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

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

zealots gonna zealot

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

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

@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. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k79wCaFgU40

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

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.

It must certainly infringe on some fundamental rights to freedom of choice of what knowledge to take in.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.