Ben Stein: "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed"

[joeb]

To call ownership of anything selfishness is to look through a lens of ideology that causes the loss of rational thought.  In heaven we will own multiple homes.  We will also own what we build and produce for God says His elect will long enjoy what they produce with their own hands. 

Ownership isn't selfishness.  There is no commandment against it.  There are commandments against envy, greed, theft, etc....  Those concepts are only possible if there is private ownership of property for you cannot envy or steal what someone else does not own. 

The issues that arise in a capitalistic economy exist in a socialistic economy too.  They exist under all forms of government for they spring from sinful human nature.  In our world only one economic system has led to liberty, and that system is capitalism.  All other forms of economic systems lead to totalitarianism which is truly the devil's way of doing things.  He is the one who rules by force, not by the drawing power of love.  Thus, to say that capitalism is his idea is foolish.  He knows better than anyone else that a house divided cannot stand, and he would be working against his own kingdom to introduce religious, political and economic liberty.  All of those concepts are concepts he hates. 

By the way, why don't you who disagree with me show how God did not set up a system of private ownership?  I know why.  You cannot.  There is no evidence for it.  Read everything Jesus said while on this earth and He never once said that to own something is wrong.  If ownership is evil would He not have thoroughly exposed such an evil?  He opposed all forms of evil, but He did not oppose private property in any way.

[Bravus]

We seem to be wandering away from the topic a bit, to capitalism and Sunday Laws.

To respond to Mark's comments above, a couple of things. First, if there is genuine discrimination happening, I'm agin it. I believe in academic freedom and the ability to pursue unpopular ideas and support them.

But second, you can't argue for the truth with lies... or with distortions, exaggerations or misunderstandings.

Most of the cases in Ben Stein's movie are of either sessional (casual, adjunct) staff who taught creationism or ID and were not engaged again the next year to teach or of junior faculty who did not get tenure or promotion.

In each case, the claim is that this is due to the creationist or ID views, but as an inside observer of academia, I can tell you something: sessional staff are *often* not hired again, for all sorts of reasons. In fact, it's the most usual outcome. If their student evaluations are poor - and that could be based on boring lectures, poor preparation, turning up late, slow marking or a plethora of other factors - they won't be asked back. If they were just teaching the course to cover the leave of an on-going academic staff member and that person returns, they won't be asked back. And so on. Plenty of reasons... and the movie just takes their word for why they weren't re-engaged. Are *they* going to say 'well, it was because I was rude and condescending to students and never honoured my office hours'? Much more fulfilling to claim persecution.

The same things apply to tenure and promotion: those things are *tough* to get in a modern university, and require excellent performance in teaching, research and service to the university. Did these people publish enough high quality papers in high quality journals to earn promotion? Did they serve with distinction on university committees? Again, there can be many reasons that people miss out, having nothing to do with their views. I know: it's taken me 10 years to get my promotion to Associate Professor, across two universities, despite being one of the top teachers and research producers on all measures.

As I say, if there's real discrimination, that's not something I support. But it's important to understand that most of the cases cited in this movie simply do not meet that standard.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Bravus
I was wearing a big warm dressing gown and the heavy sleeve lay on the Enter button and made lots of blank lines!

[Bravus]

joeb, the problem, again, is that you acknowledge only two extremes, not a continuum. 

Socialised medicine is socialism, and is very successfully pursued in Australia, England and Canada. We get better overall health outcomes for half the price per person. This is not totalitarianism.

I agree that God created a system of private ownership. He also created a system of checks and balances - the jubilee, prohibiting usury, gleaning privileges. We're not talking communal ownership (although extended families owned property in common with a patriarch exercising control), but private ownership.

The thing is, that's exactly what I'm advocating: capitalism with checks and balances. Because you see only a binary, you can't see how some socialist mechanisms can be successfully combined with capitalism.

In America, who owns the roads, and the national parks, and the military? They are collectively owned. How could they be otherwise. Would you really like to see the military privatised? Owning some things collectively as a people just works better, for all sorts of reasons. Our discussion is not about *whether* a blend of capitalism and socialism is possible - it clearly is, because it's what America has successfully been doing since it was founded. It's just about what mix we have - whether particular facets operate more effectively under public or private ownership.

[joeb]

joeb, the problem, again, is that you acknowledge only two extremes, not a continuum. 

Socialised medicine is socialism, and is very successfully pursued in Australia, England and Canada. We get better overall health outcomes for half the price per person. This is not totalitarianism.

I agree that God created a system of private ownership. He also created a system of checks and balances - the jubilee, prohibiting usury, gleaning privileges. We're not talking communal ownership (although extended families owned property in common with a patriarch exercising control), but private ownership.

The thing is, that's exactly what I'm advocating: capitalism with checks and balances. Because you see only a binary, you can't see how some socialist mechanisms can be successfully combined with capitalism.

In America, who owns the roads, and the national parks, and the military? They are collectively owned. How could they be otherwise. Would you really like to see the military privatised? Owning some things collectively as a people just works better, for all sorts of reasons. Our discussion is not about *whether* a blend of capitalism and socialism is possible - it clearly is, because it's what America has successfully been doing since it was founded. It's just about what mix we have - whether particular facets operate more effectively under public or private ownership.

I think you need to go back and study US history once again.  Go read Alexis de Toqueville's American Institutions and Their Influence.  It comes from his on-site study of the US in the 1820s only 30 years from the adoption of the Consitution.    The US Constitution is based on Indivualism which is antithetical to collectivism, and the US has moved a long ways towards collectivism since the early 1900's.  To say that this movement is the direction our founders proposed to go is to ignore the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The moves in the US towards collectivism have time and again by made by ignoring our Consititution, and thus ignoring the very foundation of our country.

You can get de Toqueville's book from Project Gutenberg. 

 

[Robert]

Ownership isn't selfishness.  There is no commandment against it. 

Ownership by what means, self-seeking & self-interest? 

In heaven your homes are given you as a free-gift (just like salvation).

And, like the church in Acts, you won't think egocentric as in "my home".  In fact that had "all things in common".  

Besides the moral law condemns self-love.  

Edited September 7, 2015 by Robert

[joeb]

Ownership by what means, self-seeking & self-interest? 

In heaven your homes are given you as a free-gift (just like salvation).

And, like the church in Acts, you won't think egocentric as in "my home".  In fact that had "all things in common".  

Besides the moral law condemns self-love.  

No Robert, the moral law condemns not loving your neighbor as much as you love yourself.  Your ideological filters are pushing you into irrationality again .  Jesus said that the Golden Rule is the fulfilling of the law.  That's so far away from your distortions that it's impossible to miss the difference.

[Bravus]

Was the military ever private and did the Framers intend it to be?

[Robert]

 He opposed all forms of evil, but He did not oppose private property in any way.

Luke 12:15 "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

Acts 4:32  "All the believers were one in heart and mind (i.e., there was unity). No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."

Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. 

Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.  34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matt 19:17 If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 

 

Edited September 7, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

We seem to be wandering away from the topic a bit, to capitalism and Sunday Laws.

Back to topic. ...maybe

Edited September 7, 2015 by Robert

[joeb]

Robert,

Is heaven a reward?  That's what the Bible says it is.  Thus, our homes in heaven are our reward for acknowledging God's rulership.  

 

Reward
Reward Re*ward", n. [See Reward, v., and cf. Regard, n.]
 1. Regard; respect; consideration. [Obs.]
 [1913 Webster]

 Take reward of thine own value. --Chaucer.
 [1913 Webster]

 2. That which is given in return for good or evil done or
 received; esp., that which is offered or given in return
 for some service or attainment, as for excellence in
 studies, for the return of something lost, etc.;
 recompense; requital.
 [1913 Webster]

 Thou returnest
 From flight, seditious angel, to receive
 Thy merited reward. --Milton.
 [1913 Webster]

 Rewards and punishments do always presuppose
 something willingly done well or ill. --Hooker.
 [1913 Webster]

 3. Hence, the fruit of one's labor or works.
 [1913 Webster]

 The dead know not anything, neither have they any
 more a reward. --Eccl. ix. 5.
 [1913 Webster]

 4. (Law) Compensation or remuneration for services; a sum of
 money paid or taken for doing, or forbearing to do, some
 act. --Burrill.
 [1913 Webster]

 Syn: Recompense; compensation; remuneration; pay; requital;
 retribution; punishment.
 [1913 Webster]
 
    -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Reward Re*ward", v. t. [imp. & p. p. Rewarded; p. pr. & vb.
 n. Rewarding.] [OF. rewarder, another form of regarder, of
 German origin. The original sense is, to look at, regard,
 hence, to regard as worthy, give a reward to. See Ward,
 Regard.]
 To give in return, whether good or evil; -- commonly in a
 good sense; to requite; to recompense; to repay; to
 compensate.
 [1913 Webster]

 After the deed that is done, one doom shall reward,
 Mercy or no mercy as truth will accord. --Piers
 Plowman.
 [1913 Webster]

 Thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded
 thee evil. --1 Sam. xxiv.
 17.
 [1913 Webster]

 I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will
 reward them that hate me. --Deut. xxxii.
 41.
 [1913 Webster]

 God rewards those that have made use of the single
 talent. --Hammond.
 [1913 Webster]
 
    -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

So what is a reward?  Payment for something done.  Recompense, compensation.  Thus, what we have in heaven is something given to us as payment.  Something we earned for following God against all the evidence of our senses. 

 

 

  Revelation 22:12  “Behold, ^*xvI am coming soon, ^*xwbringing my recompense with me, ^*xxto repay everyone for what he has done.  ESV

Recompense
Recompense Rec"om*pense (r[e^]k"[o^]m*p[e^]ns), v. t. [imp. &
 p. p. Recompensed (-p?nst); p. pr. & vb. n. Recompensing
 (-p?n`s?ng).] [F. r['e]compenser, LL. recompensare, fr.L.
 pref. re- re- + compensare to compensate. See Compensate.]
 1. To render an equivalent to, for service, loss, etc.; to
 requite; to remunerate; to compensate.
 [1913 Webster]

 He can not recompense me better. --Shak.
 [1913 Webster]

 2. To return an equivalent for; to give compensation for; to
 atone for; to pay for.
 [1913 Webster]

 God recompenseth the gift. --Robynson
 (More's
 Utopia).
 [1913 Webster]

 To recompense
 My rash, but more unfortunate, misdeed. --Milton.
 [1913 Webster]

 3. To give in return; to pay back; to pay, as something
 earned or deserved. [R.]
 [1913 Webster]

 Recompense to no man evil for evil. --Rom. xii.
 17.
 [1913 Webster]

 Syn: To repay; requite; compensate; reward; remunerate.
 [1913 Webster]
 
    -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

A recompense, a reward, is something that a person that recieves owns as his own from then on, especially when that is recompense is physical property or it is no recompense at all.. 

[Robert]

capitalism with checks and balances.

Capitalism without these is pure greed (evil).  In fact it's called "Laissez-faire Captalism".  In fact Ayn Rand promoted such...Pure greed...nothing heavenly about it at all.

[Bravus]

Maybe we take this discussion of capitalism and socialism to the already-established 'Socialism' thread in Politics?

I'd quite like to discuss the movie and the issues it raises in more detail...

[Robert]

Robert,

Is heaven a reward? 

No, heaven is a gift because you have believed in Christ Jesus.  You can earn nothing....

[Robert]

So what is a reward?  Payment for something done.

Oh boy...here goes....Let me guess, God owes you?

[Robert]

Maybe we take this discussion of capitalism and socialism to the already-established 'Socialism' thread in Politics?

I'd quite like to discuss the movie and the issues it raises in more detail...

Yes, perhaps that would be a good idea....

[LifeHiscost]

BTW, I don't recall any seven year policy in the U.S. capitalist system, when the debtors could get their indebtedness wiped clean, something set up in God's early Israelite economy.

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[phkrause]

BTW, I don't recall any seven year policy in the U.S. capitalist system, when the debtors could get their indebtedness wiped clean, something set up in God's early Israelite economy.

Absolutely correct, there is no system that was/has been setup by man that will ever compare to what God had tried to have his people do. Even there greed ended that system.

[joeb]

BTW, I don't recall any seven year policy in the U.S. capitalist system, when the debtors could get their indebtedness wiped clean, something set up in God's early Israelite economy.

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

First, it was a 50 year period between years of Jubilee.  Second, all of that was accomplished within the free market system God set up.  God did not set up a centrally planned government.  It was a government far closer to anarchy on the scale of the size and power of government than to what a socialist thinks of as government.  He also did not set up a system of taxation to deal with poverty.  He set it up so that family and neighbors were responsible for taking care of those going through hard times.   The commands about how much a person was to give were also very vague.  How big an area is a "corner" of a field?  Only the conscience and love in the heart of the owner could determine that.  How much fruit was left on a tree after it was picked to be gleaned?  Once again, it was a matter of individual conscience.  

Your arguments for ancient Isreal being socialist in nature are way, way off.  They do not correspond with the Biblical evidence.

Individualism and capitalism are not signs of evil.  Christianity and its view of the conscience is parallel to the viewpoint of individualism.  In fact, that's where the originators of individualism came up with their philosophy.  Read a book titled Individualism and Economic Order by Friedrich Hayek.  It's a free download from the Mises Institute.  The first chapter, titled "Individualism: True and False", is the pertinet chapter.  If you do not see the Christian viewpoint of ethics in that chapter it's because you don't want to.  It's too clear to be missed.  Democracy is based upon individualism too.  Is that also evil? 

Why did I bring up individualism?  Because the society God set up was individualistic in nature for it depended upon personal morality, the individual's conscience, to succeed.  When the Isrealites asked for a central government God said they had rejected Him.  Think about this....

[Tom Wetmore]

LifeHiscost wasn't referring to the Jubilee year.  He was speaking of the Sabbatical Year regulations.

Deuteronomy 15:1-6 - debts were to be cancelled in the seventh year.  Slaves were to be freed in the seventh year.  The year of Jubilee had to do more with land and property rights.

[LoneRanger]

...especially when it is recognized we have lost more freedoms in the last 25 years than in the former 200 years.

Could you elaborate, please.  What freedoms have we lost?

[LifeHiscost]

Could you elaborate, please.  What freedoms have we lost?

This might be of some advantage if you wish to pursue it, but although since I'm one of those who believes God, I find little excuse to complain. In fact when following world news I believe I have an undeniably comfortable existence as compared to 90% of the world's population.

  

Americans Have Lost VIRTUALLY ALL of Our Constitutional Rights

 

This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.  (This is an updated version of an essay we wrote in February.  Unfortunately, a lot of information has come out since then.)

 

 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/americans-have-lost-virtually-all-of-our-constitutional-rights.html 

1Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, 2to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.....Titus 3

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[LifeHiscost]

To call ownership of anything selfishness is to look through a lens of ideology that causes the loss of rational thought.  In heaven we will own multiple homes.  We will also own what we build and produce for God says His elect will long enjoy what they produce with their own hands. 

Ownership isn't selfishness.  There is no commandment against it.  There are commandments against envy, greed, theft, etc....  Those concepts are only possible if there is private ownership of property for you cannot envy or steal what someone else does not own. 

 

.  There is no evidence for it.  Read everything Jesus said while on this earth and He never once said that to own something is wrong.

Not to mention if ownership were a nono, how would one hope to see these instructions come to pass.

:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:....Matthew  

 

¹⁰ Bring all the tithes into the storehouse,
That there may be food in My house,
And try Me now in this,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“If I will not open for you the windows of heaven
And pour out for you such blessing
That there will not be room enough to receive it.

¹¹ “And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes,
So that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground,
Nor shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field,”
Says the Lord of hosts;....Malachi 3

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

[LoneRanger]

Perhaps I should have asked "who is 'WE'"?