Wily Politicians Know. . . .

[DeBunkem]

Churchill was no Bush league politician. He was familiar with good governance but nonetheless revealed the fear of ruling elites should the hoi polloi realize that religion is a fraud and no longer remain content for the rewards of a non-existant heaven. Whether or not there was an actual UFO is beside the point in my contention.

This from Yahoo News.....

Churchill 'banned UFO report to avoid mass panic'
Thu Aug 5, 6:57 am ET

.LONDON (AFP) – British wartime prime minister Winston Churchill banned the reporting for 50 years of an alleged UFO incident because of fears it could create mass panic, according to claims made public on Thursday.

The grandson of an RAF officer who was one of Churchill's personal bodyguards wrote to Britain's Ministry of Defence in 1999 about the alleged incident.

His account and Churchill's claimed reaction featured in documents released on Thursday from Britain's National Archives.

According to this account, the man's grandfather overheard Churchill discussing the alleged incident with US wartime General Dwight Eisenhower.

Reports given to Churchill claimed that a reconnaissance aircraft returning to Britain from a mission was shadowed by a UFO as it crossed the British coast.

The plane's crew were reported to have photographed the object, which they said had "hovered noiselessly" near the aircraft, before moving off.

According to the letter describing this alleged incident: "Mr Churchill is reported to have made a declaration to the effect, 'This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.'"

[ChaosBorders]

There a debatable question in this somewhere that I'm just not seeing?

[DeBunkem]

That power holders in Capitalistic societies where religion is still fruiting find it helpful in quieting progressivism and desire for societal improvement among the religiose. They find it easier to plunder the planet and erect ugly and debasing commercial strips if more people see no future for Earth because of the Rapture. James Watt, a Reagan Sec. of Interior, fought conservation of wilderness because "the Lord is coming and will destroy the Earth with fire anyway."

[ChaosBorders]

That power holders in Capitalistic societies where religion is still fruiting find it helpful in quieting progressivism and desire for societal improvement among the religiose. They find it easier to plunder the planet and erect ugly and debasing commercial strips if more people see no future for Earth because of the Rapture. James Watt, a Reagan Sec. of Interior, fought conservation of wilderness because "the Lord is coming and will destroy the Earth with fire anyway."

Still haven't asked a question. It seems like all you're doing is ranting. There's a different sub-forum for that...

[cnorman18]

Churchill... revealed the fear of ruling elites should the hoi polloi realize that religion is a fraud and no longer remain content for the rewards of a non-existant heaven....

The contention here appears to be that there is no such thing as genuine religious faith among the "ruling elites," but only a conscious awareness of religion as a "fraud" that is merely to be used for the cynical manipulation of the ignorant, gullible, easily swayed masses. I don't see any evidence for that claim, but never mind that now.

Here's my question: Virtually NO politician in America openly professes atheism. Even the most liberal or leftwing Democrats claim to be practicing some religion, most commonly Christianity.

Are supposedly religious liberal politicians also conscious liars, hypocrites, and frauds, and part of this conspiracy too? Or is their religious faith sincere, and only conservatives and Republicans guilty of using religion to manipulate and control the stupid, helpless children that some call the Electorate?

[WinePusher]

Or is their religious faith sincere, and only conservatives and Republicans guilty of using religion to manipulate and control the stupid, helpless children that some call the Electorate?

Why do you call the electorate "stupid?" Just because the electorate disagrees with you does not make them "stupid." The idea that the American people are not educated on the issues is one shared by several others on this forum and I staunchly disagree with it. If one disagrees with you, they are not stupid or racist or homophobic. The more diverse opinions we have in this country, the better. And it is a perilious task to try to silence the opposing voice and demonize the people who disagree.

[micatala]

Or is their religious faith sincere, and only conservatives and Republicans guilty of using religion to manipulate and control the stupid, helpless children that some call the Electorate?

Why do you call the electorate "stupid?" Just because the electorate disagrees with you does not make them "stupid." The idea that the American people are not educated on the issues is one shared by several others on this forum and I staunchly disagree with it. If one disagrees with you, they are not stupid or racist or homophobic. The more diverse opinions we have in this country, the better. And it is a perilious task to try to silence the opposing voice and demonize the people who disagree.

A fair point. I am not sure cnorman is actually claiming the electorate is stupid here, but rather is being a little sarcastic.

Although cnorman can speak for himself, I certainly would not say stupidity is the reserve of conservatives and there certainly conservative intellectuals. William Buckly comes to mind, and also George Will, David Brooks, and David Gergen, and there aree certainly more.


To me, "stupidity" if we even want to use that word, should be reserved for those who objectively display ignorance or who are so incapable of objectivity that they display no evidence of being able to weigh and evaluate factual information. In this respect, birthers come to mind.

[cnorman18]

Or is their religious faith sincere, and only conservatives and Republicans guilty of using religion to manipulate and control the stupid, helpless children that some call the Electorate?

Why do you call the electorate "stupid?" Just because the electorate disagrees with you does not make them "stupid." The idea that the American people are not educated on the issues is one shared by several others on this forum and I staunchly disagree with it. If one disagrees with you, they are not stupid or racist or homophobic. The more diverse opinions we have in this country, the better. And it is a perilious task to try to silence the opposing voice and demonize the people who disagree.

If you thought I really meant that, you haven't read many of my posts. I was attempting to reflect the apparent views of DeBunkem and ask a question about them.

In my understanding, the American system is founded on the idea that the consensus of the people is generally wisest, though the system contains safeguards (like the California Supreme Court) to forestall outright mob rule. "The masses are asses" is a deeply unAmerican idea, and I question the idea that most Americans are idiots, even if they are religious.

From my point of view, that's a bit of bigotry that's endemic among hard atheists (and I do not say that this applies to DeBunkem): if one thinks theism is self-evidently false and ridiculous, what other conclusion can be reached except that all believers must ipso facto be incredibly stoooopid, and as malleable and gullible as children?

As usual, it's the assumed and unexamined premise that is more likely to be flawed. Perhaps theism isn't self-evidently false and ridiculous; perhaps there is more than one, single, correct, officially approved, inerrant and infallible way to think. But that possibility seems to be heresy in some circles.

[DeBunkem]

Churchill... revealed the fear of ruling elites should the hoi polloi realize that religion is a fraud and no longer remain content for the rewards of a non-existant heaven....

The contention here appears to be that there is no such thing as genuine religious faith among the "ruling elites," but only a conscious awareness of religion as a "fraud" that is merely to be used for the cynical manipulation of the ignorant, gullible, easily swayed masses. I don't see any evidence for that claim, but never mind that now.

Then perhaps you have an explanation for Mr. Churchill's statement. He was certainly not known for religious piety, and was referring to the British.
Neither are many other First World leaders.
Here's my question: Virtually NO politician in America openly professes atheism. Even the most liberal or leftwing Democrats claim to be practicing some religion, most commonly Christianity.

Because there IS such a atmosphere of religiosity in the US, no politician for any office could be elected if an avowed atheist. Why do you suppose that is, Griz? At least one state disqualifies atheists from holding public office. The only non-Protestant president was Kennedy, who met an early end. There is no Constitutional requirement for swearing on Bibles, but even so, to refuse to do so would be the 24/7 news content for the entire term of any President so non-politic. Politics, especially in this case, is all about compromise....such as Bush kissing the hand of his oil sheik pals.

Are supposedly religious liberal politicians also conscious liars, hypocrites, and frauds, and part of this conspiracy too? Or is their religious faith sincere, and only conservatives and Republicans guilty of using religion to manipulate and control the stupid, helpless children that some call the Electorate?

Less so than the Bible-thumping hypocritical conservatives, who continue to reveal themselves as pedophiles (such as Mark Foley and his preference for page boys), closeted gays, and whoremongers, while mouthing religious platitudes and intolerance to keep in goose step with the GOP's claim to be God's Own Party. Their claim to moral superiority makes their hypocrisy especially reprehensible compared to Moderates (too few Liberal pols to count) who keep their religion to themselves. There are also many moderates and liberal Christians, who are perhaps attracted to the liberality of Jesus whose faith would probably remain intact because they do not adhere to biblical literalism.

The only vice that can not be forgiven is hypocrisy:
William Hazlitt

From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step. - Denis
Diderot

[WinePusher]

Less so than the Bible-thumping hypocritical conservatives, who continue to reveal themselves as pedophiles (such as Mark Foley and his preference for page boys),

And the adulteress liberals who cheat on their wives yet think they will make good presidents, (such as John Edwards and Bill Clinton and their preferences for open marriages[/quote]

closeted gays, and whoremongers, while mouthing religious platitudes and intolerance to keep in goose step with the GOP's claim to be God's Own Party.

Sexual scandals exist in both parties, but did the GOP have a president who committed adultery and put the country through a disgracful impeachment process rather than honorably resigning? Say what you want about Nixon, but he has FAR more honor than Clinton.

Their claim to moral superiority makes their hypocrisy especially reprehensible compared to Moderates (too few Liberal pols to count) who keep their religion to themselves.

Come now, it is the right who are the hypocrits when it comes to Christianity? Or is it the left, wasn't it YOUR speaker who said Catholic Priests should preach HER immigration proposals from the pulpit. Wasn't it YOUR president who claims to be christian and cites bible verses at debates but then then refuses to go to church and attended he hateful church for over 20 years. But hey, this is a center right country deeply rooted in its religion, if the dems even hope to get elected they'd better have some type of religious belief, even if they have to fake it. You should review which side really are the "hypocrits."

There are also many moderates and liberal Christians, who are perhaps attracted to the liberality of Jesus whose faith would probably remain intact because they do not adhere to biblical literalism.

Whats the difference between a liberal and a conservative christian to you? Do liberal christians only accept the tenants of the faith that they like and agree with?