 21, landownership, military service and being a gainfully employed and tax-paying citizen, I would max out at 4 votes.  How many of y'all can say that??  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: While it's not college level, the instruction you are referring to is high school government or civics class.  EVERYONE in the U.S. is entitled to attend.  They must get a passing grade to graduate from high school. That's funny, because I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and I never took that class. I'm halfway through an MBA and the only gov't class I ever took was in HS, and it was worthless. Taught by a rabid anti-gun, anti-hunting democrat, as a matter of fact.

Fly-Navy,

You should have taken it in HIGH SCHOOL, not college, unless you were a poly-sci major.  I believe it is a requirement for a diploma in the U.S.  I would be curious to know what HS is not teaching government or civics.  

arowneragain,

You basically proved my own point... the opportunity was there, it just appears you weren't that motivated of a student.  I grew up in Northern California... try telling me about rabid Democratic teachers.    

Personally, I asked questionsand pointed out other points of view.  I read books outside of the required curriculum.  When it came time to give speeches, I asked to give a special presentation both semesters.  Yes, I was THAT much of a dork.    

Education is available.  What you do with it is up to you.    

Quoted: Ma'am, I didn't shout at you. I'd humbly ask that you get your, ahem, emotions, under control. Don't make my point for me. FWIW, I was emjoying your post...up to a point. And you and I arguing the Bible might be akin to teaching a pig to sing. One of us is going to waste our time, the other will be annoyed. But if you'd like a civil discussion, I'd welcome it with open arms.

Who was shouting?  It certainly wasn't me.  I use capital letters to place emphasis on words, just as I would if we were speaking.  But it's definately not yelling.  

You're asking me to get my emotions under control but that was nowhere near an emotional arguement.  In fact, if you notice the smilie... that was sarcasm when I was referring to how I "felt."  

As well, where was I making your point for you?  

I am not arguing the Bible.  I asked you for your references and you haven't submitted any.  In fact, you infer "I" would be opposed to a civil discussion and yet you intimate that I have no knowledge whatsoever of what I speak.  When did calling someone stupid constitute civil??

Forgive me but you are not the only person on the Earth to have read the Bible or attended Bible study.  I, as are all of us, am still learning about God and the Bible but I am not a stranger to the good book.  

Quoted: Ummm....how does it appear that way? Did it ever occur to you that some of us don't feel the need to constantly beat our political chests about our expolits as junior republican truth-seekers in our younger days? I DID argue the truth with the old geezer. Didn't see how that was relevant here. Give me some credit, and I'll give you some.

Because you claim the class was worthless.  Did you learn about the branches of government and their functions?  Did you learn about the electoral college?  Regardless of your teacher's political slant, these basic structures are non-partisan and ARE worthwhile to learn about.  You were trying to refute my statement that there IS a class where we have the opportunity to learn how our government works and I was responding in turn.  

If you don't see the relevance in being pro-active in your own education then I think that says it all.

And, for the record, I was an independent leaning towards Democrat in those days.  

I'm not denying you credit.. in fact, I'd say YOU are the one who is taking this incredibly personal.

Again... I haven't gotten any fact-based rebuttals from you.  They've all been rather... well... emotional.....