Duxon's Political Video Archive
- Thread starter expiated
- Start date
More Proof That Communism Is Total Folly:
Communist Cuba Flirts with Capitalism? Free Market, Human Flourishing, and the Failures of Communism
R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.
But before the week comes to an end, I want to make reference to a development with a lot of worldview significance. In this case, it was reported on the front page of the New York Times just this week, the headline, "Communist Cuba Grasps A Lifeline, Capitalists." David C. Adams is the reporter on the story. And if you know the history of the Cuban Revolution and the communist revolution and the communist regime there in the island nation of Cuba, you understand that what's being talked about here could be a ray of hope. But then again, there have been many rays of hope that have been extinguished. But what the New York Times is reporting on here is the fact that because Cuba’s economy is in such horrible shape, it is basically falling in on itself. Cuba is unable to feed its own people, to clothe its own people. But nonetheless, Cuba has been through decades and decades of deprivation, and frankly, harming its own people, harming them in terms of any number of issues traceable to all kinds of measures of human flourishing.
You just simply look at the fact that the nation's regime has been more committed to communism than to serving its own people. But the breakdown right now is so utterly complete that even the communist regime there in Cuba’s had to allow some experiments in capitalism. And guess what? Surprise, surprise, they are working. The article begins by talking about a new modern grocery store that has food on the shelves and also a company that is making Cuban furniture that it’s selling to customers and other nations. "These ventures are part of an explosion of thousands of private businesses that have opened in recent years across Cuba. A remarkable shift in a country where such enterprises have not been permitted, and where Fidel Castro rose to power leading a communist revolution determined to eliminate capitalist notions like private ownership."
Now, at one level, this is a really important story in terms of economics. The bottom line, Marxism doesn't work. It is a failed economic theory. Now, as Christians, we have to understand that's based upon an even larger failure in terms of the worldview of Marxism. Going back to dialectical materialism, what could go wrong? But this is not just about economic issues. This has a lot to do with moral issues that are really central, even theological and doctrinal issues that are central to the Christian worldview. So, let's think about it for a moment. The headline in the New York Times article is that, "Communist Cuba is Now Grasping a Lifeline, and That’s an Experiment With Capitalism." So, immediately people think, "Okay, we have two different economic theories. We have communism on the one hand, capitalism on the other side."
And there is a sense in which capitalism is not exactly the wrong word here, but the more accurate description of what this article is talking about is a free market, which includes people operating on the basis of a certain amount of freedom in order to invest their own labor in something that will bring about good, something that others will actually pay for and that will lead to human good and human flourishing to not only those who are making the product and not only those who are selling the product, but also those who are buying the product or service. This is the big worldview issue here.
When you look at communism and you look at communist economic theory, the biggest problem is not that it doesn't work. The biggest problem is that it is based upon an absolute insult to human beings being made in the image of God. The biggest problem with communism is that it sees human beings as accidents in an accidental universe who are stuck in a process of economic oppression, and need to be liberated. Now, in that sense, it's not that Christians would look at the communists and say, "You’re wrong to think that human beings need to be liberated." The question is, from what must we be liberated?
The Christian Gospel says, we must be liberated from the reality of sin, the grip of sin and the consequences of sin. And the Christian worldview goes on to say that as you look at God's purposes, the Creator's purposes in creation and making us in his image, he set us to work and that work is to come with an appropriate reward. The Bible doesn't lay out a complete economic system, but it does lay out a complete doctrinal system in which we understand that human beings are made in God's image and that work is a part of why God made us in the first place.
He made us to work and he created the universe as a moral universe in which labor brings appropriate reward. Or as the Scripture says, "The worker is worthy of his hire." There's dignity in that. There's dignity in human beings because we're made in God's image, every single human being. There's dignity in human work because that's not an accident. We were made for work. There is dignity in human ingenuity in products, that's why we have a patent system. There is good that comes in an economic system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior.
Now, this front page article in the New York Times raises the specter that as soon as the communist regime is able to reassert control over the entire economy, it will. There have been similar openings or spring times in the past that have been shut down by the communist regime. But at this point, even the economists looking at the situation from the outside are saying, "The communist system is so broken, it's very hard to imagine how it can reassert itself. The economic fundamentals are so weak." And just think about this, you're talking about an island that is only about 100 miles off of the southern coast of the state of Florida. It is not in trouble because of its climate. It's not in trouble because it is an island nation off of North America. It’s in trouble because politics comes with moral consequences.
So, it's going to be very, very interesting to see how this story pans out. But as a boy who grew up in Florida with many Cuban friends, including many who had fled the Castro revolution in Cuba, I have to tell you that I find this kind of story not only incredibly interesting, but also, in the truest sense, heartwarming. One of the things I quickly learned from my Cuban friends in Florida is that so many of them were worried about their families stuck back in Cuba. There may be here a sign of real hope. We must pray so.
Communist Cuba Flirts with Capitalism? Free Market, Human Flourishing, and the Failures of Communism
R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.
But before the week comes to an end, I want to make reference to a development with a lot of worldview significance. In this case, it was reported on the front page of the New York Times just this week, the headline, "Communist Cuba Grasps A Lifeline, Capitalists." David C. Adams is the reporter on the story. And if you know the history of the Cuban Revolution and the communist revolution and the communist regime there in the island nation of Cuba, you understand that what's being talked about here could be a ray of hope. But then again, there have been many rays of hope that have been extinguished. But what the New York Times is reporting on here is the fact that because Cuba’s economy is in such horrible shape, it is basically falling in on itself. Cuba is unable to feed its own people, to clothe its own people. But nonetheless, Cuba has been through decades and decades of deprivation, and frankly, harming its own people, harming them in terms of any number of issues traceable to all kinds of measures of human flourishing.
You just simply look at the fact that the nation's regime has been more committed to communism than to serving its own people. But the breakdown right now is so utterly complete that even the communist regime there in Cuba’s had to allow some experiments in capitalism. And guess what? Surprise, surprise, they are working. The article begins by talking about a new modern grocery store that has food on the shelves and also a company that is making Cuban furniture that it’s selling to customers and other nations. "These ventures are part of an explosion of thousands of private businesses that have opened in recent years across Cuba. A remarkable shift in a country where such enterprises have not been permitted, and where Fidel Castro rose to power leading a communist revolution determined to eliminate capitalist notions like private ownership."
Now, at one level, this is a really important story in terms of economics. The bottom line, Marxism doesn't work. It is a failed economic theory. Now, as Christians, we have to understand that's based upon an even larger failure in terms of the worldview of Marxism. Going back to dialectical materialism, what could go wrong? But this is not just about economic issues. This has a lot to do with moral issues that are really central, even theological and doctrinal issues that are central to the Christian worldview. So, let's think about it for a moment. The headline in the New York Times article is that, "Communist Cuba is Now Grasping a Lifeline, and That’s an Experiment With Capitalism." So, immediately people think, "Okay, we have two different economic theories. We have communism on the one hand, capitalism on the other side."
And there is a sense in which capitalism is not exactly the wrong word here, but the more accurate description of what this article is talking about is a free market, which includes people operating on the basis of a certain amount of freedom in order to invest their own labor in something that will bring about good, something that others will actually pay for and that will lead to human good and human flourishing to not only those who are making the product and not only those who are selling the product, but also those who are buying the product or service. This is the big worldview issue here.
When you look at communism and you look at communist economic theory, the biggest problem is not that it doesn't work. The biggest problem is that it is based upon an absolute insult to human beings being made in the image of God. The biggest problem with communism is that it sees human beings as accidents in an accidental universe who are stuck in a process of economic oppression, and need to be liberated. Now, in that sense, it's not that Christians would look at the communists and say, "You’re wrong to think that human beings need to be liberated." The question is, from what must we be liberated?
The Christian Gospel says, we must be liberated from the reality of sin, the grip of sin and the consequences of sin. And the Christian worldview goes on to say that as you look at God's purposes, the Creator's purposes in creation and making us in his image, he set us to work and that work is to come with an appropriate reward. The Bible doesn't lay out a complete economic system, but it does lay out a complete doctrinal system in which we understand that human beings are made in God's image and that work is a part of why God made us in the first place.
He made us to work and he created the universe as a moral universe in which labor brings appropriate reward. Or as the Scripture says, "The worker is worthy of his hire." There's dignity in that. There's dignity in human beings because we're made in God's image, every single human being. There's dignity in human work because that's not an accident. We were made for work. There is dignity in human ingenuity in products, that's why we have a patent system. There is good that comes in an economic system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior.
Now, this front page article in the New York Times raises the specter that as soon as the communist regime is able to reassert control over the entire economy, it will. There have been similar openings or spring times in the past that have been shut down by the communist regime. But at this point, even the economists looking at the situation from the outside are saying, "The communist system is so broken, it's very hard to imagine how it can reassert itself. The economic fundamentals are so weak." And just think about this, you're talking about an island that is only about 100 miles off of the southern coast of the state of Florida. It is not in trouble because of its climate. It's not in trouble because it is an island nation off of North America. It’s in trouble because politics comes with moral consequences.
So, it's going to be very, very interesting to see how this story pans out. But as a boy who grew up in Florida with many Cuban friends, including many who had fled the Castro revolution in Cuba, I have to tell you that I find this kind of story not only incredibly interesting, but also, in the truest sense, heartwarming. One of the things I quickly learned from my Cuban friends in Florida is that so many of them were worried about their families stuck back in Cuba. There may be here a sign of real hope. We must pray so.
The "stupidity" of USA law makers - Part I
Right Motivation, Misguided Legislation: The House Votes to Pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.
Last week, the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation known as the Antisemitism Awareness Act. That bill, now being sent to the Senate, would require the Department of Education to apply a definition of antisemitism, and furthermore, would instruct the Department of Education to take action against persons, whether protesters or otherwise, who may make openly antisemitic charges, may make use of that kind of language, may incite that kind of antisemitic action. Of course, the action itself would be dealt with in a separate part of legislation in the criminal code.
But it did pass overwhelmingly, and I think we can understand why. There is a widespread understanding right now that we are experiencing an outbreak of antisemitism in the culture. And at least at first glance, this would appear to be an action undertaken by the United States House, now being sent for consideration to the Senate and with bipartisan support, by the way, it would appear to be a good faith effort to try to shut down antisemitism, and to label it for the anti-humanism that it is, a very clear moral statement.
The problem is that legislation like this, though intended to send a very clear moral statement, might not always have exactly that effect, and that’s why many conservatives are quite concerned about this legislation. And that includes a good many conservative Christians and conservative Christian organizations. And those individuals and organizations are solidly against antisemitism. They are some of the most stalwart defenders of the Jewish people and of Israel, but they have big, big concerns about how this kind of legislation will be applied, not only on campus but in the courts.
And that deserves, indeed it demands, a much closer investigation on our part. So this is a good point for us to understand that even if everyone’s well-intended, let’s just say everyone basically shares a consensus, everyone in a room that we need legislation to address this particular issue, we’ll just call it issue X.
And thus in the room you have absolute unanimity that everyone wants to do the right thing on X. But you also have different understandings of how X should be defined. If indeed X is something you want to prohibit, something you want to sanction, something you want to prevent, then in legal and legislative terms you have to define what it is you’re talking about. That in itself can be a problem or the source of a problem. And in this case, when it comes to the Antisemitism Awareness Act, I’m going to suggest that’s where one of the problems first arises.
Because if you are going to identify, legislate against, and sanction antisemitism, you’re going to have to say what it is. Now just at face value, you understand the words. Semitism, which means an inclination towards the Jewish people. That’s the most common contextual usage of the word. Anti means that your disposition is opposed to the Jewish people.
Now, one of the interesting debates that has been taking place in recent days, particularly on the left, here’s what’s really important. This has been taking place particularly on the left, is people who’ve tried to say, “You can make a very clear distinction and definition between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.” And they mean by that, that when you criticize or perhaps even call for the non-existence of the State of Israel, that’s not necessarily anti-Semitic. Now, what’s interesting is that I have been one of the people and conservative Christians have been among the front lines of people saying that any really clear distinction in those definitions is impossible. That actually, if you are talking about anti-Zionism, which amounts to an open antipathy to Israel, if not a call for Israel’s non-existence, then that is anti-Semitic because we are talking about Israel as the Jewish nation. You cannot separate those two things cleanly.
Now, it’s not to say that you can’t criticize the government of Israel. And for that matter, you have conservative Christians who’ve made many criticisms about government actions and government positions on the part of Israel over the course of history since the middle of the 20th century. That’s not what we’re talking about. But we are talking about the fact that just at the operational level, intellectual honesty compels that we say that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, those are not clearly separable terms. But, frankly, both of those also require definition. And if you’re going to have an anti-Semitism Awareness Act as the house just overwhelmingly supported, then you’re going to have to define it.
So where did Congress, where did the House go to get a definition? They went to what is called the working definition of anti-Semitism offered by the IHRA, that’s the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Now, what did the IHRA say is the proper definition of anti-Semitism?
Here it is, “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Now, it’s interesting that just before you read that text on the website of the IHRA, this is the definition that is now adopted by the House in the House version of this bill. It introduces its definition as, “non-legally binding.” Well, if Congress adopts it, guess what? It’s going to be legally binding.
Now, as a Christian looking at that language, the first thing that strikes me is there just isn’t that much here. You look at the IHRA definition, “A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” It says, “Maybe,” it says, “a certain perception of Jews.” How in the world do you legislate against a certain perception of anything?
The definition goes on. “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals.” Well, if it says Jewish or non-Jewish individuals, well, doesn’t that include just about everybody on planet Earth? But then it says, “towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
I think right now perhaps the most influential Jewish intellectual in the world is Yoram Hazony. And in response to this, Hazony posted a tweet that says, “Anything that relies on the confused IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is a problem.” And I think Hazony is absolutely right there. By the way, I was reminded of a previous tweet that Mr. Hazony had offered and how much I agree with it, “Orthodox religious traditions, Christian and Jewish are the only thing that will survive the blast furnace of ongoing Cultural Revolution. Make sure you’re on the right side of the struggle.”
I think he’s absolutely right there. It is going to be the Orthodox religious traditions and in particular, Christianity and Judaism that alone will, in his words, “survive the blast furnace of ongoing Cultural Revolution.” But my point in his previous statement is that he himself calls the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as confused. “Anything that relies on the confused statement,” he says, is, “a problem.”
But it’s also interesting that even as evangelical Christians are among the most significant and the strongest allies of Israel and of the Jewish people, it’s interesting that this International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s statement also comes with illustrations. There are many of them, but I want to get to illustration number nine. This is an illustration of anti-Semitism. “Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism.” I’m not going to address everything in that, but just the “claims of Jews killing Jesus.”
Now, just to state what should be obvious to Christians. There is more to the story of the crucifixion of Jesus than the betrayal of Jesus by the Jewish people, but that is nonetheless a central part of the biblical narrative. And thus, you look at this and realize that according to this definition, the Gospel of John would be considered anti-Semitic. And if this legislation actually becomes law, it’s not so much that I think those who brought the law had any such intention, but it is nonetheless going to have the effect of being used and abused by the cultural left in the name of fighting anti-Semitism, when quite frankly, it is going to be an instrument to be used against Christian preaching.
And I say that because this has already happened in terms of cultural intimidation. And again, it’s so important that Mr. Hazony said that the only force that can fight back against the secular tide are the Orthodox religious traditions. He mentions Christianity and Judaism. But it’s also true that liberal Christians and many liberal members of the Jewish community have accused evangelical Christians of committing a form of anti-Semitism by the preaching of the Christian gospel.
Now, it’s very interesting that just in the last few days, it is clear that opposition to this bill is coming from the left and the right, and I think it’s important that we distinguish those two sources of opposition. On the left, the big issue is their absolute idolatry of the freedom of speech. Now, I say absolute idolatry because I think they often misuse it and do so intentionally. And for them, because they are largely not a part of any Orthodox or religious tradition, when you are looking at one of their key doctrines, freedom of speech is frankly in their 10 Commandments, if not in say the top one or two. And they get to define what that means. Now in this case, I think you’d have some conservatives say at least there is the point that you could characterize this legislation as a legislation that is directed at hate speech.
That hate speech, however, is going to be a very difficult thing to define. We’ve already talked about that. This definition is very problematic. And not only is it difficult to define, even if the vast majority of Republicans, the vast majority of conservatives approve this bill for the absolute right moral reason of seeking to oppose anti-Semitism, I think you can predict that regulatory bureaucracies, that the administrative state, and progressive courts, and those who seek to use those progressive courts will try to use the same kind of legislation, and its logic, against conservatives, and in particular, conservative Christians.
So on the left, the opposition is largely allied by the concern for what they declare to be freedom of speech. On the other hand, and by the way right now, those on the left, they’re politically aware of the fact that if they were to support this kind of legislation, it would be a direct slap at the protesters that are now getting so much attention for the Palestinian cause on America’s elite college campuses.
So again, politics is always mixed into all of this. On the right, much of the opposition is towards the understanding that this is the definition of a form of a hate crime. And even though it is well intended, it will be used by others. It will be used in a way that will be virtually the opposite of what the intenders of the legislation we’re seeking to bring about. Now, as you look at this, it’s important to also just be reminded of the numbers.
Right Motivation, Misguided Legislation: The House Votes to Pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.
Last week, the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation known as the Antisemitism Awareness Act. That bill, now being sent to the Senate, would require the Department of Education to apply a definition of antisemitism, and furthermore, would instruct the Department of Education to take action against persons, whether protesters or otherwise, who may make openly antisemitic charges, may make use of that kind of language, may incite that kind of antisemitic action. Of course, the action itself would be dealt with in a separate part of legislation in the criminal code.
But it did pass overwhelmingly, and I think we can understand why. There is a widespread understanding right now that we are experiencing an outbreak of antisemitism in the culture. And at least at first glance, this would appear to be an action undertaken by the United States House, now being sent for consideration to the Senate and with bipartisan support, by the way, it would appear to be a good faith effort to try to shut down antisemitism, and to label it for the anti-humanism that it is, a very clear moral statement.
The problem is that legislation like this, though intended to send a very clear moral statement, might not always have exactly that effect, and that’s why many conservatives are quite concerned about this legislation. And that includes a good many conservative Christians and conservative Christian organizations. And those individuals and organizations are solidly against antisemitism. They are some of the most stalwart defenders of the Jewish people and of Israel, but they have big, big concerns about how this kind of legislation will be applied, not only on campus but in the courts.
And that deserves, indeed it demands, a much closer investigation on our part. So this is a good point for us to understand that even if everyone’s well-intended, let’s just say everyone basically shares a consensus, everyone in a room that we need legislation to address this particular issue, we’ll just call it issue X.
And thus in the room you have absolute unanimity that everyone wants to do the right thing on X. But you also have different understandings of how X should be defined. If indeed X is something you want to prohibit, something you want to sanction, something you want to prevent, then in legal and legislative terms you have to define what it is you’re talking about. That in itself can be a problem or the source of a problem. And in this case, when it comes to the Antisemitism Awareness Act, I’m going to suggest that’s where one of the problems first arises.
Because if you are going to identify, legislate against, and sanction antisemitism, you’re going to have to say what it is. Now just at face value, you understand the words. Semitism, which means an inclination towards the Jewish people. That’s the most common contextual usage of the word. Anti means that your disposition is opposed to the Jewish people.
Now, one of the interesting debates that has been taking place in recent days, particularly on the left, here’s what’s really important. This has been taking place particularly on the left, is people who’ve tried to say, “You can make a very clear distinction and definition between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.” And they mean by that, that when you criticize or perhaps even call for the non-existence of the State of Israel, that’s not necessarily anti-Semitic. Now, what’s interesting is that I have been one of the people and conservative Christians have been among the front lines of people saying that any really clear distinction in those definitions is impossible. That actually, if you are talking about anti-Zionism, which amounts to an open antipathy to Israel, if not a call for Israel’s non-existence, then that is anti-Semitic because we are talking about Israel as the Jewish nation. You cannot separate those two things cleanly.
Now, it’s not to say that you can’t criticize the government of Israel. And for that matter, you have conservative Christians who’ve made many criticisms about government actions and government positions on the part of Israel over the course of history since the middle of the 20th century. That’s not what we’re talking about. But we are talking about the fact that just at the operational level, intellectual honesty compels that we say that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, those are not clearly separable terms. But, frankly, both of those also require definition. And if you’re going to have an anti-Semitism Awareness Act as the house just overwhelmingly supported, then you’re going to have to define it.
So where did Congress, where did the House go to get a definition? They went to what is called the working definition of anti-Semitism offered by the IHRA, that’s the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Now, what did the IHRA say is the proper definition of anti-Semitism?
Here it is, “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Now, it’s interesting that just before you read that text on the website of the IHRA, this is the definition that is now adopted by the House in the House version of this bill. It introduces its definition as, “non-legally binding.” Well, if Congress adopts it, guess what? It’s going to be legally binding.
Now, as a Christian looking at that language, the first thing that strikes me is there just isn’t that much here. You look at the IHRA definition, “A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” It says, “Maybe,” it says, “a certain perception of Jews.” How in the world do you legislate against a certain perception of anything?
The definition goes on. “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals.” Well, if it says Jewish or non-Jewish individuals, well, doesn’t that include just about everybody on planet Earth? But then it says, “towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
I think right now perhaps the most influential Jewish intellectual in the world is Yoram Hazony. And in response to this, Hazony posted a tweet that says, “Anything that relies on the confused IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is a problem.” And I think Hazony is absolutely right there. By the way, I was reminded of a previous tweet that Mr. Hazony had offered and how much I agree with it, “Orthodox religious traditions, Christian and Jewish are the only thing that will survive the blast furnace of ongoing Cultural Revolution. Make sure you’re on the right side of the struggle.”
I think he’s absolutely right there. It is going to be the Orthodox religious traditions and in particular, Christianity and Judaism that alone will, in his words, “survive the blast furnace of ongoing Cultural Revolution.” But my point in his previous statement is that he himself calls the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as confused. “Anything that relies on the confused statement,” he says, is, “a problem.”
But it’s also interesting that even as evangelical Christians are among the most significant and the strongest allies of Israel and of the Jewish people, it’s interesting that this International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s statement also comes with illustrations. There are many of them, but I want to get to illustration number nine. This is an illustration of anti-Semitism. “Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism.” I’m not going to address everything in that, but just the “claims of Jews killing Jesus.”
Now, just to state what should be obvious to Christians. There is more to the story of the crucifixion of Jesus than the betrayal of Jesus by the Jewish people, but that is nonetheless a central part of the biblical narrative. And thus, you look at this and realize that according to this definition, the Gospel of John would be considered anti-Semitic. And if this legislation actually becomes law, it’s not so much that I think those who brought the law had any such intention, but it is nonetheless going to have the effect of being used and abused by the cultural left in the name of fighting anti-Semitism, when quite frankly, it is going to be an instrument to be used against Christian preaching.
And I say that because this has already happened in terms of cultural intimidation. And again, it’s so important that Mr. Hazony said that the only force that can fight back against the secular tide are the Orthodox religious traditions. He mentions Christianity and Judaism. But it’s also true that liberal Christians and many liberal members of the Jewish community have accused evangelical Christians of committing a form of anti-Semitism by the preaching of the Christian gospel.
Now, it’s very interesting that just in the last few days, it is clear that opposition to this bill is coming from the left and the right, and I think it’s important that we distinguish those two sources of opposition. On the left, the big issue is their absolute idolatry of the freedom of speech. Now, I say absolute idolatry because I think they often misuse it and do so intentionally. And for them, because they are largely not a part of any Orthodox or religious tradition, when you are looking at one of their key doctrines, freedom of speech is frankly in their 10 Commandments, if not in say the top one or two. And they get to define what that means. Now in this case, I think you’d have some conservatives say at least there is the point that you could characterize this legislation as a legislation that is directed at hate speech.
That hate speech, however, is going to be a very difficult thing to define. We’ve already talked about that. This definition is very problematic. And not only is it difficult to define, even if the vast majority of Republicans, the vast majority of conservatives approve this bill for the absolute right moral reason of seeking to oppose anti-Semitism, I think you can predict that regulatory bureaucracies, that the administrative state, and progressive courts, and those who seek to use those progressive courts will try to use the same kind of legislation, and its logic, against conservatives, and in particular, conservative Christians.
So on the left, the opposition is largely allied by the concern for what they declare to be freedom of speech. On the other hand, and by the way right now, those on the left, they’re politically aware of the fact that if they were to support this kind of legislation, it would be a direct slap at the protesters that are now getting so much attention for the Palestinian cause on America’s elite college campuses.
So again, politics is always mixed into all of this. On the right, much of the opposition is towards the understanding that this is the definition of a form of a hate crime. And even though it is well intended, it will be used by others. It will be used in a way that will be virtually the opposite of what the intenders of the legislation we’re seeking to bring about. Now, as you look at this, it’s important to also just be reminded of the numbers.
The "stupidity" of USA law makers - Part II
Legislation Has Intended and Unintended Consequences: The Major Concerns of the Potential Fallout of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.
When just days ago the bill passed in the House, it was overwhelming, 320 yea, 91 nay. The partisan breakdown is important. 187 Republicans voted yes, 21 voted no. 133 Democrats voted yes, 70 voted no. If nothing else, the legislation is likely to slow down in the United States Senate. And it’s going to be really important this week to note the level of conversation. And this is where I felt morally responsible to discuss this on Monday because the issues coming out from last week. I think you’re going to see a lot of conversation about the legislation this week. And that conversation may bring further clarifications, it may also raise further issues.
Again, I think for Christians, the bottom line is this. The understanding that anti-Semitism is a horrible thing that we need to confront at every opportunity. We need to name it for what it is. It is a hatred of the Jewish people, which is often extended to a hatred of the Jewish state. We need to support every rightful push back on anti-Semitism, and we need to make very clear that the main legal failure, and that means on the part of law enforcement, also on the part of political authorities, more specifically on the part of college administrators, has been failing to take action when anti-Semitic speech openly has become a threat to Jewish safety.
At that point, we’re not just talking about speech, we are talking about speech that carries an implicit threat. There is a good legal basis for understanding that distinction. But Christians also need to understand that in a fallen world, legislation often comes with complications that were not intended, and it is often used in ways that the authors or original sponsors of the legislation surely did not intend.
So at this point, particularly on the conservative side, I want to say that I give full faith and credit to the conservatives who voted for this legislation because I believe they were driven by a very noble cause, and concern, and ambition. I am just very concerned that the net effect of their legislation is going to be the opposite of what they intend, or at the very least, that it is going to bring about challenges to Christian speech, even the gospel speech, that were clearly not intended by the many conservatives who voted for this bill, including many of them conservative Christians who were doing so in solidarity with the Jewish people.
So at the end of the day, this legislation is problematic just because of the structure of this kind of legislation in the first place. Very dangerous. You have to question how will it actually be used?
On the other hand, of course, it could do some good. And where legislation could do some good, we need to understand that, but we need to understand where it brings peril as well. But I want to go back to the definition issue. If you are going to legislate on anti-Semitism, you’re going to have to define what it is. And at the very least, at the very least, this legislation needs a more adequate definition of anti-Semitism.
Legislation Has Intended and Unintended Consequences: The Major Concerns of the Potential Fallout of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.
When just days ago the bill passed in the House, it was overwhelming, 320 yea, 91 nay. The partisan breakdown is important. 187 Republicans voted yes, 21 voted no. 133 Democrats voted yes, 70 voted no. If nothing else, the legislation is likely to slow down in the United States Senate. And it’s going to be really important this week to note the level of conversation. And this is where I felt morally responsible to discuss this on Monday because the issues coming out from last week. I think you’re going to see a lot of conversation about the legislation this week. And that conversation may bring further clarifications, it may also raise further issues.
Again, I think for Christians, the bottom line is this. The understanding that anti-Semitism is a horrible thing that we need to confront at every opportunity. We need to name it for what it is. It is a hatred of the Jewish people, which is often extended to a hatred of the Jewish state. We need to support every rightful push back on anti-Semitism, and we need to make very clear that the main legal failure, and that means on the part of law enforcement, also on the part of political authorities, more specifically on the part of college administrators, has been failing to take action when anti-Semitic speech openly has become a threat to Jewish safety.
At that point, we’re not just talking about speech, we are talking about speech that carries an implicit threat. There is a good legal basis for understanding that distinction. But Christians also need to understand that in a fallen world, legislation often comes with complications that were not intended, and it is often used in ways that the authors or original sponsors of the legislation surely did not intend.
So at this point, particularly on the conservative side, I want to say that I give full faith and credit to the conservatives who voted for this legislation because I believe they were driven by a very noble cause, and concern, and ambition. I am just very concerned that the net effect of their legislation is going to be the opposite of what they intend, or at the very least, that it is going to bring about challenges to Christian speech, even the gospel speech, that were clearly not intended by the many conservatives who voted for this bill, including many of them conservative Christians who were doing so in solidarity with the Jewish people.
So at the end of the day, this legislation is problematic just because of the structure of this kind of legislation in the first place. Very dangerous. You have to question how will it actually be used?
On the other hand, of course, it could do some good. And where legislation could do some good, we need to understand that, but we need to understand where it brings peril as well. But I want to go back to the definition issue. If you are going to legislate on anti-Semitism, you’re going to have to define what it is. And at the very least, at the very least, this legislation needs a more adequate definition of anti-Semitism.
The Canadian individual who is being represented by the lawyer that tried to sue Google:
Éloïse Boies
EloVeutSavoir
Elo Wants to Know Eloise Boies
https://twitter.com/EloVeut
Éloïse Boies
EloVeutSavoir
Elo Wants to Know Eloise Boies
https://twitter.com/EloVeut
One more reason as to why I don't trust academic research...
Higher Education Has a Quality Control Problem: Systemic Fraud Within Academic Journals
R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.
Well, a major publisher of academic papers is closing 19 academic journals. This would be Wiley, identified by the Wall Street Journal as a 217-year-old publisher based in Hoboken, New Jersey. On Tuesday this week, it announced it’s closing 19 journals, “some of which were infected by large scale research fraud.” Now, that’s shocking enough. We’re talking about 19 academic journals that are simply being closed because they’re so infected with fraud. But then the next sentence, “In the past two years, Wiley has attracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised according to a spokesperson and closed four journals.” The article goes on, “It isn’t alone. At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each, several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papers.”
Now, this is something I mentioned on The Briefing before, but it’s so important when you see a story like this. We need to pause and just reflect that this should change the way we hear certain news. This should change the way we hear certain claims bandied about. It is really interesting, and I mentioned this before, that as you look at much of the news or what’s called news, a lot of it is just picking up some kind of academic paper from somewhere, picking up some kind of research that was found somewhere, and then writing an article about how true this is. This is exactly what goes on over and over and over again. We are told X and then we find out, well, no, that’s not true. But it’s even more dangerous to be told something like X or Y or Z, and then, honestly, the paper was withdrawn because of research fraud and nobody tells you.
And so you just look at the number of headlines. About 42% of Americans say this or the vast majority of Americans say this or this particular drug was proved to be effective and all these different contexts and you just go down and then all of a sudden you realize, “Oh, that was withdrawn.” But we’re not talking about mistakes here. That’s what makes this article really interesting from a Christian worldview perspective. We’re not talking about mistakes. We’re talking about fraud. We’re talking about lies. We’re talking about misrepresentation. Something else we need to watch is that when you look at the amount of so-called research that’s being published these days, there is no way that anyone is monitoring the quality of all of this. I’ll simply say the vast majority of it is basically without any adequate quality control.
Now, you’d like to think that the closer you get to a big brand name, let’s just say Johns Hopkins University, famous for its medical research, you’d like to think that that would certainly ensure something. Harvard University, University of Chicago, Sloan Kettering Medical Center, I’m just mentioning those because they’re very established brands, but it turns out that some of those brands have been highly infected as well. You’re actually looking at some big names in the medical, pharmaceutical, and, say, medical research world that are having to look at perhaps even rebranding simply because they’ve been now discovered to be either the perpetrators or the victims of a vast amount of so-called research fraud.
Now, there are a lot of reasons to ask why would there be so much fraud? Why in this? I mean, it’s understandable why people would run illegal gambling organizations. You can see the commercial aspect. You can understand at least why bank robbers rob banks, but why exactly would you be so involved in academic fraud? I’ll tell you the reason and it’s this. The way forward in most academic cultures, the way towards tenure, the way towards long-term employment is to have a long, long list of published articles. In the scientific and technical fields, a long, long list of published research papers that you can attach to your application for a job or your application for tenure, and evaluation sometimes comes the very same way.
If you want to make the first cut, the second cut, the third cut, the fourth cut, you better be padding that list. A lot of it, quite frankly, is so technical that only someone who’s in that technical subspecialization has any idea what this is about anyway. The volume, because of the amount of academic production right now, the volume is so high, again, no one can keep up with it. No one can do the quality control. The big issue here is that some of this has real life impacts and real life. I don’t just mean who gets hired for the pyrotechnics department at university X. I mean, what drug are you given when you go in the hospital?
I mean, when you look at the big money behind so many of these, especially say pharmacological or pharmaceutical applications, there’s a big reason to perhaps hedge a bit on some of this research. Now, I do think that when you’re looking at, say, medical research and drug research, you’re probably looking at a far higher standard of peer review, a far higher standard of external review, and that’s why I think most of this fraud is going to be found at the periphery. But the periphery can be very, very dangerous, particularly because you have people who cite the study and they’re making an argument. If study X says this, then we should take step Y. But it’s true also that even as these papers have an impact and they become a part of the so-called research record, it’s also true that many of them are withdrawn.
We’re not talking about a few, we’re not talking about hundreds, we’re talking about thousands. By the way, if you catch thousands, well, here’s a hint. You’re looking at the tip of the iceberg of the problem. Now, Christians looking at this can say, “Well, this is just further evidence of a sinful world.” And of course it is, but it’s also evidence of the fact that sin comes with consequences and some of those consequences can eventually be life and death. There are all kinds of research projects that have led to huge public programs, huge government actions, and they’ve turned out to be wrong.
Now, of course, I’m not calling for absolute paralysis because we don’t know anything that’s not consistent with the Christian worldview either. But I am saying that in a fallen world where the perverse incentives are to publish or perish, you have an awful lot of people who are publishing what ought never to be published, making claims that ought never to be made, and asserting things that are simply taken by someone else to be true to potentially devastating effect. But it’s also just revealing the absolute moral vacuum at the heart of so much of higher education in the United States, where, honestly, so long as you have the citation, I think an awful lot of faculty colleagues don’t really care if it’s credible or not.
One paragraph in this Wall Street Journal article by Nidhi Subbaraman says, “The discovery of nearly 900 fraudulent papers in 2022 at IOP, that’s just one of these providers. 900 fraudulent papers in one year, 2022. We’re told that IOP Publishing is a physical science publisher.” We are told that the discovery of the nearly 900 fraudulent papers, “was a turning point for the nonprofit.” You think? A spokesperson for the company said, “That really crystallized for us. Everybody internally, everybody involved with the business, this is a real threat.” Well, thanks for waking up to that now. In moral terms, we need to recognize that, yeah, when you find out that something’s fraudulent, you need to withdraw the paper, but we need to recognize that damage is already done. Publishing the paper in the first place, publishing this supposed research in the first place makes all of these businesses, in some sense, culpable in the complexity of having presented what was absolutely not true, absolutely not credible and, in some cases, we simply have to know absolutely dangerous.
The systemic nature of the problem’s reflected in this statement, “Problematic papers typically appear in batches of up to hundreds or even thousands within a publisher or journal.” I continue, “A signature move is to submit the same paper to multiple journals at once to maximize the chance of getting in,” according to an industry trade group now monitoring the problem. “Publishers say some fraudsters have even posed as academics to secure spots as guest editors for special issues and organizers of conferences and then control the papers that are published there.” Seriously? We’re now told that there are fraudsters who aren’t even true academics who are becoming the hosts of meetings and the editors of special issues of these journals in order to publish papers that aren’t credible? Who is running this zoo? But then again, I have to be careful there because morally I insulted zoos everywhere with that comment.
(Evidence of what I've suspected for a long, long time!)
Higher Education Has a Quality Control Problem: Systemic Fraud Within Academic Journals
R. ALBERT MOHLER, JR.
Well, a major publisher of academic papers is closing 19 academic journals. This would be Wiley, identified by the Wall Street Journal as a 217-year-old publisher based in Hoboken, New Jersey. On Tuesday this week, it announced it’s closing 19 journals, “some of which were infected by large scale research fraud.” Now, that’s shocking enough. We’re talking about 19 academic journals that are simply being closed because they’re so infected with fraud. But then the next sentence, “In the past two years, Wiley has attracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised according to a spokesperson and closed four journals.” The article goes on, “It isn’t alone. At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each, several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papers.”
Now, this is something I mentioned on The Briefing before, but it’s so important when you see a story like this. We need to pause and just reflect that this should change the way we hear certain news. This should change the way we hear certain claims bandied about. It is really interesting, and I mentioned this before, that as you look at much of the news or what’s called news, a lot of it is just picking up some kind of academic paper from somewhere, picking up some kind of research that was found somewhere, and then writing an article about how true this is. This is exactly what goes on over and over and over again. We are told X and then we find out, well, no, that’s not true. But it’s even more dangerous to be told something like X or Y or Z, and then, honestly, the paper was withdrawn because of research fraud and nobody tells you.
And so you just look at the number of headlines. About 42% of Americans say this or the vast majority of Americans say this or this particular drug was proved to be effective and all these different contexts and you just go down and then all of a sudden you realize, “Oh, that was withdrawn.” But we’re not talking about mistakes here. That’s what makes this article really interesting from a Christian worldview perspective. We’re not talking about mistakes. We’re talking about fraud. We’re talking about lies. We’re talking about misrepresentation. Something else we need to watch is that when you look at the amount of so-called research that’s being published these days, there is no way that anyone is monitoring the quality of all of this. I’ll simply say the vast majority of it is basically without any adequate quality control.
Now, you’d like to think that the closer you get to a big brand name, let’s just say Johns Hopkins University, famous for its medical research, you’d like to think that that would certainly ensure something. Harvard University, University of Chicago, Sloan Kettering Medical Center, I’m just mentioning those because they’re very established brands, but it turns out that some of those brands have been highly infected as well. You’re actually looking at some big names in the medical, pharmaceutical, and, say, medical research world that are having to look at perhaps even rebranding simply because they’ve been now discovered to be either the perpetrators or the victims of a vast amount of so-called research fraud.
Now, there are a lot of reasons to ask why would there be so much fraud? Why in this? I mean, it’s understandable why people would run illegal gambling organizations. You can see the commercial aspect. You can understand at least why bank robbers rob banks, but why exactly would you be so involved in academic fraud? I’ll tell you the reason and it’s this. The way forward in most academic cultures, the way towards tenure, the way towards long-term employment is to have a long, long list of published articles. In the scientific and technical fields, a long, long list of published research papers that you can attach to your application for a job or your application for tenure, and evaluation sometimes comes the very same way.
If you want to make the first cut, the second cut, the third cut, the fourth cut, you better be padding that list. A lot of it, quite frankly, is so technical that only someone who’s in that technical subspecialization has any idea what this is about anyway. The volume, because of the amount of academic production right now, the volume is so high, again, no one can keep up with it. No one can do the quality control. The big issue here is that some of this has real life impacts and real life. I don’t just mean who gets hired for the pyrotechnics department at university X. I mean, what drug are you given when you go in the hospital?
I mean, when you look at the big money behind so many of these, especially say pharmacological or pharmaceutical applications, there’s a big reason to perhaps hedge a bit on some of this research. Now, I do think that when you’re looking at, say, medical research and drug research, you’re probably looking at a far higher standard of peer review, a far higher standard of external review, and that’s why I think most of this fraud is going to be found at the periphery. But the periphery can be very, very dangerous, particularly because you have people who cite the study and they’re making an argument. If study X says this, then we should take step Y. But it’s true also that even as these papers have an impact and they become a part of the so-called research record, it’s also true that many of them are withdrawn.
We’re not talking about a few, we’re not talking about hundreds, we’re talking about thousands. By the way, if you catch thousands, well, here’s a hint. You’re looking at the tip of the iceberg of the problem. Now, Christians looking at this can say, “Well, this is just further evidence of a sinful world.” And of course it is, but it’s also evidence of the fact that sin comes with consequences and some of those consequences can eventually be life and death. There are all kinds of research projects that have led to huge public programs, huge government actions, and they’ve turned out to be wrong.
Now, of course, I’m not calling for absolute paralysis because we don’t know anything that’s not consistent with the Christian worldview either. But I am saying that in a fallen world where the perverse incentives are to publish or perish, you have an awful lot of people who are publishing what ought never to be published, making claims that ought never to be made, and asserting things that are simply taken by someone else to be true to potentially devastating effect. But it’s also just revealing the absolute moral vacuum at the heart of so much of higher education in the United States, where, honestly, so long as you have the citation, I think an awful lot of faculty colleagues don’t really care if it’s credible or not.
One paragraph in this Wall Street Journal article by Nidhi Subbaraman says, “The discovery of nearly 900 fraudulent papers in 2022 at IOP, that’s just one of these providers. 900 fraudulent papers in one year, 2022. We’re told that IOP Publishing is a physical science publisher.” We are told that the discovery of the nearly 900 fraudulent papers, “was a turning point for the nonprofit.” You think? A spokesperson for the company said, “That really crystallized for us. Everybody internally, everybody involved with the business, this is a real threat.” Well, thanks for waking up to that now. In moral terms, we need to recognize that, yeah, when you find out that something’s fraudulent, you need to withdraw the paper, but we need to recognize that damage is already done. Publishing the paper in the first place, publishing this supposed research in the first place makes all of these businesses, in some sense, culpable in the complexity of having presented what was absolutely not true, absolutely not credible and, in some cases, we simply have to know absolutely dangerous.
The systemic nature of the problem’s reflected in this statement, “Problematic papers typically appear in batches of up to hundreds or even thousands within a publisher or journal.” I continue, “A signature move is to submit the same paper to multiple journals at once to maximize the chance of getting in,” according to an industry trade group now monitoring the problem. “Publishers say some fraudsters have even posed as academics to secure spots as guest editors for special issues and organizers of conferences and then control the papers that are published there.” Seriously? We’re now told that there are fraudsters who aren’t even true academics who are becoming the hosts of meetings and the editors of special issues of these journals in order to publish papers that aren’t credible? Who is running this zoo? But then again, I have to be careful there because morally I insulted zoos everywhere with that comment.
(Evidence of what I've suspected for a long, long time!)
Actor Wesley Snipes was cleared of serious tax charges and avoided a 16-year prison sentence while represented by Barnes, who also helped "Girls Gone Wild" producer Joe Francis avoid a $20 million IRS payment and walk away with a $2,500 fine.
(Snipes was convicted on misdemeanor charges of willful failure to file federal income tax returns in 2008, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. After an unsuccessful appeal, he served 28 months in federal prison. He was released in April 2013.)