Wouldn't a Healthcare Riot Be Fun?

I think I just experienced my first push poll. This is probably because I'm still registered as a Republican even though I'm not homophobic, xenophobic, or Xian, and I don't tell or believe lies that are labeled as facts (these appear to be the current prerequisites for membership). My wife and I just decided long ago that one would register as a Dem. and the other as GOP to get all the voting info from both parties. I lost the coin toss.

Anyway, the phone rang this afternoon (I wish I'd paid more attention before I realized what was happening) and a woman's voice asked me to participate in a poll, she then ask me something like "Do you believe the government is being reckless in their handling of health-care?" I said "no", and she said "thanks", and hung up.

It's my understanding that a push poll usually has only one question, and the intention is not to get the called person's opinion, but to plant an idea in the person's head; in this case that the new health-care legislation is reckless and will jeopardize my health insurance. Probably the most famous push poll was right before the SC primary in 2000, when a "pollster" called people all over So. Carolina and asked if they knew that John McCain had fathered a black child. G. W. Bush's win in that primary is attributed to that push poll.

By comparison, this one question poll was pretty darn subtle and obviously some people are still trying to screw up health care legislation every way they can, but this conservative win-at-all-costs attitude is enabling the lunatic fringe. The resulting tumult is building some very scary momentum. Booths are set outside town hall meetings offering info that perpetuates the lies about death panels, euthanasia, ruination of medicare, etc. Signs depict Obama as Hitler, accuse him of taking not just their health care, but their religion, their guns, their money and their civil rights. People are screaming in the meetings and carrying guns outside.

We have healthcare execs financing disinformation to protect their multi-billion dollar profits, conservative politicians gleefully egging them on because they think of a failure of the plan as a personal victory, pundits spewing lies and hate to feed their own huge egos and show ratings and the victims of these puppet-master wannabees are frightened, frustrated, misinformed people who are on the verge of blind rage and could become homicidally violent at any moment.

There is a point where manipulating political facts for personal ends turns to inciting riots and conspiring to commit murder and I hope we're not as close to that point as it appears. Not that any of those doing the pot-stirring would admit any guilt, but I'd like to know how many murders and injuries do they think a political victory is worth? Also, if the victims arrive at the hospital without health insurance as a result of their machinations, is that a victory too?

The Health Care Spit Ball Fight

I've been trying to understand the proposed National health care plan and I was inspired to dig a little more today after Hemant Mehta brought up the subject on Friendly Atheist. Two of the most important things I learned today are; there is no such thing as "Obama's health plan" in that the current plan as written came from congress, not the President, and those who oppose the health care plan tell blatant lies to frighten people into opposing the plan.

Some good information can be found in an article in Yahoo news and from Politifact.com that indicate that many of the opponents of health care are not interested in objective discussion of pros and cons, they just want to be destructive. Why else would they say so many things that are completely false.

Part of the problem is that too many politicians, pundits and voters view politics as an us-against-them rivalry. The only goal is for the home team to win and the opposing team to lose and if lying, cheating and stealing are necessary to win, that's what you do for the sake of the team. It doesn't matter that legislation may benefit all Americans,if the opposing team wants it, they must be prevented from getting it or the home team loses.

It is as if the US' political system has created a government and constituency with a mean emotional age of twelve. The kids on this side of the street hate the kids on the other side of the street. What ever they like we hate, what ever they want to do we want to prevent and if they try to make friends, run away because they have cooties. Decisions are so much easier if you just do what your party or favorite pundit says and as you lay dying from a preventable disease for lack of health care, you can reassure yourself that it would have been worse if the other team had won.

Is It Sometimes OK for Christians to Lie?

I posted this in the Rational Responders Forum, but if anyone blunders onto this blog, please leave a comment here:
I hope some of the theists out there can enlighten me on this matter: I was recently loaned a copy of "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel and as I read, I checked the footnotes. What I found was that every single quote from a credible scientific source that I checked in the first three chapters (I gave up after that) was taken out of context and/or a misrepresentation of the source material. Strobel gave quotes from scientists as examples of evolution text books advocating atheism, when the quotes were actually from articles written about atheism, not evolution, and not included in any text book. He edited quotes so they appeared to say the opposite of their original meanings, he read things into analogies that were never intended, and he farmed quotes from other ID books rather than going to the primary sources. Furthermore he interviewed “open-minded scientists” (his term for ones that are open to a possibility of a creator) who all actually come from the Discovery Institute where the main goal is to promote creationism, and who published Strobel’s book. That doesn’t sound open-minded or unbiased to me. Don’t take my word for it, check for yourself.
Over the years, several creationist Christians have loaned me books that argued against evolution and all the books have followed the same pattern. I don’t blame the readers, they have no reason to assume that the authors are intentionally deceptive, but as one who has read the sources that are being quoted, the lies are blatant. Also, if Strobel read the source material he quoted, then he knows that misrepresentation was his intention. So, my question is: Do Christians think that lying is acceptable, as long as it helps them reinforce their religious doctrine? Do the Ten Commandments only apply when truth helps you win an argument?
I ask this partly because atheists like me, are often told that without religion they have no morality, yet I don’t need the threat of eternal damnation to know lying is immoral. So why do the producers of books (and articles and videos and websites) written by Christians, published by Christians and marketed primarily to Christians think this is acceptable and within the framework of good Christianity? By the way, can anyone direct me to an honest creationist book?

Fundies Cheat

My nephew loaned me a copy of The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel so I decided I would write down all the inaccuracies, quotes out of context, and intentional misrepresentations. After one chapter I almost died of terminal writer’s cramp. For many who argue against evolution, I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. I think the average creationist just regurgitates what he has read in books recommended by his church, although I do wish one of these fundies would actually check the footnotes.
Lee Strobel and xian apologists like him are different. Strobel obviously looked for at least part of his own source material, so he knows where he’s taken things out of context or intentionally misrepresented things. The whole book is based on interviews with “open minded scientists”, but nowhere does he mention that everyone he interviewed worked for the Discovery Institute, a group whose whole purpose is to force intelligent design into the public school curriculum. So I think it’s safe to say that Lee Strobel is a big fat liar liar pants on fire.
This is a pattern I see again and again; if evangelical xians cannot accomplish their goals honestly, they never hesitate to lie, misrepresent facts, and engage in attacks on their opponents. Don’t they realize that “the ends justify the means” is from Machiavelli not Mathew? Their books are not the only place they resort to these questionable tactics. When the school board of Dover, PA was sued for trying to inject religion into the curriculum, the board members put their hands on the bible and swore to tell the truth, then promptly lied their asses off. When Judge Roy Moore dumped a rock carved with the ten commandments in his courthouse, he insisted along with his backers (all evangelical xians) that the rock was a secular symbol and to prove it, the xians formed a prayer circle around the rock to pray for the protection of their secular symbol. If they had bothered to read the ten commandments they’d have known that they are forbidden to lie or create and worship graven images.
When proponents of evolution argue against the fundamentalists, they have to dot every I and cross every T to insure that their arguments leave no flaws that the fundies can blow out of proportion. But the xians can lie, make things up, and attribute false statements to anyone they want. Then they follow up their web of lies by insisting that atheist have no morality.