Via Media

Via Media


Ah yes

posted by awelborn

Pat Robertson advocates assassinating Chavez

“We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,” Robertson said yesterday on the television program “The 700 Club,” AP reported. The cleric founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Killing Chavez, who is visiting Cuba, would be cheaper than starting a war, AP cited Robertson as saying. The U.S. can’t allow Venezuela to become a “launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism,” he said, according to AP.

Dang those evangelicals are lucky. All we’ve got are peacenik popes.

Update: From TIME, a piece on why Pat Robertson is Chavez’ new best friend:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has a new best friend this morning: television evangelist Pat Robertson. With his astonishing call for the left-wing leader’s assassination last night—"I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it…We have the ability to take him out"—Robertson will have surely made Chavez an even more popular anti-yanqui icon in Venezuela, Latin America and around the world. Like his mentor Fidel Castro, Chavez thrives on threats from the U.S., real or perceived. He has long insisted that his foes are plotting to kill him, and this summer had armed civilians training with the Venezuelan military to prepare for what he says is an imminent U.S. invasion. A public effort to whack him, offered from the right-wing Christian establishment so closely aligned with President Bush, is just what Chavez needs to keep his approval ratings soaring as high as the price of the Venezuelan oil he controls, the largest crude reserves in the hemisphere.

Chavez is no doubt a source of concern for Washington, if only because Venezuela is America’s fourth-largest foreign oil supplier. Chavez’s erratic and often bellicose anti-U.S. rhetoric—he publicly called Bush an "ass____" in Spanish last year—as well as his desire to sell less oil to the U.S. and more to ideological allies like China, are hardly comforting as gas nears $3 per gallon. But neither is Chavez’s embrace of nations like Iran, and nor is the fact that he’s leading a politically potent (and, to the Bush Administration, potentially destabilizing) wave of angry neo-leftism in Latin America, from Argentina to Mexico.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(53)
post a comment
ajb

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:44 am


“Killing Chavez, who is visiting Cuba, would be cheaper than starting a war”
Well, this is just the natural extension of “preventative war”. Preventative assassination to prevent the need for preventative war.
Anyone want to dance with Dear old Prudence on this one?



report abuse
 

Cheeky Lawyer

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:45 am


Pat Robertson is a nut job. Unfortunately he is a nut job taken much too seriously.



report abuse
 

Eric Giunta

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:48 am


The above two comments are a sad demonstration of just how ignorant Catholics today are on the traditional teaching of their Church on matters of warfare and just killing.
There is in Catholicism a very venerable tradition of lawful tyranicide. Lest we forget, Pope Pius XII did what he could, via the Jesuits, to aid plots to assissinate Adloph Hitler. Medieval theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas also advocated the tyanicide of unjust rulers, on the precise grounds that government was by the people, for the people.
Of course, this should only be resorted to as a last resort.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:49 am


Not that I’m advocating Robertson’s plans, but are assassinations intrinsically wrong? Wasn’t there a plot to assassinate Hitler that involved Catholics? It seems, given the necessary conditions (legitimate chance for change, the evil effects do not outweigh the alternative, etc) that an assassination could be morally justified.



report abuse
 

Eric Giunta

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:50 am


Also, Robertson’s a “nut job” only insofar as Protestant theology is itself intrinsically nutty.
As far as Protestants themselves go, Robertson is very orthodox, and his thinking much more in line with the Catholic tradition than many (most?) of them.



report abuse
 

John Hetman

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:52 am


Prudence is obviously not one of the Rev. Robertson’s virtues. Neither, I imagine, is forbearance. So he seems often to have shoes and socks extending out of his ample mouth. And certainly has done much to justify Chavez’s own strong paranoia–he could not have possibly done Chavez a bigger favor nor our own Leftwing nuts.
That being said, our Holy Father does not have to contend with an utterly corrupt southern neighbor, an utterly incompetent northern neighbor, thousands of miles of shared borders, and 300 million souls, some of whom are subject to rather dedicated and violent people who look upon our death and theirs with total disregard.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:54 am


Eric,
I generally don’t trust the political prudence of men who get divine confirmation of Republican candidates.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-02-god-bush_x.htm



report abuse
 

Gerard E.

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:59 am


The Virginia Beach staff might crank up his meds. CBN does very, very good work- Operation Blessing clearly fulfills the Gospel mandate of service to the poor. The news division does nice work with a tight budget. Son Tim is a virtual updated version of Pappy. But oh, Pappy himself, every two to three years…..So short after declaring that 9/11 might be God’s judgment on America for tolerating homosexuality….. Then again, Ralph Martin’s words around that time were remarkably similar…. Glass houses and stones and all….



report abuse
 

meg

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:00 am


No, John, he only has to deal with the Vatican being a prime target for terrorists, not to speak of Catholics oppressed in many countries – including Islamic-dominated ones – around the world.
He only grew up in Nazi Germany.



report abuse
 

Derek

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:06 am


Pat looks more and more like the conservative ‘evangelical’ version of the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Far more a political figure than a religous one. And the Loose Canon version at that. Which makes his comment baffling, yet fitting. What does he want his listeners to do begin a grass roots effort to make Chavez’s assasination public policy? “Call your representatives folks, this guy has to go”.



report abuse
 

John Hetman

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:11 am


Dear Meg:
I do recall something occurring about four years ago in NYC preceded by numerous deadly attacks upon Americans. I have not read of anything yet regarding such terrorist attacks in and around Rome nor to say the Vatican itself.
As for Catholics being oppressed in many countries, perhaps the term “Christians” would be more appropriate. There are devout evangelicals who are tortured and killed just as frequently.
Growing up in Nazi Germany is utterly immaterial to the present situation. What if he had grown up in communist Cuba or the Soviet Union’s death factories? German roots from the Nazi era do not make one an authority on Islamic terrorism.



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:17 am


No one takes Pat Robertson seriously anymore – if they ever did.
The only ones who seem to care about what Robertson “thinks” and says are those who wish to use him to paint all conservative Christians with the same broad brush.



report abuse
 

Marty

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:28 am


As to whether tyrannicide can be justified, isn’t it the people who are under the tyrant who could possibly be justified in removing him by force, i.e., executing him? Not some other nation. There is no shortage of evil guys running countries around the world, are we supposed to get together some sort of hit squad and send assassins around the world to take out Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, Castro, and other evil guys? What about tyrants that are our buddies like the bunch running Saudi Arabia? Or Uzbekhistan? Or Pakistan? And then what if other countries feel that Bush is some sort of tyrant that is a threat to world peace and domestic civil liberties and decides that the American people have suffered enough and they are going to take him down? I think that if this guy is all that bad and the Venezuluans want to take him out, perhaps one could make a case vis a vis Aquinas but is he really as bad as some of the guys that we support or is it just a case of he’s bad and he’s not in our corner??



report abuse
 

Ronny

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:36 am


Medieval theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas also advocated the tyanicide of unjust rulers, on the precise grounds that government was by the people, for the people.
Methinks “advocated” is a tad strong, at least in Aquinas’ case. I don’t have the actual citations at hand at this moment, but I recall that what Aquinas actually said is that while a tyrant wields his authority unlawfully and thus may be deposed, prudence may militate against it due to the greater evils that could ensue upon his overthrow. A specific passage on this matter as I recall it struck me as being more cautionary than advocatory.
BTW, Robertson is an idiot.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:41 am


‘Robertson’s a “nut job” only insofar as Protestant theology is itself intrinsically nutty’
And Robertson is a nut job.
Therefore…



report abuse
 

Brett

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:41 am


Pat Robertson’s views may represent those held by a significant number of folks, but it’s not entirely fair to say that he represents evangelicals as a whole. Robertson comes from a much more charismatic/Pentecostal background, after all. Evangelicalism is a wide-ranging group, but if someone wants to find views more representative of its mainstream, they might review Charles Stanley or Billy Graham. If they want views representative of evangelicalism’s left wing, I would suggest reading Tony Campolo. That being said, I believe Amy was making a joke and does not necessarily think Pat Robertson’s views stand in for every evangelical.
Robertson himself gets periodically goofy when it comes to international politics. He doesn’t ordinarily advocate violence: Although solidly pro-life, he’s opposed violence against abortion clinics and personnel. But he fancies himself somewhat of an expert on geopolitical matters and likes to sort of step outside his religious leader role and offer what he seems to think are hardnosed realpolitik ideas and statements, which include the one we’ve been discussing.
And Mr. Giunta, as a Protestant Christian, I have always found myself able to disagree with different doctrines of the Catholic Church without giving them or the Church as a whole dismissive labels. I invite you to respond in kind.



report abuse
 

Mike L

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:49 am


If I remember right, an assasin is also required to be the agent of some “authority” and not be acting on his own. When I read it, I kind of wondered who selected the authority. Then too, it seems to me that assasination is a form of capital punishment, so I assume that Pat Robinson is also in favor of that?
I had a friend many years ago that always said, “the people pretty much get the government that they deserve!” The longer I live the more I think there is a lot of truth to that.



report abuse
 

Joel

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:55 am


What Brett said. Saying that Robertson is representative of Protestantism is very much like saying Cardinal Law is representative of Catholicism.
We can cherry-pick the very worst people from eachothers’ traditions if we want. But why do that?



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:56 am


Pat Robertson is an industry first and foremost. Don’t forget that.



report abuse
 

Celine

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:57 am


Unfortunately, this is typical of incredible American (Christian or otherwise) hubris these days. Where and when did God ordain the U.S. — already guilty of all sorts of arrogant, stupid, and imperialistic misadventures south of our border — as the proper authority to decide whether Chavez should lead Venezuala or not? He was elected like Bush, and unlike Bush has not pursued a policy of invasion and occupation of countries half way around the world. How is Robertson’s advocacy of assassination of Chavez any different than some mullah’s advocacy of Bush might be?



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:01 am


Amy, I offer my comments as someone who was raised a Christian (Catholic) and is not one at this point in time. Your comment in the earlier post about spirituality and the rejection of religion and not understanding it is interesting. My suggestion: don’t look at us and wonder about us and why we have rejected Christianity. Look at comments like this – i.e., look at yourselves. Consider Pat Robertson’s remarks and others like it. Also, look at the posts in response. The Bible says to not kill and to love your enemy. Amazing how one of the most influential evangelical leaders can advocate killing the president of another country.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:09 am


“How is Robertson’s advocacy of assassination of Chavez any different than some mullah’s advocacy of Bush might be?”
1. Robertson has no role in our government.
2. His statement is being rightly ridiculed rather than taken as a fatwa.
3. He has no fanatical group of followers who will attempt to carry out his directions.
4. Bush isn’t a tyrant while Chavez is a would be Castro.



report abuse
 

Celine

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:14 am


Kevin’s right. Robertson advocates assasination and our commentators begin to discuss medieval discussions of tyranicide, as though Chavez were OUR tyrant and we should be seriously discussing sending some spooks to South American as Messengers of the North American Wrath of God. Look how bloody-minded we’ve gotten as the result of trying to defend American wars and policies while pretending to play Christian at the same time.



report abuse
 

Tom Herron

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:15 am


Does anybody remember when “conservatives” used to make a distinction between “authoritarian” rulers, (e.g. Chavez, Saddam Hussein, the clerics in Iran) and “totalitarian” rulers (e.g. Hitler, Stalin)? You don’t? They used to say we had to confront the latter and learn to live with the former. It used to regular fare in such magazines as National Review even as late as two decades ago. There was none of this talk from “conservatives” that it was America’s job to take out all the bad rulers in the world.
No doubt National Review now has Winston Smith updating all their back issues.



report abuse
 

Yurodivi

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:17 am


Not to seem disrespectful to Pat Robertson, but is it possible he’s got Alzheimer’s or some other brain-wasting disease? After all, while lots of protestants (and some catholics) might agree with what he has said here, I don’t recall anyone agreeing with him about how China’s forced-abortion policy wasn’t all that bad.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/16/robertson.abortion/
Years ago I worked for a priest who started to act slightly nutty. More irascible than usual, firing staff (including me) left and right. Within a year he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and spent the last seven years of his life in a “facility” for such problems. So, while I think Robertson’s comment is idiotic and shows extremely poor judgement, I can only hope he said it because he isn’t quite right any more.



report abuse
 

John Hetman

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:24 am


“He was elected like Bush….” –Celine
No, Celine, he was not elected like (President) Bush. His election was a totally corrupt farce and he has crushed his opposition in brutal ways. Chavez is an utterly megalomanical thug without any redeeming qualities who is opposed by much of the Church in Venezuela. He poses a threat to peace in this hemisphere and is a danger to his own country and his neighbors.
That said, I think that Rev. Robertson speaks for himself, though he may articulate the inner thoughts of not a few. I would much rather see Chavez get his due from the people of Venezuela themselves than from our involvement. And given just how unstable our neighbors to the south usually are in most cases, he will.



report abuse
 

Ed the Roman

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:24 am


As I told K-Lo on NRO, Robertson has no business discussing the assassination of foreign heads of state on television. That should be discussed by the CIA, the Joint Staff, and US Special Operations Command only, on networks that use NSA-approved encryption.



report abuse
 

Ronny

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:27 am


Pat Robertson is an industry first and foremost. Don’t forget that.
I am worried that many will forget precisely that, and will point to Robertson as representative of Christians as a group (including Catholics — those of you who think that Robertson makes only the Protestants look bad don’t understand the mentality that indiscriminately aggregates stupid things that Christians of every denomination have done or said throughout the ages and lumps them together as one despised group).



report abuse
 

Jimmy Mac

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:45 am


Now, if that Papal Army that was being discussed the other day was in place, Chavez could be “taken out” and the perpetrators would probably earn an indulgence for doing so!



report abuse
 

chris K

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:52 am


In a religion with the foundation of HEALTH, WEALTH, PROSPERITY, and SELF PROTECTION it’s….
A-L-L A-B-O-U-T O-I-L



report abuse
 

Dan Crawford

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:59 am


Since we already have been told by Rev. Pat that his prayers turn hurricanes away, perhaps we can count on his prayers to assassinate Chavez and anyone else he doesn’t like. I guess I’d be more impressed if he did the killing himself, but after all, he is a man of God.



report abuse
 

tk

posted August 23, 2005 at 11:01 am


Heh, I could very easily make a case that Chavez’s socio-economics are more christian than Robertsons. So Pat should like, ya know shut the h up.



report abuse
 

Donie

posted August 23, 2005 at 11:41 am


Eric Giunta: There is in Catholicism a very venerable tradition of lawful tyranicide.
I hope that the person who “Ices” Robertson was formed in that tradition



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:06 pm


Thank you Chris K! Bingo. If it comes between Christian beliefs and American interests we know where Pat stands.



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:19 pm


Am I the only one who remembers that back in the early 80s Robertson claimed that the EEC was the Beast of the Apocolypse? There are those who might say that Robertson was prescient, of course….
And, I loved his “words of knowledge.” “There’s a woman out there watching right now who has had terrible crippling pain in her back. God has now totally healed you.” I wonder if he still does that…



report abuse
 

ambrose

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:27 pm


Mr. Rothwell:
Yes, he still does that.



report abuse
 

Henry Dieterich

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:30 pm


Please, let’s not talk about assassinating either Mr. Robertson or Señor Chavez. If Mr. Robertson is a standard-issue Evangelical Protestant, his theology is not nutty, although it may be sadly mistaken in parts. That does not preclude his being nutty in other ways, or of advocating actions that are wrong. He is our brother in Christ nonetheless, and has done nothing that deserves death. It is before his own Master that he stands or falls. Presidente Chavez may be a tyrant, elected by or with the help of fraud, but he is not a candidate for tyrannicide, since there may be other ways of deposing him, including constitutional ones, if the people he rules desire it. He is, moreover, not our tyrant and we are not at war with him, so we, as Americans, have no legitimate cause to assassinate him even if there were the case of a last resort. There is a tradition permitting tyrannicide, but it does not apply to either of these gentlemen.



report abuse
 

DJ

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:43 pm


To Ed the Roman:
Pat R can talk all he wants but CIA, JCS, etc., NSA can’t. As far as I know, Executive Order 12333 is still in effect.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted August 23, 2005 at 1:15 pm


>Am I the only one who remembers that back in
>the early 80s Robertson claimed that the EEC
>was the Beast of the Apocolypse?
Dude, EVERYBODY in the late 70s/early 80s was claiming that. After Common Market membership reached 10, you couldn’t turn around without hearing about the Ten Horns in Daniel’s Prophecy.
I remember that from The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay, Christians for Nuclear War, etc.



report abuse
 

Scrooge

posted August 23, 2005 at 2:20 pm


Eric,
Go read some Niebuhr for God’s sake.



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 23, 2005 at 3:45 pm


There is in Catholicism a very venerable tradition of lawful tyranicide.
Nonsense.
The Catholic Church stands on the deposit of faith. What Christ taught. “Do not kill”.
If you kill Chavez, chances are someone just as bad, or probably worse, will take his place. And Venezuela will ignite in the flames of anti-imperialist passion – blaming the Yankees for the assasination. That won’t do anyone any good.
Robertson is a good example of how organised religion puts people off. Everyone knows Christ taught “do not kill” and insisted St Peter “put back your sword”. Seeing Christian leaders advocate killing simply confirms that they do not follow Christ. And who wants to join a religion which doesn’t follow Christ ?
God Bless



report abuse
 

Ed the Roman

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:46 pm


We may not know very far.
One of the stupidest things the Executive ever did was issue 12333. I’m not saying that assassination is even necessarily legitmate, but some things should be left ambiguous at best, in public.



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:56 pm


Ed the Roman,
If we leave some things ambiguous then are we really preaching the gospel ?
God Bless



report abuse
 

Meg Q

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:54 pm


Yes, all us Catholics turn to dear old Reinhold to mold our Catholic conscience on just war theory and practice. Of course, even he endorsed armed resistance and war in certain situations.
Pat needs to shut up on this sort of thing. It is hard for the outsider to see a priest or a minister advocate a just tyrranicide (which, BTW, does not apply here, and I’m no Chavez fan). But that does not mean, for example, that the 20 July plotters against Hitler were wrong. In fact, many of them (especially the Catholic Count von Stauffenberg, who planted the bomb, as well as several members of the Confessing Church) were specifically motivated by deep religious convictions to act to *kill* Hitler. Or were these men abrogating Christ’s command? If so, why, if they knew they would be killed (as they were) if they were caught or if things went wrong, and have to defend their behavior before Christ himself? And of course, his connection to conspirators who were members of the Confessing Church is what got Dietrich Bonhoeffer, already in prison, involved and then martyred. But I suppose Dietrich just should have had more faith and followed Jesus more closely, instead of switching to a less-pacifist stance, as he did.



report abuse
 

Art Deco

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:07 pm


Some years ago the Washington Post published a story to the effect that the Rev. Jerry Falwell was launching some sort of boycott against a set of children’s television characters called the ‘Teletubbies’. It later emerged that he had been presented with a newspaper article about this program and was asked to comment. He had never heard of the program but did comment. That was the sum of his activity on the matter. Now, if my memory has not failed me, I believe I saw a couple of examples of grossly unprofessional conduct on the part of the Associated Press during the most recent national election campaign, and I seldom read newspapers. I would not discount the possibility that this report of Mr. Robertson’s remarks is simply not accurate, and perhaps a substantive fabrication. Did anyone see the broadcast?
Mr. Herron writes:
Does anybody remember when “conservatives” used to make a distinction between “authoritarian” rulers, (e.g. Chavez, Saddam Hussein, the clerics in Iran) and “totalitarian” rulers (e.g. Hitler, Stalin)? You don’t? They used to say we had to confront the latter and learn to live with the former. It used to regular fare in such magazines as National Review even as late as two decades ago. There was none of this talk from “conservatives” that it was America’s job to take out all the bad rulers in the world.
No doubt National Review now has Winston Smith updating all their back issues.

The general interest articles where this taxonomy was elaborated came, during that time period from the pens of Ernest Lefever and Jeane Kirkpatrick. I believe both have occasionally published in National Review but neither was a regular contributor. The most salient piece on this theme was published in 1979 in Commentary, not National Review. It is doubtful that either Dr. Lefever or Dr. Kirkpatrick would have classified Ba’athist Iraq, ca. 1984, as merely ‘authoritarian’. Freedom House consistently ranked Iraq as having one of the most abusive governments in the world over the period running from 1972 through 2002.
I do not believe National Review has ever advocated a general crusade against repressive foreign governments, though some of its contributors may have. Perhaps Mr. Dreher might enlighten us.
Mr. McClarey writes:
Chavez is a would be Castro.
He appears to be taking his time about it. Freedom House assigns an ordinal score to all countries in the world according to the degree to which governmental practice accords with liberal-democratic norms. Venezuela currently is assigned a score of 3.5 on a scale running from 1 to 7; during the latter part of the AD/COPEI period, it generally recieved a score of 2.5. The United States receives a score of 1. Ba’athist Iraq received a score of 7. Col. Chavez is more illiberal than his predecessors, but is not severely repressive, all things considered. One may wager that he will do serious long-term damage to Venezuela’s already battered political economy, as did Juan Domingo Peron to Argentina’s.



report abuse
 

Ed the Roman

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:44 pm


Chris,
The Executive Branch of the United States Government was not established to preach the Gospel. There are things States may and must do that private men may not, and there are things private men may and must do that States may not.



report abuse
 

Ed the Roman

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:49 pm


Re the distinction between authoritarians and totalitarians, recall when it was being made. If there’s a bear trying to get in the house you ignore the mice, even if they’re already inside.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 24, 2005 at 6:32 am


“Mr. McClarey writes:
Chavez is a would be Castro.
He appears to be taking his time about it.”
Ah, but that is clearly his goal.
“Chavez spoke alongside Cuban President Fidel Castro during his weekly television and radio show from the western tip of the island, flaunting the close ties between the two leftist leaders that U.S. officials say are threatening democracy in the region.
“The grand destroyer of the world, and the greatest threat . . . is represented by U.S. imperialism,” Chavez said.
Chavez was responding to remarks U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made on his way home from visits to Paraguay and Peru last week. Referring to social uprisings in Bolivia that have pushed out two presidents in less than two years, Rumsfeld told reporters that Venezuela and Cuba have been influencing the Andean nation “in unhelpful ways.”
Uneasy about the close relationship between Castro and Chavez, Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials have repeatedly said the two men are fomenting instability in Latin America. Both leaders have consistently denied the accusations.
Chavez gave a new vote of confidence to Castro’s communist government Sunday, calling it a “revolutionary democracy” in which the Cuban people rule.
People “have asked me how I can support Fidel if he’s a dictator,” Chavez said. “But Cuba doesn’t have a dictatorship – it’s a revolutionary democracy.”
Television footage showed Chavez and Castro together in the streets of Pinar del Rio earlier in the day, standing on the back of a jeep wearing olive green military uniforms and saluting hundreds of shouting residents waving Cuban and Venezuelan flags.”
Source: AP, August 21, 2005



report abuse
 

Bob

posted August 24, 2005 at 8:07 am


Apparently, good ol’ Pat is invoking that little known 11th commandment:
“Thou shall pop a cap in thine enemies backside.”



report abuse
 

brian

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:32 am


This issue raises a question in my mind: could the pope depose Chavez?
There was a great deal of polemical writing in the late 16th and early 17th centuries on the power of the papacy to depose rulers. After the Gunpowder Plot, James VI and I and Cardinal Bellarmine went at it over an oath that required Roman Catholics to deny this power.
Is this power still claimed by the papacy? If not, how is the change in doctrine explained?



report abuse
 

mayangrl

posted August 24, 2005 at 7:21 pm


“Castro and Chavez fomenting instability in South America.”
Well, I don’t know that I’d belive everything from this government, considering all the false info we got on Iraq. The mere fact that Chavez won’t be a “Yankee bootlicker,” and is the fourth largest supplier of oil to the US, makes me pretty skeptical about anything I read that casts a reeal negative light on him.
Also, more South American countries are establishing closer ties to Castro to prove to their electorate that they are indeed leftists, even though they may embrace the free market idea. Uruguay is courting Cuba, and Mexico has always had fair relations with Cuba, until Castro and Fox had their little spat.



report abuse
 

Joel

posted August 25, 2005 at 4:36 pm


Here’s an interesting article showing the contrasts between Robertson and the Vatican: http://www.spiritdaily.com/robertson.htm



report abuse
 

Joseph D'Hippolito

posted August 26, 2005 at 12:56 am


Does anybody remember when “conservatives” used to make a distinction between “authoritarian” rulers, (e.g. Chavez, Saddam Hussein, the clerics in Iran) and “totalitarian” rulers (e.g. Hitler, Stalin)?
For those who are not familiar with Tom Herron, he is a paleo-conservative of the Lew Rockwell, Pat Buchanan school who opposes the war in Iraq. He has also made statements that could be construed as anti-Semitic. I know because I have clashed with him on Patrick Sweeney’s blog.
Herron also claims to work in the Department of Defense’s intelligence section. Now, I certainly don’t work there but if I did, even I would recognize the legitimate difference between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes, not Herron’s cynical, agenda-driven definition.
For one thing, “totalitarian” regimes try to impose a utopian philosophy upon its populace. That philosophy governs every aspect of life, even the most private aspects. Nazism, Communism and state-sponsored Islam (Iran, Saudi Arabia) are the best examples. The Nazis wanted a utopia based on physical perfection. The Communists wanted one based on Marxist principles of economic justice (which have found their way into Catholic Worker, btw). The Islamists want a utopia based on sharia.
“Authoritarian” regimes, however, seek to impose no utopian philosophy but merely the will of the strongman in power. The best examples are Idi Amin, Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos and most Latin American military dictatorships of the past. The U.S. has supported (Marcos) and opposed (Amin) “authoritarian” regimes in the past.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.