Is religion honest?

Most religious adherents would be aghast if one suggested that they, or their religion, were fundamentally and consistently dishonest. However I believe that is indeed the case. I read a comment on a recent blog post by Ed Brayton (honesty vs intellectually honest). Ed's post argued about the distinction between honesty and intellectual honesty, and noted that intellectual honesty must recognize not only the arguments in support of a position, but also any evidence or arguments against that position. One of the commenters (Sastra) then made the following case that faith was fundamentally intellectually dishonest:

[...] An intellectually dishonest person blurs the distinction [between being intellectually honest, and being emotionally honest], and seems to confuse fact claims with meaning or value claims. To a person who places emphasis on emotional honesty, strength of conviction is evidence. An attack on an idea, then, is an attack on the person who holds it. The idea is true because it's emotionally fulfilling: intentions and sincerity matter the most. Therefore, you don't question, search, or respect dissent. A person who is trying to change your mind, is trying to change you. For example, I consider religious faith [...] to be intellectually dishonest. It is, however, sincerely emotionally honest. [...] "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of what is not seen." There's a huge emotional component to it, so that one chooses to keep faith in X, the way one might remain loyal to a friend. You defend him with ingenuity and love, finding reasons to explain or excuse evidence against him. He cannot fail: you, however, can fail him, by allowing yourself to be lead into doubt. Being able to spin any result into support then is a sign of good will, loyalty, reliability, and the ability to stand fast. The focus isn't on establishing what's true, but on establishing that you can be "true." This emotional honesty may or may not be rewarded: the real point, I think, is to value it for its own sake, as a fulfillment of a perceived duty.
This is exactly the case with religion, and religious adherents. Their faith in their god is entirely emotional, and no amount of material evidence will alter their belief. They may be entirely honest in their belief, and may be entirely honest in their objection to evidence (cf Karl, Rabel, Walter, et al) but in doing so are being intellectually dishonest, because they refuse to recognize valid and entirely relevant evidence - they conflate with great consistency and verve fact claims with value claims, and deny any difference between them stating it's all 'interpretation'. No, it isn't all interpretation. It's dishonesty.

Continue ReadingIs religion honest?

An army of 50,000 highly motivated citizens condemning health care reform

Who are all of those outspoken citizens attending the town hall meetings where health care reform is ostensibly being discussed? The Raw Story reports that 50,000 of them are not simply concerned citizens:

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s trade group, admitted in an article published Monday that as many as 50,000 industry employees are involved in an effort to fight back against aggressive healthcare reform . . . “The health-insurance industry is sending thousands of its employees to town-hall meetings and other forums during Congress’s August recess to try to counter a tide of criticism directed at the insurers . . . Employees of the health insurers have also been given talking points . . .
Question: Who is more motivated to show up and speak up at public meetings concerning health care? A) Ordinary citizens or B) Employees of health care insurers who are being PAID to show up and who are being provided talking points? The obvious answer is B), and they are contaminating discussions from coast to coast. The bottom line is that what is going on is not honest spirited debate out at town halls. Rather, what we are being subjected to is corrupted debate, to match the corrupted debate inside of Congress, where six highly paid health care lobbyists are assigned to each member of Congress, as reported by the LA Times:
Every one of those 534 members of Congress now has six (6!) lobbyists working on them -- and that's just for healthcare. A total of 3,300 lobbyists have registered to drive the sizzling healthcare issue in Washington -- three times the brigade of lobbyists representing the entire defense industry.
It makes you want to throw up your hands (and sometimes, just throw up), thinking that we are sending sheep to the wolves whenever we hope that regular folks would be able to make as much focused noise on the topic of health care reform (and especially health care insurance reform) against financially motivated and highly-trained armies who are not attending these meetings to do anything other than advocate the pre-determined positions of their employer corporations and to prevent any meaningful discussion. Based on what I am reading and hearing, the presence of these highly vocal and highly biased participants is all the worse because they aren't identifying themselves as such at public hearings. In most things, we ask people of bias to identify themselves, because we should downplay the positions of biased people, because they are less trustworthy. They should be impeached for their positions of biased, the way we impeach biased witnesses in courtrooms. But there is no practical way to identify these financially motivated people at town hall meetings. They are presenting themselves are neutral ordinary citizens when they are anything but. For me, this "health care" debate is increasingly turning into a question of how (or whether) we are able to have any meaningful national discussion where one of the sides is financially powerful. This is especially a concern where investigative reporting is disappearing (but thank you, LA Times).

Continue ReadingAn army of 50,000 highly motivated citizens condemning health care reform

Glenn Greenwald: the retired military analysts story continues to be censored by the networks

Glenn Greenwald has posted another excellent report on corruption of the corporate media. Here's the background. In 2008, the NYT's David Barstow broke the story of how retired generals posing as media analysts, "had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended." Barstow's story received extremely limited play by the corporate electronic media. Even though Barstow has now won a Pulitzer Prize, his story about the analysts is still being censored. By whom? By the television networks that made unethical use of the generals' highly biased analyses.

By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. They kept completely silent about Barstow's story even though it sparked Congressional inquiries, vehement objections from the then-leading Democratic presidential candidates, and allegations that the Pentagon program violated legal prohibitions on domestic propaganda programs.

As Greenwald reports, these networks are now adding insult to injury. They are not even reporting on the basis for Barstow's Pulitzer.

The outright refusal of any of these "news organizations" even to mention what Barstow uncovered about the Pentagon's propaganda program and the way it infected their coverage is one of the most illuminating events revealing how they operate. So transparently corrupt and journalistically disgraceful is their blackout of this story that even Howard Kurtz and Politico -- that's Howard Kurtz and Politico -- lambasted them for this concealment.

Greenwald provides lots of details in his article, and numerous relevant links.

Continue ReadingGlenn Greenwald: the retired military analysts story continues to be censored by the networks

Why is a tax cut for 98% of Americans being attacked as a tax hike?

Media Matters is asking why a tax cut for 98% of Americans is being attacked as a tax hike. Short answer: because it disproportionately affects those with disproportionate power to control the media.

Last week, President Obama unveiled a budget outline that extends the Bush tax cuts for all but the top two percent of taxpayers and makes permanent a tax credit of up to $800 for low- and middle-income workers that was included in the recent stimulus package, among other tax cuts.

On the other hand, individual taxpayers with taxable income above $200,000 ($250,000 for families) per year would pay more in taxes under Obama's plan, under which the tax rates paid on income in the top brackets would revert to their levels under President Clinton in the 1990s -- from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent. Slate.com's Daniel Gross estimates that for someone with $350,000 in income, this will amount to about $1,500 a year in increased taxes.

But the media, eager to hype their bogus "war on the wealthy" storyline, have portrayed it as a tax increase.

Media Matters gives lots of details substantiating its observation that several major media outlets have been busy spinning the news rather than reporting it.

Continue ReadingWhy is a tax cut for 98% of Americans being attacked as a tax hike?

No pity for FOX “news”

Quite predictably, FOX didn' "hear" any of these protesters address any real issues.  That's because FOX doesn't want to hear things like "Stop the War" and "Stop the torture."   [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDGhs_LN7Fk&eurl[/youtube] FOX got exactly the chant it deserved at the end of this video.   That's some free speech for you, FOX. …

Continue ReadingNo pity for FOX “news”