Today Is the 27th Anniversary of Oscar Romero's Assassination

Oscar Romero was a great man. I have been familiar with the story of his plight since I was a younger man in 1982.
quotes from: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/12/oscar-romero-on-torture.html
Friday, December 15, 2006
Oscar Romero on Torture

Oscar Romero was the archbishop of San Salvador, assassinated while saying Mass in 1980 by death squads angered by his public voice against poverty, social injustice, political killings, and torture in El Salvador at the time. He was also an incredibly eloquent speaker and writer. Here is something he had to say about torture:

"There is no dichotomy between man and God’s image.
Whoever tortures a human being,
whoever abuses a human being,
whoever outrages a human being,
abuses God’s image."

Are you listening George Bush and Dick Cheney? Are you listening Jimmy Akin and all those Catholics who try to provide some "moral space" to defend Bush's torture policies? And where is the voice of the American church in this time of trial? Its silence is almost shameful.

Oscar Romero- Martyr

Excerpt:
On March 24, 1980 Oscar Romero was in church finishing up his homily when Oscar was shot. Some of his nuns ran up to the altar, but many stayed down in the church too shocked to even move. It was said that he was "gasping for breath and choking on his own blood" . One of the last things Oscar said was this prayer; "God’s reign is already present on our earth in mystery. When the Lord comes, it will be brought to perfection. That is the hope that inspires Christians. We know that every effort to better society, especially when injustice and sin are so ingrained, is an effort that God blesses, that God wants, that God demands of us."

SOURCE:
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Americas/04/ball/ball.htm

I have written before some things about the war in El Salvador, the war against Christian liberation theology and the U.S. "covert" participation in it during the 1980s. The last article I posted on this topic was a bit touchy because it bespoke of John Paul's participation. This article is an excellent one about Father Romero. He is one of my heroes. Ironically he has been canonized. This month will mark the 27th anniversary since his murder. I truly admire a man like Romero who will die, unafraid, for his beliefs. Oscar Romero has my highest respect. Those that killed him and those who armed and backed the killers have none.

See more: http://geotheology.blogspot.com/2006/12/flashback-war-against-christian.html

Hear About Reagan and the Death Squads HERE

Oscar Romero on Gospel Preaching

A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel A preaching that makes sinners feel good, so that they are secured in their sinful state, betrays the gospel’s call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death.

A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens as when a light turned on awakens and, of course, annoys, the sleeper that is the preaching of Christ, calling “Wake up… Be converted!…” Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is called prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin…

Oscar Romero, martyr, Jan. 22, 1978 - roughly 2 months before his assassination.

Flashback> The War Against Christian Liberation Theology

EXCERPT:

"The murder of Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the electoral defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the invasion of Panama, the "war on drugs," and changing East/West relations add urgent weight to our need to confront the U.S. strategy of "low-intensity conflict" (LIC).

The murder of six Jesuit priests and the escalating violence in El Salvador was a predictable outcome of U.S. LIC policies.

Throughout 1989, as the FMLN and the popular movements gained in strength, prospects for a negotiated settlement improved. This hopeful situation was ripe with danger because the increased strength of popular movements signaled the failure of U.S. LIC strategy in El Salvador. The alternative to meaningful negotiations and reforms was escalating violence. The U.S. and its ally, the right wing ARENA party, responded to the strength of the opposition by managing terror in an upward spiral."

SOURCE

Excerpt from The Ratzinger Report:

As head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office for twenty-five years,
Ratzinger protected the Vatican’s authority against social movements inside and outside the Church. In the process, he allied closely with the Reagan Administration’s Catholic conservatives and neo-conservatives in their first term in power. He promoted militant right-wing movements in the church including Legionnaires for Christ, an integral part of the military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina in the seventies, and the secretive and ascetic Opus Dei (made infamous in The Da Vinci Codes) which was closely associated with the Franco dictatorship in Spain. Ratzinger ensured the fast-tracking of Opus Dei’s founder, Escriva de Balaguer, to sainthood in 2002.

excerpt from Pope John Paul II, the Reagan years & Liberation Theology

"Bishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador had pleaded fruitlessly with Carter to stop the US backing of repression - 6 weeks later, he was murdered in March 1980. Vatican commissions on JPII's orders had visited Romero two times demanding that he explain his outspoken criticism of El Salvador s military rulers. After his murder, the pope appointed Fernando Saenz Lacalle as archbishop, a member of Opus Dei and a starch opponent of liberation theology. The appointment came as a slap in the face to hundreds of peasant church members and religious workers in Latin America. Progressive advancements were reversed and old inequalities were restored.

Reagan took office in Jan 1981. He retained Brz as a consultant on Poland. Brz said: "We involved the Pope directly and he did whatever was to be done to sustain an underground effort. So Solidarity wasn't crushed." Reagan, son of a working-class Irish Catholic father and protestant mother, had won the lion's share of the Catholic vote. He was drawn to other Catholic working class types, like Bill Casey who became CIA Director. Like Reagan, they believed the Marxist-Leninist vision to be spiritually evil and had to be destroyed. Reagan openly forged ties with the Pope and Vatican. By spring 1981, Casey and others were dropping in at the residence of the pope's nuncio Archbishop Pio Laghi for breakfast and consultation. And Laghi visited the White House by the 'back door' for secret meetings with Casey and later the President.

Around 1982, Casey met with the pope at the Vatican and showed him a photo (taken a spy satellite) of the Pope's welcome when he visited Poland in 1979. The photo helped seal an informal secret alliance between the Holy See and the Reagan admin. Western agencies, notably the CIA, provided regular secret briefings on developments in the USSR, Poland, Chile, Argentina, China, on liberation theology, Middle East etc.

JPII & Liberation Theology
JPII's intolerance of left leaning movements arose from the conservative traditions of the Polish church and his experience with the communist regime. Even as Archbishop of Krakow, he was one of 251 bishops who voted agasint the final draft of Gaudium et Spes, the document that sought to reform and modernise the church. (It was passed with 2331 votes in favour.) Any collective initiative for social justice was associated with Marxism and he became a natural ally with the US capitalist government."

The Mixed Legacy of John Paul II:
Pope John Paul II leaves a mixed legacy for his flock. Conservatives in the Catholic Church hail him as a defender of the faith, while progressives criticise his `restorationist papacy' that has taken the Church back to pre-Second Vatican Council days.

Liberation Theology Resources page


Wikipedia Entry On Liberation Theology

Fair and Balanced?

I have been asked more than once and by more than one person over time why I do not seem to spend anywhere near equal time criticizing Democrats and Liberals and seem to be focused on Republicans and "Conservatives".

Here I shall answer, borrowing recycled lines from a recent exchange in e-mail. I will also add further commentary:

Ok, heres my honest answers,

As far as I can tell the Democrats are also in on this completely un-neccessary missile deal as well (see the post Missile Chess).
I do not see this particular post as a focused attack on Republicans. If one were to watch the "Why We Fight" clip embedded in one of my previous responses they would be able to ascertain that in our highly militarized society, Democrats are equally guilty. Everyone must bow to the god of war it seems. I have even been guilty of qualifying and dulling my own statements for fear of being dismissed as completely bonkers. From now on I won't do that.
The questions you ask regarding my criticisms of Republicans and percieved lack of criticisms of Clinton and the Democrats is a fair question and I shall answer.

Its because of the heresy. The Democrats are guilty of much. However, they are not the ones who have hijacked the Christian faith and twisted it into something that shames the name of Christ. That will surely change as the pendulum swings back the other way. I simply don't think its "Liberals" thathave done the most damage to our planet or our society or the church in the last 500 years. Take note that political liberalism has NOTHING to do with the matters usually attributed to "Liberals".
Concerning the Clinton years- I was not vocal during those. Nor was I blogging. So my thoughts on those years have generally not been expressed. If it will make people feel better I'll do some Bill bashing. I just figure the "conservative" pundits had the market cornered on that one and frankly I was quite tired of hearing about it... especially when the talk show crowd has so worn it out and spun facts in a way that is favorable to so-called "conservative" views. I can spend time on those points if necessary.... in fact wait and see.

I do blame Bill for much of the backlash that ushered in the Neocons. Thanks Bill. Those had to be the most expensive and consequential blowjobs in history.

Concerning the ire I have for Republicans- I have already told the tale and commented much about the false campaign Bush ran as a sober and Christian candidate. Perhaps I will never get over that. I am quite more familiar with the players on the RNC world stage than you might think, due to my former line of work. In my latest blog posts entitled "The Jesus Factor", there appears more than one commentor that I have met and held conversations with. The men I refer to are from both sides of the fence. Most notable of these is Doug Wead, author of "The Raising of a President". An interesting article about Mr. Wead that reveals the context in which I met him, Amway conventions where I handled AV,-can be found HERE.

I have met GWB and been in his home... and have actually made physical contact with him. I have been heavily exposed to Republican politics and politicians because of the area of the country I live in, my line of work, the ladies and gentlemen I work with and many of my personal friends. My thoughts on these matters have generally been illy recieved. My first political memories were of Richard Nixon.... 'nuff said, who was pardoned by Gerald Ford, another Republican. Then there was Jimmy Carter. I do not think Jimmy Carter was a great leader but I do think he generally got a raw deal. He takes the most heat for his handling of the Iran hostage crisis. However, his goal was to get the hostages home safely and not start a war. He succeeded. Carter also gets undue credit for faciliatatingthe rise of radical Islam. The trend actually started in about 1953 with the overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah. Check out that story in the article entitled: "50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran".

The president of the U.S. in 1953 was Dwight D. Eisenhower (R).

I will say that Carter was president during the invasion of East Timor which I recently blogged about. The invasion was supported and supplied by the U.S.. This travesty is a perfect example of the selective humanitarianism and selective truth engineering of the corporate media and the western powers in general. No one I know has ever heard of this conflict. I myself did not learn about it until my trip to Sydney for the 2000 Olympics. This conflict ran though every presidency including the first stages of the current one. Thus, Carter and Clinton share some of the terrrible blame on that one. Carter was also president when the U.S. backing of the right wing extremists and death squads began in El Salvador which I have commented about at great length in the collection of posts found HERE. The assasination of Archbishop Oscar Romero also occurred on Carter's watch very shortly after Romero made pleas to President Carter to stop funding and arming the terror forces that were killing his people. Under Reagan, the funding of these terror groups was magnified greatly. This is where the Republicans and the "Conservatives" totally lost me. These crimes generally are as yet unacknowledged and un atoned for... not to mention the Iran Contra scandal (make SURE you visit this link- taking note that the scandal began in 1980). Instead history has Reagan and the band of Neocons that served under him, including the loathesome Dick Cheney and the disgraced Donald Rumsfeld and the criminal Robert Gates (see also Robert Gates, Neocon or Paleo-Neocon) as some of the greatest heroes of the modern era. I won't pretend I don't resent that. I could go into how Reagan allegedly fixed our country and allegedly won the Cold War almost single handedly- but I will allow the curious to read the rest of the blog- paying special attention to the subject of Blowback , terrorism and the military industrial complex. Its also worth noting that this particular confluence of events of the rape of El Salvador and the enabling of Saddam and the actions of the REAL appeasers in the Middle East happened at just about the same time I entered high school and began to process political information data and make comments about it.

Then there was the enormous amount of e-mail propaganda I recieved during the run up to the war in Iraq. Perhaps much of what i have to say can be attributed to refuting such propaganda and an attempt at un- indoctrinating those within my circle of influence.

Maybe my take on things appears as unobjective or one sided to some.... but I am actually writing from what I know, have been exposed to and what I percieve as most threatening. I am sure some people simply think that I just make it up as I go because of some kind of unreasoned malice for Republicans- but it simply isn't so. If one were to actually read and process all the information I provided in the links strewn in this post- I think the record speaks for itself. Yet, as requested I will find more about the crimes of Clinton and the Democrats to "balance things out". The one that comes to mind first would be the travesties at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. There is also plenty of blame to go around for democratic leadrship in the recent post "The Torture Question Part 2"

Now, as I have said before:

Nowadays it seems , all one has to do to become a "Liberal" (a dirty word) is to refrain from singing the praises of the so-called "Conservatives" in power, dare to question them or, God forbid, challenge them on any matter. I don't think I need to elaborate on how counter- productive and yea even dangerous this trend is. It has gotten so bad, that I no longer insist that I am actually a Conservative in these discussions. I have come to the conclusion that the definitions of conservative and liberal have become so muddled, confused and overused that the whole conservative/liberal debate is pointless, meaningless and an impediment to everything we need to be trying to accomplish as a community if people with common interests. I believe that the whole conservative-liberal debate is indeed useless and the terms are devoid of any real meaning. There is no left and right - just authoritarian/worldly and more authoritarian/worldly. There is left and further left and right and further right so that they both really fall in approximately the same position on the dial. I often encourage my fellow men, Christians and citizens to climb out of those respective boxes and become discerning human beings again. I consider myself a disciple of Christ/spiritual warrior and nothing more or less.

Though I put no stock in such accolades I find it quite ironinc that Mr. Al Gore, the sworn enemy of all that's holy according to some, has now had a movie that won an Oscarand and an Emmy and the Nobel Peace Award while Mr. Bush, the most overtly Christian president perhaps ever, has become one of the most reviled men in the world and is considered by a vast majority across the planet to be the worst leader that the US has ever had. Not that public opinion means anything...or does it? This cannot be good for evangelism. It also has made the blowback of terrorism far more likely.

I do not necessarily consider myself as an evangelist by the way. I do consider myself as engaged in a spiritual war. Making headway in such a war can and will make work easier for those that have the gift of evangelism. I percieve my own function in the body as different. To be sure I am weary. I am anxious for this toxic trend in American politics to bleed out or at least drop to more tolerable levels. I pray every night that a man like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani does not become our next president. If that means I am stuck with Hillary then so be it. I won't be happy about it- but I can live with it. I would like to say it doesn't really matter. However, there are young people in my family that I do not want to see shipped to the deserts of the Middle East to fight in un-necessary wars.

All that factors in quite nicely to my theories and observations. I do not see my life as a false dichotomy between the spiritual and carnal. The world I live in is both and so long as I am alive I cannot escape that truth. Perhaps worrying about national leaders and wars and heretics is carnal to some... but to me its all very spiritual in essence.

In response to this: "All of your posts are connected to the previous, and the previous, and the previous; and that connection started and ended at the Republican pary head-quarters back in 1980."

It actually goes back further than that. Its true that the hostile takeover of the Christian faith started with the "reconstructionist" movement in 1980. Therer's more about that HERE and HERE. I witnessed a lot of that as I lived in close proximity to one of the country's largest Southern Baptist churches. If you really want to know how far back it goes- you must go back to 1492 and further... perhaps all the way to Constantine and the idea that the church should rule the world also known as the constantinian cataract.

Anyhow...

Click this article:

The Evangelical Roots of American Unilateralism: The Christian Right's Influence and How to Counter It

If anyone can find data as damning to the Democrats as these are I will be glad to post them and/or comment on them. I will note that the current day "conservative" movement sprang out of the politcal philosophy of Woodrow Wilson and "Wilsonian" democracy. Look that up. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and a secular- humanist- authoritarian- heretic as well.

Perhaps all this seems unobjective. Perhaps it is. I am very concerned with this particular dominionist political movement at this particular window in time. I see myself as focused on a specific target and specific matters and specific offenses rather than unfair. I don't think I ever advertised as "fair and balanced" anyway. I am focused on defending the honor of the Church against political opportunists and the accompanying heresies. Show me the Democrats who have done what the Falwells and Robertsons and Bushes and Dobsons have done and I will gladly filet them.

(James Dobson's Focus on the Family organization has on its board of directors Eric Prince, the founder of Blackwater Security which is currently involved in a scorching scandal in Iraq- a raw fact that may well speak volumes on why Dobson and his cohorts are so pro war in Iraq- because its worth zillions. This is perhaps the very epitome of a conflict in interests on the Christian side of things. Its also worth noting that this right- wing -"Christian " coterie of political operatives are supporters of Bush and the Republican party- donating bazilly-illions to the cause)

I have been told that the Republican party is NOT Satan. I agree. However, I think there is clear evidence that they work for the World and thus for the God of This World (Satan). The same is true for Democrats of course. Yet, it is said in the Bible that the institution of government was created by God. Many institutions were created by God and yet because of the sinful and fallen nature of many of them operate outside of God's intent and design. Consider that before I am labeled as a rebel or heretic. The Bible simultaneously tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, love our enemies, submit to government authority and yet NOT love the World or anything in it. What sayeth thee?

Mr. President! Such Language Sir!

Book: In lead up to war, Bush's temper flared over reporters; Cheney aides mistook watering hole for WMD hiding place

" President Bush was driven by a visceral hatred of Saddam Hussein, which he privately demonstrated in expletive-laden tirades against the Iraqi dictator. In May 2002--months before he asked Congress for authority to attack Saddam-Bush bluntly revealed his ultimate game plan in a candid moment with two aides. When told that reporter Helen Thomas was questioning the need to oust Saddam by force, Bush snapped: "Did you tell her I intend to kick his sorry mother f^*#+ing ass all over the Mideast?"
*

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Book_Bush_told_aides_he_would_0906.html


George W. Bush began to take part in a Bible study group in 1985, after two decades of binge drinking. For two years he studied the Scriptures and put his heavy drinking behind him. In that same process, he succeeded in refocusing his life, which had been diffused and confused, into a coherent cosmic vision--or ideology--which corresponded to the mentality of the conservative evangelicals of his country.

(sidebar: As a backstage audio-visual- technician I can personally attest to being an eyewitness of Mr. Bush on a drinking binge on two seperate occaisions during his governorship of Texas from 1994 -2000. These occurances were well after his alleged conversion in the late eighties and one was actually during his campaign for president for the 2000 election. So was his conversion real or part of a campaign stategy? Examine the evidence and decide for yourself.)

When Bush decided to run for office, political strategist Karl Rove helped him make the link with the evangelical sector. While other candidates were discussing polemical themes, Rove advised him that it was much better for him to simply speak about his faith. Bush presented himself as "a man with Jesus in his heart." When a reporter asked him who his favorite philosopher was, Bush replied: "Christ, because he changed my heart." That corresponded perfectly to the extreme individualism of fundamentalism, and it constituted what in the metalanguage of evangelical code words is called "personal witness."

Politically, Bush's discourse has been very effective, but theologically the results have been more problematic, as evident in particular in three areas.


Manicheism: This ancient heresy divides all of reality in two: Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. The Christian church rejected Manicheism as heretical many centuries ago. But on the day after 9/11, the President first stated the position he would continue to maintain: "This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail." Later Bush defined his enemies as the "axis of evil," a term that is theologically and morally loaded.

Given that state of sublime innocence in his own country, like Adam and Eve in paradise, Bush can muster only one explanation for the terrorists' hatred of his nation: "There are people who hate freedom." In other words, they are so evil that they abhor the good because it is good. (But if the terrorists hate freedom, why have they not attacked Canada, which in some respects is more democratic than the United States? Why is there not the same hatred for Switzerland, Holland or Costa Rica?)


Messianism: When Bush, then Governor of Texas, decided to seek the presidency, he described his decision in terms evangelicals would understand as a divine mandate: He had been "called," a phrase that evoked the prophetic commissions of the Hebrew scriptures. He summoned to the governor's mansion all the leading pastors of the region to carry out a ritual of "laying on of hands," a practice that corresponds above all to ministerial ordination. He told the pastors that he had been called (obviously, by God) to be the presidential candidate. This language of divine calling has been frequent in his declarations and at a much accelerated rhythm since September 11, 2001.

In his State of the Union address the following year, Bush reaffirmed that "history has called America and our allies to action." Soon after the 9/11 attacks, speaking to a joint session of Congress, he proudly declared that "the advance of human freedom--the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time--now depends on us." As he declared in his 2003 State of the Union address, the nation must go forth to "confound the designs of evil men," because "our calling, as a blessed country, is to make the world better." "Once again," Bush announced as war preparation was building up, "this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility...and we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country."

Bush does not seem to have much hesitation in identifying God with his own project. In a speech in September 2002, Bush cited a Christological text in reference to his war project: "And the light [America] has shone in the darkness [the enemies of America], and the darkness will not overcome it [America shall conquer its enemies]." When he appeared in a flight suit aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, he said to the troops: "And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope--a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, come out! to those who are in darkness, be free!'"

Manipulation of Prayer: True prayer does not pretend to tell God what we want Him to do but rather asks that God tell us what He wishes us to do. We do not pray in order to enlist God in our ranks but to examine ourselves, to change and to do God's will. Therefore, the confession of sin and repentance are crucial moments in prayer and worship. Prayer has played a role without precedent in the Bush presidency and in the propaganda of the evangelicals who support him. Photos of Bush at prayer are common. Great publicity was given to the fact that during a prime-time news conference shortly before his speech giving the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, Bush asked his advisers to leave him alone for ten minutes. In evangelical symbolism, that meant that a man of prayer was going to commune with God, somewhat like Moses on Mount Sinai.

It is remarkable how closely Bush's discourse coincides with that of the false prophets of the Old Testament. While the true prophets proclaimed the sovereignty of Yahweh, the God of justice and love who judges nations and persons, the false prophets served Baal, who could be manipulated by the powerful. Karl Marx concluded that religion is "the opium of the people." But Marx never knew committed Christians like Camilo Torres of Colombia, Oscar Arnulfo Romero of El Salvador, Frank Pais of Cuba, Ernesto Cardenal of Nicaragua, Dietrich Bonhoeffer of Germany or Martin Luther King Jr. of the United States. How paradoxical, and how sad, that the President of the United States, with his heretical manipulation of religious language, insists on proving Karl Marx right.

Translated by Thomas E. Ambrogi. A longer version (available at servicioskoinonia.org/logos) appeared in Signos de Vida.

I am simply amazed at how many "conservatives" and Christain thinkers, who at the beginning of the "Reagan revolution" preached about always questioning and being skeptical of government and politicians, have given this man, Bush, and his administration a free pass just because he/they claimed to be Christians, said they were against abortion, and opposed gay marriage. Boy, that was an easy sale!