Republicans, religion and the triumph of unreason

How do they train themselves to be so impervious to reality?

This tendency to simply deny inconvenient facts and invent a fantasy world isn't new; it's only becoming more heightened. It ran through the Bush years like a dash of bourbon in water. When it became clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, the US right simply claimed they had been shipped to Syria. When the scientific evidence for man-made global warming became unanswerable, they claimed – as one Republican congressman put it – ... Full Story »

Posted by Chris Finnie
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Chris Finnie - Aug 19, 2009 - 8:26 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Aug 19, 2009 - 5:28 PM PDT

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Lrwsd_thumb
4.9
by Lynn R. Willis - Aug. 19, 2009

As opinion, this piece is superb. It lays out for all to see the absurdity, irrationality and just plain peevishness of folks from Congress on down who can't stand not to be in charge. I do think, however, that Mr. Hari went a bit overboard when he painted ALL of these right-wing naysayers as dupes of "faith." Not all of us for whom (religious) faith is important are irrational, nor are all of us Republicans. I'd suggest that Mr. Hari review the list of logical fallacies and check ... More »

See Full Review » (18 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
4.5
by Chris Finnie - Aug. 19, 2009

So many good quotes that I had a really hard time picking just one. Hari nails both U.S. political parties and the U.S. media--the Republicans for their refusal to accept reality-based policies, the Democrats for letting them get away with it, and the media for abdicating their responsibility to call a fact a fact and delusion just that.

They are taught from a young age that it is good to have “faith” – which is, by definition, a belief without any evidence to back it up. You don’t have ... More »

See Full Review » (15 answers)
P1000885-2_thumb
4.3
by Patricia L'Herrou - Aug. 19, 2009

a perspective on what's happening in our health-care debate which, as the writer points out,uses to its advantage the mainstream media because it's tendency is to simply present 'rival sides' as if both were equal. the writer also points to the political cynicism of many major right-wing individuals, using quotes from the bush administration.

See Full Review » (8 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
4.7
by Dwight Rousu - Aug. 19, 2009

Excellent insight and realistic view from across the pond. Highly recommended.

“The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital.” More »

See Full Review » (17 answers)
Photo_84_thumb
5.0
by Doug Greer - Sep. 7, 2009

There is no way to expand healthcare without angering Big Pharma and the Republicaloons. So be it. As Arianna Huffington put it, “It is as though, at the height of ... More »

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Profajv_thumb
2.2
by Andrew Van Camp - Aug. 19, 2009

This is a good example of bad journalism. The author is guilty of the very sin complained about. Take away the name calling, snide remarks, irrelevant dogmatic views about the Iraq war and impertinent insinuations about religion (none of which is helpful in a debate on health care) and you are left with only one or two premises stated as fact (yet not sourced and likely untrue): namely that 50 million Americans can not afford health insurance and that our current health insurance ... More »

The author should read Thomas Kuhn to get a new perspective on the role of assumptions taken on faith in the Sciences.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
N1557976322_8968_thumb
4.8
by Will Leonard - Aug. 24, 2009

Loved the stab at religious nutjobs.

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.3

Good
from 7 reviews (46% confidence)
Quality
4.4
Facts
3.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.0
Insight
4.4
Style
4.6
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
3.0
Context
4.8
Depth
5.0
Enterprise
5.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
5.0
Relevance
5.0
Transparency
5.0
Responsibility
4.8
Popularity
4.2
Recommendation
4.4
Credibility
4.3
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!