It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What the father of neo-conservatism thinks about dumbed down Republicans:

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.
-Irving Kristol source

I found this amusing. This is the same doctrine that the Bush administration subscribed to.

It's at least refreshing to see that our leaders aren't as stupid as the religious right they claim to represent


Here's another gem:

If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine - for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish.
-Irving Kristol source

Neo-con is the right word. They CON the ignorant herd of religious followers for purposes of controlling the society while leaving the decision making in their own atheist hands.

You religious folks are being played -- and I have to say, from my perspective, it doesn't look like the neo-cons had to work very hard to pull it off. Like taking candy from a baby.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The article was a very interesting read. Your post could have done well, without the use of the adjectives "stupid" and "ignorant". Really unnecessary and did not further your point, in the least.

I do have two questions.

First, do you use those labels to describe those highly educated religious people?

Second, if you consider yourself to be so enlightened and 'wise', as to not be fooled by the myths of religion, should you not follow the advice of the last sentence of this paragraph from your own source?


But at the recent AEI lec-ture, journalist Ben Wattenberg asked him the same thing (if he believed in God). Kristol responded that "that is a stupid question," and crisply restated his belief that religion
is essential for maintaining social discipline. A much younger (and perhaps less circumspect) Kristol asserted in a 1949 essay that in order to prevent the social disarray that would occur if ordinary people lost their religious faith, "it would indeed become the duty of the wise publicly to defend and support religion."

Source: www.reason.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFoverI do have two questions.

First, do you use those labels to describe those highly educated religious people?


I believe that "highly educated" and "religious" (in the context of any of the major religions) do not belong in the same sentence.

The bible was written by superstitious goat herders 2000 years ago, who thought the sun revolved around the earth, the planet was flat, a dome above our heads was in fact the sky, and when it rained, angels were pouring water through the holes of this dome.

That's not to say they weren't ignorant in other areas -- if you were born with a disease or contracted a pathogen, then the devil had taken hold of you and you were to be punished for being rejected by god.

They were unfathomably ignorant about almost every fact of natural science that most of us consider common knowledge today. They used that ignorance to control people through myth and superstition, and later in their rosy history quashed all alternatives that challenged this superstition. Christians were, and still are to this day, a bigoted group of ignorant cattle who are trained to think illogically in order to keep them faithful in an illogical and absent deity, and to the pastors who take advantage of this shortcoming in their intelligence.


Second, if you consider yourself to be so enlightened and 'wise', as to not be fooled by the myths of religion, should you not follow the advice of the last sentence of this paragraph from your own source?


But at the recent AEI lec-ture, journalist Ben Wattenberg asked him the same thing (if he believed in God). Kristol responded that "that is a stupid question," and crisply restated his belief that religion
is essential for maintaining social discipline. A much younger (and perhaps less circumspect) Kristol asserted in a 1949 essay that in order to prevent the social disarray that would occur if ordinary people lost their religious faith, "it would indeed become the duty of the wise publicly to defend and support religion."

Source: www.reason.com...


I do not believe we need religion to control society. I think it has been used far too long, and works quite well. But I do not want to live a world filled with people who force-feed superstition to their kids and vote based on ideological lies.

I certainly don't believe in god, neither should you. Neither do the republican "religious" right. They are using religion to win elections.

The religious right is being had by the republicans, and everybody knows it except them. I think it's absolutely laughable, and hopefully the next catastrophe the befalls the united states hits those who are most devout the hardest.



new topics
 
1

log in

join