Which is just why they like it. Anyway, Strauss, their guru, seemed to think so:
http://www.nndb.com/people/423/000048279/More than anything else, Strauss is known for his elitist views toward governance and culture. He promoted the view that the vast majority of people are simply too unenlightened (read: ignorant) to handle certain crucial political and philosophical truths. And so, these people must be preoccupied with soothing diversions, like organized religion (Strauss himself was an atheist). This way, the enlightened few are free to fully pursue ideas and run the apparatus of the state without serious interference by the hoi polloi.
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/strauss.htmSo where did Strauss really stand? ''He was an atheist,'' says Stanley Rosen flatly. ''They
all are. They are epicureans and atheists.'' (The epicurean comment is perhaps a reference to the late Allan Bloom, who was legendary for his enjoyment of the high life. After his death, Bloom's esoteric life as a closeted gay man turned out to be very different from his outward posture as a proponent of traditional values.)
While some Straussians dispute the idea that the master was a godless cynic, it does seem that Strauss wanted a regime where the elite lived by a code of stoic fortitude while governing over a population that subscribes to superstitious religious beliefs. ''He agreed with Marx that religion was the opium of the masses,'' says Shadia Drury. ''But he believed that the masses need their opium.'' Sociologically, Strauss's approach would seem to work well for the Republican Party, which has a grass-roots base of born-again Christians and a much more secular elite leadership-at least in its foreign-policy wing.
Some traditional and religious conservatives have become deeply wary of Straussians. ''They certainly believe that religion may be a useful thing to take in the suckers with,'' notes Thomas Fleming, editor of the right-wing journal Chronicles.
***
Sounds about right, if you run down the list of PNAC-ers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC#Bush_Administration
How many of that bunch are even hypocritically "of faith," (i.e. "Bookie of Virtues" Bennett), let alone genuinely religious/spiritual? Perle? Kristol? Rumsfeld? Cheney? Please. And yet it's under the influence of this bunch that we've been blasted with "faith-based" this and "values" that. No wonder the religious right is feeling snookered these days. All that holding their nose and unequally yoking with folks like these, and in return what do they get? Harriet Miers. Hell, I'd be pissed, too, if I were them.
But I'm not.
Thank the goddess.