Steemit Libertarians, is this a violation of separation of church &amp; state?

fatkat (71) · 7 years ago (edited)

@davidpakman

uhh taxation is theft is the libertarian response? Do you ever talk to libertarians?

I was watching your "Socialism Has Never Worked" video cause it showed up on my facebook, and decided to see what you currently putting out.

I found your video about socialsm completely worthless if not negative from a consequentialist utilitarian perspective. The plebeians are dumb and you make socialism into a more complex thing than it is. I suggest a close read of Blumer's "What is Wrong With Social Theory" when applied to the vast expanse you pretend describes socialism in claiming t hat it is not what you or Obama want when you both seem to think utilizing state coercion to fund "public goods" is not morally impermissible?

I guess what I really hated about your video is even acknowledging the ludicrous meta narrative of "socialism has never worked." People who make sentences like that are not worth listening to on the subject because it is like playing chess with checkers. Intelligent people do not dispute whether state coercion and centralization can effectively set prices so as to sustainably manage economy to some end. Intelligent people who are for the free market do not assert socialism will not work but instead that it is unlikely to lead to as efficient a result as a free market absent state coercive intervention--at least across the board. Sure as I imagine you understand some roles for the state as protecting private property or other things perhaps in line with the ideas of Locke, Rawls or John Stuart Mills.

Anywho please make better content. Nearly 1% of people in the US are already behind bars, many for victimless crimes.

If you want ideas on libertarian stances I'd love to provide real stances, not strawmen the left is notorious for in manufacturing consent of the uninformed masses. Indeed Adam Smith was correct in Wealth of Nations that division of labor has enabled humans to become as stupid and animal like as one can be.

$13.90

davidpakman (76) · 7 years ago

thanks for letting me know. i respectfully disagree.

$0.04

fatkat (71) · 7 years ago

Interesting. I tried to call in to your show to ask a question but didnt get through. Asking or even entertaining ludicrous questions like whether socialism have worked seems just like filler content to keep people from actually analyzing and discussing the real world.

$3.81

davidpakman (76) · 7 years ago

totally disagree, it's actually really important to debunk so-called "conventional wisdom."

$1.39

4 votes

fatkat (71) · 7 years ago

Well I don't think you accomplished that. I think if anything you legitimate such anti-intellectual ideas. I'd love to ask you my question here if you might entertain it.

Thanks for your time, hope the New Year is going well for you!!

$2.94

fatkat (71) · 7 years ago

I'd love to ask you the question here but doesnt seem like you want to even have discussions with people like me.

$3.72

ginquitti (51) · 7 years ago

I kinda miss your old profile picture because i was used to seeing it, but i like this one better. I just need to get used to it and associating it with you

$0.07

davidpakman (76) · 7 years ago

this one is just here for one week as a result of the contest i ran!

$0.00

ginquitti (51) · 7 years ago

I see. Just a temporary change

$0.00

themobilewriter (48) · 7 years ago

I don't think so. It's elective after all. There is nothing wrong in learning about religion.

$0.02

empato365 (64) · 7 years ago

Apart from it being a voilation of the establiahment clause of the constitution.

It is an infringement on Liberty and social right.

It is not cool at all

$0.00

reversehitler88 (43) · 7 years ago

You could even say 3 religions. While neither the old testament nor the new testament is included in the quoran, right from the getgo the text assumes that you know about all of this.And if you go into denominations of these it could be thousands. However, it also excludes a lot of other religions. Now IF they just give the rooms to any people who want to teach about their religion, that might be fine, id bring weed, LSD and traditional temple prostitutes and teach discordianism. If there are religious exemptions to manslaughter (due to denying your child medical care and instead pray), im sure ill have religious exemption for stuff without any victims, right? If i was american, i wouldve allready done that. I am after all (like every man, woman or child on earth or anywhere else) discordian pope, and a pope is defined as someone who is not under the authority of authorities.

$0.00

drillzablaze (39) · 7 years ago

The bible says...those things the bible says will happen on the last days...surely coming to pass...not call at all..

$0.00

danpaulson (62) · 7 years ago

zealots gonna zealot

$0.00

asapadmiral (8) · 7 years ago

I MEAN WE ALL HAVE ARE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS BUTT SHOULDN'T REQUIRE THEM IN SCHOOLS FOR SURE VIRGINIA TRIPPIN LOL

$0.00

vinmaru (47) · 7 years ago

Why is the Senate proposing a bill for public schools to have elective classes in Hebrew scriptures and from the Bible. This is wrong on so many fronts, their needs to be a separation of State and Religion. Also, why just Hebrew and Bible studies, why not then cover all major religions... that would make more sense.

$0.00

reversehitler88 (43) · 7 years ago

As a member of a minor religion id come and demand my right to teach in either case. Which will pretty quickly shut this down. Espacialy since my religion was conceived in the 60s by someone who was probably on LSD while writing it. Or most certainly at some point.

$0.00

ziofeda (54) · 7 years ago (edited)

Well, I was curious about the voicemail.
At any rate, I live in Italy, and what with the Vatican and all we do have a lot of discussion about how much power should religion have in state affairs. Our school have "religion" as a mandatory subject, and if you don't want your kid to learn about religion you have to explicitly ask for them to be exonerated from attending the class. Now "Religion" can be synonym of "Christianity" or can mean "Story of religions", but in any case, whoever is teaching that subject will always have his or her own views on the matter. Teaching religions in a generic, all-encompassing way is utopian at best. This is one of those topics in which no matter who you are, your views will always be different by those of someone else, and you can't really have no views, because that's a thing, and it goes against those who have a view, any view. It boils down to what you think this world is, where you think it comes from.
So basically you either decide that this stuff should be up to the parents to teach (and I agree with this concept), and leave it out of schools altogether, or you have to choose an angle when teaching it, whatever you find convenient and\or fair. If by "fair" we mean "not mandatory and useful for the majority of people", then I get their point of view. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

$0.00

johndickinson (40) · 7 years ago

The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. Yes, I know that it was "incorporated," but that was in total contrast to what the Framers envisioned. The Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, while protecting the rights of the people and the states. In fact, the establishment clause was originally intended, among other objects, to help protect establishments of religion in the different states, which they didn't want the federal government barging in on.

I think Jefferson, though not actually one of the Framers, explained it best:

"I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the constitution from intermedling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the US. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." - Thomas Jefferson, January 23, 1808.

However, that's only one side of the story. The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that just because a state could do something, didn't mean it should. Jefferson, along with many others, thought the states should also work to protect the religious freedom of their citizens. On his tombstone, his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was one of the only 3 accomplishments for which he most wished to be remembered. In it we find this wonderful quote, very applicable to your question:

"[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

And also another great point that Christians (and I am one) seem by and large to have misunderstood:

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do [...] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever."

If we care what the Founders thought, and we should, it's not unconstitutional. That said, I think there's good arguments to be made that its both unAmerican, and unBiblical, and that seems quite reason enough.

$0.00

davidpakman (76) · 7 years ago

fortunately this would also violate the WV constitution, making your argument about the federal bill of rights moot.

$1.29

johndickinson (40) · 7 years ago

Uhhhhhh.... no. My point about the federal bill of rights still holds true. You specifically asked if the bill violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. I answered - it doesn’t.

If it violates the state constitution of West Virginia, that’s great but it’s a separate issue and not what you asked in the original post.

That said, I tried to make it fairly clear that I believe this kind of thing is a bad idea and doesn’t work. I’m glad it’s unconstitutional in WV, and even if it weren’t, I would still be opposed to it for a variety of reasons.

$0.00

tmayd (54) · 7 years ago

As far as I know the separation of church and state are not in the Constitution, but here we are dealing with state government. My concern is that it would open the way to requiring elective classes on other religious texts on the grounds of non-discrimination.

$0.00

davidpakman (76) · 7 years ago

it is in the constitution, the state may not establish one religion over another, or religion over non religion, period. this also violates WV's state constitution.

$1.34

tmayd (54) · 7 years ago (edited)

David, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to my comment.
Because it is an intricate issue, it would be great if you could interview a professor of law on your show (any BC volunteers?) Many of us are busy professionals (I suspect your audience is quite well educated), but our graduate degrees are not a protection against ignorance, misunderstanding or misinterpretation when we venture outside our specialties (as evidenced by the posts that are all over the place, including mine), and we don’t have much time to do in-depth research. We need sound information on which to base our opinions (and our activism).
Thanks!

$0.00

chirieleison (53) · 7 years ago

No it isn’t davy boy. The keyword there is elective.

$0.00

davidpakman (76) · 7 years ago

if a Bible class is only offered for one religion's sacred text, isn't that an establishment of one religion over all others, regardless of whether the class itself is mandatory? check out the video before commenting as I pre-emptively address your response.

$1.22

chirieleison (53) · 7 years ago

Unless the bible is being taught as the infallible word of a God it isn't. The bible can also be taught as literature and as part of the history of religion. There's nothing inherently wrong with teaching about different religions. It depends on how the information is presented.

$0.00