The common dogma of fundamentalists is fear of modern knowledge, inability to cope with the fast change in a scientific-technological society, and the real breakdown in apparent moral order in recent years.... That is why hate is the major fuel, fear is the cement of the movement, and superstitious ignorance is the best defence against the dangerous new knowledge. ... When you bring up arguments that cast serious doubts on their cherished beliefs you are not simply making a rhetorical point, you are threatening their whole Universe and their immortality. That provokes anger and quite frequently violence. ... Unfortunately you cannot reason with them and you even risk violence in confronting them. Their numbers will decline only when society stabilizes, and adapts to modernity.
|
The preamble to the Constitution states We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare... It doesn't say guarantee the general welfare. And it certainly doesn't say give welfare benefits to all the people in the country who aren't doing so well even if the reason they aren't doing so well is because they're sitting on their butts in front of the TV.
|
... numerous chemicals have been found to have potential toxicity/carcinogenicity in rat or mouse, which, we are reasonably certain, have little or no potential hazard in man. The reason for this is again species differences, for the biological defence mechanism which protects against toxic chemicals is most highly evolved in man, who therefore generally has a higher resistance to chemical toxicity and carcinogenicity than have rodents and other species.
|
Confidence in the principles of an enemy must remain even during war, otherwise a peace could never be concluded; and hostilities would degenerate into a war of extermination since war in fact is but the sad resource employed in a state of nature in defence of rights; force standing there in lieu of juridical tribunals. Neither of the two parties can be accused of injustice, since for that purpose a juridical decision would be necessary. But here the event of a battle (as formerly the judgments of God) determines the justice of either party; since between states there cannot be a war of punishment no subordination existing between them. A war, therefore, which might cause the destruction of both parties at once, together with the annihilation of every right, would permit the conclusion of a perpetual peace only upon the vast burial-ground of the human species.
|
Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack. One defends when his strength is inadequate; he attacks when it is abundant.
|
Strength lies not in defence but in attack.
|
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress If our defence be therealobject of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands
|
There is no such thing as a successful defence.
|
There is always more spirit in attack than in defence.
|
Education must have two foundations—morality as a support for virtue, prudence as a defence for self against the vices of others. By letting...
|
Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defence of peace must be constructed.
|
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.
|