Sunday, November 30, 2008

Adolfo Nicholas, S.J. Antics In India?

An Indian police officer and hotel staff hoist an Indian national flag
at the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai, India,
on Sunday, Nov. 30, 2008. (AP Photo)

Members of the Samajwadi Party Youth Brigade burn a Pakistani flag during a protest in the northern Indian city Varanasi November 29, 2008. Shock gave way to grief and anger on Saturday as India grappled with what newpapers called its own "9/11" and protesters accused neighbouring Pakistan of being behind attacks that killed 195 people.

A North Adriatic Perspective
from Avles Beluskes

SURPRISE! A yellow sacred Hindu armband at the arm of an ‘Islamic’ assassin terrorist!

(Poor Adolph, what is he constrained to devise in order to conquer India!)

I searched first in the Italian web news, and I found traces of the polemic started in India related to a particular ‘armband’ carried by one of the terrorists. Many Italian newspaper mentioned the strange ‘yellow armband’. Then I switched on the English Google news and …..another surprise! I didn’t find nothing regarded the yellow hindu armband, even if I typed: “mumbai + yellow + hindu + armband + bracelet”!!!

It seems that, meanwhile the Indian and Italian reader have to know the existence of the mystery of the ‘yellow armband’, the other Anglosaxon and English speking nations have to be kept in the ignorance….. Heheheh, Adolph is always at works with this bloody attacks….

What says the polemic? But simply there are doubts about the origin of the terrorists. One of them carried a well visible yellow hindu sacred armband…. Please, don’t tell me that this scoop will not arise in India the attention of the large public!

So our Adolph, I mean Nicolas, obvious, had another bright idea! Yes, in fact did you hear about the months ago clashes in India between Hindus and ‘Christians’ (read: papists)? Please give a look to the below posts (link). To tell the truth, Hindus were usually always the first to start the troubles: as they are (not totally wrong) seeing the ‘Christians’ (read: papists) as true invaders, they react in the right manner: “Christians (read: papists) go home!”
I don’t like the Hindu theological system based on the casts, but at the same time I can’t blame them. Because they, like the ‘Christians’ (read: papists), are only the “flesh for the guns” used by Rome in the conquer (read: submission to the divine emperor of Rome) of India. Hindu are clearly not-submitted to the pope so they have to be smashed down. But not with a direct war. No, the Eastern philosophy and martial arts that Nicolas could enlighten you about are the right strategy to be used with the ‘savage’ Hindu in order to kneel them down. I’ll try to do a résumé.

You have to understand the true Jesuit policy for India. Every day some priests, here and there, are blaming the anti-Christian forces persecuting ‘Christians’ (read: papists) all around the world, and India is always on the first places of their hit parade. But what that sneaky priests will never tell you is that the persecution is the goal N° 1 searched by the Romanist hooligans of the Society. How they could in another manner to submit a country if not depicting it like a ‘rough country’ which ‘doesn’t respect the freedom of faith’? I hope you are starting to understand….

Because for Rome, the most the Hindus are attacking her ‘Christian’ (read: papist) communities, the best she can hold India by the bowls. If you want call it a: provocation. Or: a blackmail. Legions of Mother Theresa of Calcutta, with their infinite ignorance and ‘charitable’ Roman Catholic arrogance, are trampling the feet of the Hindu community. Purportedly. The Hindus, tired to be submerged by those alien invaders, reacts, and then the scuffle starts. As usually the Legions of Mother Teresa are defeated, the Romanist priests return home with the tail among the legs and the black eyes, so the ‘poor’ divine emperor of Rome can, with his false tears, fill the print machines of the world wide press and media system. “The ‘Christians’ (read: papists) are persecuted!” you can hear often the Romanists crying.

With the blade of the International condemn at her throat, India has not many possibilities to do an autonomous policy when confronted with the Vatican and Jesuits dirty interests. So goes the world and in such a manner Rome become so powerful in 2000 years. But now is the entire world that has to be conquered and with the next great Big Bang all the enemies of Rome will be shipped on the same Titanic in order to be drowned all together, once for ever!

And now please, an exercise of imagination. What do you think about Hindus of India? Did Rome or not prepare a one-way ticket for them for the next Novo Ordo Seclorum Titanic?
There are no doubts that the Hindus will have a very luxury cabin in the next Jesuit Titanic. With wide porthole on the incoming iceberg. At least the years and years of clashes “bad Hindus vs good ‘Christians’ (read: papists)” have decisively reserved to them a very good cabin onboard.

But not the Muslims and their friends, the ‘Christians’ (read: papists). Especially the Muslims with yellow sacred Hindu armband. In fact what do you think about the selective censorship of the scoop? Do you think that the news has been censored in the Islamic Pakistan? Or now, under the blame for having supported the terrorists of Mumbai, in every tv news, every daily in Pakistan you’ll find e scoop of the “yellow sacred Hindu armband on the arm of a Islamic terrorist”?..... Heheheh, another bright idea of Nicolas…..

It is clear now that that yellow armband is similar to the many armbands, belts, tickets used in airports and harbour to identify humans and packages before to be shipped. Clear, in an imaginary way. For the Muslims, especially the Pakistan ones, who have to defend themselves by the usual blames of ‘terrorism’, they’ll use that yellow armband to blame the Hindus as the true responsible for the attack. Muslims will reject the yellow ticket and will remain on the dock. But the Hindus will accept the yellow ticket, and blaming the Muslims for having staged a false flag attempts with a purportedly yellow sacred Hindu armband, will accept the one-way Jesuit ticket and will go on board of the next Titanic.

What else should the Hindus do now? They just attacked the ‘Christians’ (read: papists) in the last August and so were under the global attention for their violence. A yellow sacred Hindu armband could be see as the sign of a false flag terrorist attack engineered in order to divert the blame from the Hindus to the Muslims. Now the Hindus could be blamed by the international community for that. Or at least suspected for that. And Hindus are not only involved in violence with the ‘Christians’ (read: papists)…. For the Hindus there aren’t paths than the one bringing them in the same Titanic with the Jews and the Americans. Not only “Jewish Neocons” and “greedy Wasps” are the “true masters of Al Qaeda”. Also the Hindus are suspected to support the PNAC agenda. Could you refute all that?

“And the ‘Christians’ (read: papists)”? That “yellow sacred Hindu armband”, to what side of the harbour is it pushing them, the dock or the ship?
I think that there aren’t doubts. They will remain on the dock with their secret Islamic brother. Or what else should they do? To fraternize with the Hindus? With whom they are in war from decades? Psychological dynamic of the triangles: Muslims-Hindus-Papists….

So our friend Nicolas gave us another lesson. Among a spiritual exercise and another, he went enlightened by the apparition of the holy chariots of his saint protector, Loyola, and had a very bright, I would say a yellow-bright idea. The murdered ‘Christians’ (read: papists) of August, by the hand of the ‘bad’, ‘evil’ Hindus, was a very good (low) moral investment. And as the true masters of the finance are teaching, it has to be not touched to squeeze from it immediately any cent of interest possible, in every moment. No, the largest amount of money have to be kept quite for long time in peace. So the August violence weren’t followed by a very strong international echo of condemnation. Just some whispers, in order mostly to spread the news of the violence – instead to blame someone for them. The Hindus front had to see that Rome could have putted them in front of the moral international court of the public opinion, but she didn’t. They believed Rome was weak. Error. Rome was only waiting to bring them the deadly hit. Another Sun Tzu strategy lesson from our friend Nicolas: “make to believe your enemy you are weak, and then destroy him with a powerful, withering attack”.

So you can understand now why I wasn’t able to find a trace of the news in the English web sphere, but the Italian one is plenty of. Italians, aka a Roman Catholic nation, have to sympathize with the Muslims, who are ‘calumniated’ by the evil, “Neocon-Jewish-American-CIA” made Al Qaeda. And calumniated by the ‘evil’ anti-‘Christian’ (read: papist) ferocious Hindus. And then they have to know that it is possible that the ‘bad’, ‘evil’ anti-‘Christians’ (read: anti-papists) Hindu probably are allied with the “Neocon-Jewish-American-CIA” Al Qaeda in order to drag away from them the blames for the persecutions on the ‘Christians’ (read: papists) in India.

India is today a fully (occultly) Vatican controlled and Jesuit ruled country, filled with Romanist Italians. This is the reason for which an event occurred during the terrorist attack and involving an Italian has been spread with large echo in the Indian media. An Italian cook of one of the targeted hotels, challenging the terrorists, exited from the hotel bringing the milk to his baby. A ‘Christian’ (read: papist) hero. Not like those ugly, ferocious Hindus disguised as Muslims.

See how the Jesuits are using their traitor heretic Waldesians and fake Protestant, I mean the Illy coffe-industry family of Trieste, to conquer and to submit India to the divine emperor of Rome. See who is Sonia Gandhi:

"(Fake) Heretics And Traitor-Protestants: The Case, Of Friuli's Governor, Riccardo Illy"

"Religious Clashes Between Hindus and 'Christians', In India: Guess Who Is The Beneficiary"

user posted image
user posted image

“…….The identity of the terrorists, who attacked the financial capital of India and killing more than 100 people, remains surrounded by the mystery
But the Indian press raised doubts about the provenience of the terrorists. In some images, from a service video, it is possible to see one of the presumed terrorists, a young with jeans and T-shirt, who is carrying at the wrist a sacred Hindu bracelet. This object, used as a recognizing sign by some extremist Hindu, would push the attention on terrorist groups growth in the inner country…….” writing happily the La Stampa daily online. And then also, Il Piccolo, Tiscali Notizie, and of course the North League party voice and many many others.

Best regards from a North Adriatic Anti-roman-catholic and Anti-islamic isolationist


From Ken Ardel:
very good insight avles.
more of that Jesuit/papist/ SMOM "hide your hand" involvement as we thought.
Avle's response:

Listen: I would have putted the message in the appropriate thread in the Terrorist section of Unhived Mind, but I wanted the underline the Jesuitical stench coming from the attack. Usually people are not aware about the Italian/Romanist/Jesuitical involvement in the government of India, and the world media are banalizing all that with a clash "India/Pakistan" >>> "Neocons/anti-Neocons". Ok, all that is not wrong, but it is a reduction. I warn you from the simplifications, because they help the brain to not understand what's going on.

So this evening, listening to the usual evening tv news, I gathered other important points (at least Italian tv news perspective...):

1) they are pushig you to consider the attack as the "Indian 9-11". Many times it went underlined by journalists that this was the willing of the terrorists. DECODIFICATION: what does it mean 9-11? For a part of humanity an Islamic terrorist attack etc. For the othe part a false flag attack. If "America created a false flag attack - so did India with Mumbai Massacre" is the allusive equation.

2) to enforce the above equation they repeated that "it is a mystery on how a bunch of terrorist could have done so damages before to be stopped". The rest of the question was: "why the Indian security forces, as well warned by a year before on the possibility of devasting terrorist attacks, didn't stop the Mumbai terrorist attack?" This is called "to instillate doubts without declaring them". The doubts that every spectator must cultivate - with the help of point 1) - is: did the Indian government helped secretly the terrorists? And then "Indian 9-11..." is a natural consequence.

3) at the end of the service, after the attention of every spectator has been captured and the media was sure no one would have lost the final words, the journalist said: "BUT AFTER THE MYSTERIES, THE ONLY SURE THING IS THAT THIS TERRORIST ATTACK IS DE-STABILIZING THE NEAR PAKISTAN". In fact the ISI and Pakistan intelligence is now in great embarrassment. And who is interested to de-stabilize the near Pakistan? My grandfather or the near India? I imagine you could answer for yourself. So another "un-directly instilled certainty".

Take the three points above, and if what I said has some value, you can say that the first true target of those attacks was just the India. Usually the true victim is not publicized. So when you kill him you'll have not the "lights of the stages on him and on you". See the below excerpt:

Translated from:

2008-08-26 19:09


Solidarity with the victims, disapproval for the violence, and an appeal to stop “any kind of abuse”: this is the reaction of the Holy See the day after the violence against the Christians in India. “Referring to the tragic news about violences against the believers and the institutions of the Catholic Church that are coming from India – it is written in the note spread by the Vatican press office – the Holy See, meanwhile is expressing solidarity to the local Churches and to the religious Congregations involved, condemns these actions which are injuring the dignity and the freedom of the people and are compromising the peaceful civil cohabitation. At the same time – the Holy See is adding in the note – it is made an appeal to everyone in order, with a sense for the responsibility, to put an end to any abuse and in order to re-build a climate of dialogue and mutual respect.

"9-11": If the 'American' 9-11 was banally intended to a self-victimization of an 'arrogant' 'American Imperialism' (a short resumee of th usual propaganda), could the Indian 9-11 be a sort of self-victimization for an arrogant Hindu country?

Possible propaganda A): "The Americans are destroying all the world for 'their' interests and the 9-11 was intended to push away the blame from them". Propaganda B ) : "India is destroying the Christianizing of the country with Hindu violence, and the Mumbai attack was intended to push away the blame from her".

Before to drag away these points, think to a real fact: India is a more-than-one-billion people country. His inhabitants - accustomed with poverty - could work with even more efficiency than the disciplinate Chinese.... with a much lower wage than the one of the Chinese!!! India is plenty of poor, young excellent physicians, mathematicians, graduated in informatic, in any kind of science, graduated with excellent quotations. India is like a compressed crossbow the English Empire putted in the hands of the General Superior. Guess to whom it could be aimed. It is clear that Vatican and Jesuits want to keep the absolute control on that continental crossbow. With every means possible.

QUOTE (Avles @ Nov 29 2008, 07:33 PM)

2) to enforce the above equation they repeated that "it is a mystery on how a bunch of terrorist could have done so damages before to be stopped". The rest of the question was: "why the Indian security forces, as well warned by a year before on the possibility of devasting terrorist attacks, didn't stop the Mumbai terrorist attack?" This is called "to instillate doubts without declaring them". The doubts that every spectator must cultivate - with the help of point 1) - is: did the Indian government helped secretly the terrorists? And then "Indian 9-11..." is a natural consequence.

I have still under my eyes the document they showed in the tv news service, with a slow pedagogical zooming on some parts of it, and the journalist slowly explaining to you as "in the December 2006 the Indian intelligence (or what damn else service) had reports about the possible infiltration of 600 or 6000 or XY thousands of Islamic terrorists from Pakistan but the warning has been not heard by the authorities etc. etc. blah blah blah..."

And at the end of the service, when the attention and concentration of the spectator was at his top, the final, fatal consideration: "THE ONLY SURE THING IS THAT THIS TERRORIST ATTACK DE-STABILIZED THE NEAR PAKISTAN"....


Ken Ardel:

and the funny part is that India has 150 million muslim indian citizens , so these so called islamic terrorists need not come from Pakistan.
but America is pushing for the Pakistani involvement angle.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Criminal Romish Cigarette Virginia Conspiracy Against Morales Coca

Alliance of Filthy Rome and Filthy Cigarette Pushing Virginia Against the Infinitely Safer Agriculture Commodity Products of Coca Leaf

Neither Rome nor Virginia are Christian.

Do not forget that it is Virginia which perverted Tobacco by engineering the infamous Virginia "Bright Leaf" variety which has the psychoactive properties removed and made smoother, in order to foster addiction, extra profits and death- the Virginia way of bearing false wittiness as if Virginia were righteous (something which that filthy luciferan state is most certainly NOT!)

From Down South:

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Evo Visits and the Nutters Come Out

The WaPo has a story today about Evo's visit to Washington (where, incidentally, there seems to be some acts of contrition by U.S. lawmakers for the Bush administration's past year of actively fomenting a coup d'état). Naturally, the paper found a nutcase quote, in this case one Elena Abolnik:
"We are here to denounce what Evo is doing to our democracy, to our freedom of the press, to our constitution, to our human rights," Elena Abolnik, a Bolivian immigrant and activist from Northern Virginia.

An activist? Really? Well, sure, just like the KKK was (still is?) an activist organization. Ms. Abolnik is vice president of the Virginia chapter of Pro–Santa Cruz Committee, the cryptofascist organization run by wealthy landowner and arch-enemy of Evo and Bolivian law and order Branko Marinkovic. The UJC--the brownshirts of the opposition--goes hand in fist with Ms. Abolnik's committee, a violent organization that is only happy to attack the majority indigenous population of Bolivia.

I think it is only right and proper for news media here and elsewhere to listen and report opposition viewpoints, but a simple Google search quickly turned up Ms. Abolnik's association with the Pro–Santa Cruz Committee. Responsible journalism would, at the very least, require that this relationship be disclosed.


Sara said...

Are you going to send a letter to the editor of the Washington Post?

mgrace said...

Letter sent!

Criminal Virginia Bright Leaf Cigarette Conspiracy- More Consumption, Taxes, Fires and Deaths

Romish Racism Against Indigenous Bolivians

From Down South

Friday, November 21, 2008

More From the Opposition

If they weren't already looking bad enough, here's some comments from the anti-Evo-protest invitation on Facebook. (H/T to Barrio Flores.)

Don't ever let the opposition tell you they aren't racists.

Evo Morales Media Reports

From Carlos in DC:

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Reactions in the media to President Evo Morales visit to Washington DC

Some news posts in the US, Bolivia, Cuba and Spain:

Bolivian president Evo Morales speaking at American University in Washington, DC. Photo by Chris Gregory/GWU Hatchet

Indian Country Today interviewed president Evo Morales

    An interview with President Evo Morales

    By Rob Capriccioso

    Story Published: Nov 20, 2008

    WASHINGTON – Indian Country Today sat down for an exclusive interview with Bolivian President Evo Morales Nov. 19. Time constraints and language barriers aside, Morales’ strong vision for how indigenous people can prosper shined brightly.

    Indian Country Today: As an indigenous leader of your country, what unique leadership contributions do you bring to Bolivia?

    Evo Morales: I feel that the indigenous movement around the world is the reservoir of moral authority for the following reasons: First, because we have lived in communities, in collectives — not only in harmony with other human beings, but in harmony with the mother Earth. The indigenous culture does not guide people to live better, but to live well. We are not part of an individualism, or sectarianism or ambition. What we try to do is seek equality amongst human beings.

    The Western culture guides people to live differently. Discrimination, slavery, all of this comes from the West. Those kinds of things appeared in Bolivia because they came from capitalism, in which there were economic models that concentrated wealth in few hands. In order to concentrate this wealth of capital in very few hands, you have to destroy the environment. There is exploitation of man by man. People are not interested in their homelands, or in their life, they’re just interested in capitalism and making money.

    In indigenous culture, equality is so sacred. It’s a profound difference between our model life in indigenous communities and the model of life put forward by a capitalist society.
    “The indigenous culture does not guide people to live better, but to live well.”

    In my case, I have said a few times, thanks to honesty, I was able to become president. Since 1988, I have been a union leader. … from ‘88-2008, it’s been 20 years. I went from being a union leader to being a president, and I still get all these offers of money — from deputy ministers, and even priests in the Catholic Church. Before the recall referendum [in August], a minister said, ‘Here, I’ll give you 100,000.’ I said, ‘Go away. …’

    The indigenous culture is very important in terms of keeping people honest. That’s what I was telling people during the election, that our ancestors gave us a law: Don’t lie, don’t steal, and don’t be lazy. This worldview that we inherited from our ancestors has now been enshrined in our new constitution.

    ICT: How did your meeting at the museum with tribal leaders go? Did you find any similarities between their philosophies and your own?

    Morales: Well, we didn’t have that much opportunity to exchange those kinds of viewpoints. But I do congratulate the indigenous brothers and sisters of North America for their fine museum, which preserves and presents our cultural wealth and heritage. In my quick passing, I saw that [the museum] has cultural artifacts here not only from North America, but also from South America.

    When we come together within a spiritual framework, and under legitimacy — and, above all, when we have solidarity with each other — this is the basis for agreement among the indigenous movements of the world. These points of view are the values of the indigenous people, and they should be the values of humanity. Ethics is so important in a human life. We do have some profound differences in ethics of morality in humanity. The Western way of thinking wants to concentrate wealth in a few hands and amongst a few clans and families.

    ICT: Do you think that North American indigenous leaders should be doing a better job at reaching out to Central and South American indigenous leaders?

    Morales: In 1991 and 1992, I saw great integration of indigenous movements not only in North and South America, but of the whole world. During the anniversary of 500 years of [colonization], we decided to move from resistance to taking over power. In Bolivia, we are fulfilling a promise that we made to ourselves back in ’91-92. … During some periods of time, we have not been able to coordinate our struggles, but deep down, we do have continuous contact. …

    The decade of the indigenous peoples, proclaimed by the United Nations, was really nothing more than a slogan. It was like the birthday of the indigenous peoples of the world, 10 years long. So, when you have a birthday party, you have to eat well. You have cake. You have a party. But nothing happened during that decade. We didn’t have a cake, or a party or anything. And we were actually living under the neo-liberal politics that were taking more and more of our land away. The civil, political and cultural rights of indigenous peoples were never respected. And the decade ended without accomplishing anything. …

    ICT: Are you at all surprised that the United States hasn’t signed on to the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

    Morales: Not only the United States. The first country to not only sanction, but also to enact it into law was Bolivia. But in the United States, all of the rules and treaties and agreements on human rights never get signed.

    Thank you very much.

The Real News includes a comment on the speech of Bolivian president Evo Morales at American University. Thanks to Abiding in Bolivia for posting the video:


Democracy Now! reports: An Hour with Bolivian President Evo Morales: “Neoliberalism Is No Solution for Humankind":
    Bolivian President Evo Morales joins us in the firehouse studio to discuss the election of Barack Obama, US-Bolivian relations, the global economic crisis and more. Morales is visiting the United States at a time when relations between the two countries are deteriorating. Last month, the Bush administration suspended long-term trade benefits with Bolivia over its alleged failure to cooperate in the “war on drugs.” Meanwhile, Morales has given the Drug Enforcement Administration three months to leave Bolivia. He accused DEA agents of violating Bolivian sovereignty and encouraging the drug trade. [includes rush transcript]

In the blogs:

Abiding in Bolivia posts: "Racist pickets OAS"
    WaPo reporter Pamela Constable didn´t tell you that the quoted "activist" Elena Abolnik is a fascist. She also forgot to tell you that these protesters engaged in racist verbal assualts of indigenous Bolivian dancers attending the OAS meeting.

    Read more

The LatinAmericanist posted: "Morales rounds out two-day Washington tour"
    Bolivian president Evo Morales wrapped up his two-day Washington visit, the first of his presidency, with a speaking engagement at the OAS on Wednesday, where he sought international support for Bolivia's soon-to-be new constitution[...] where he met privately with Senator Richard Lugar.

    Read more

Ten Percent goes: "Washington Sides With Fascists Against Evo Morales" and sums several blogs, including Carlos in DC:
    [...] well look when anyone who is involved with supporting a fascist group the US also supports in Latin America that’s one thing, then when that person gets generously quoted in the Washington Post that’s another, then…well look she is listed as working for Access National Corporation as a mortgage banker (d’oh!) in Reston Virginia and has an address in Fairfax Virginia, where she is vice president of Comite Por Santa Cruz (cue those swastika lite crosses on the logo). Reg details show Created on: 06-Dec-06 Expires on: 06-Dec-08 Last Updated on: 06-Nov-07 - One year after Evo was elected with 53.7% on December 18, 2005 (84.5% turnout!). Since of course re-approved with a whopping 67.4%, y’know elected, overwhelmingly.

    Read more

Down South says: "Evo Visits and the Nutters Come Out" and reports on Elena Abolnik, the "activist" mentioned by The Washington Post:
    An activist? Really? Well, sure, just like the KKK was (still is?) an activist organization. Ms. Abolnik is vice president of the Virginia chapter of Pro–Santa Cruz Committee, the cryptofascist organization run by wealthy landowner and arch-enemy of Evo and Bolivian law and order Branko Marinkovic. The UJC--the brownshirts of the opposition--goes hand in fist with Ms. Abolnik's committee, a violent organization that is only happy to attack the majority indigenous population of Bolivia.

    Read more

National Geographic's All Roads blog says: "Evo Morales Addresses Packed House at American University"
    Last night before an overflow crowd at American University in Washington D.C., Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia addressed a packed house of academics, students, policy makers and diplomats. Morales, subject of the film Cocalero that was featured in the 2007 All Roads Film Festival, was both pensive and visionary in his 75 minute speech where he reflected upon his amazing journey to Bolivia's highest office and outlined his ideas for the future. Amidst strained diplomatic relations with the U.S., it must have been encouraging for him to see the scores of students that lined across campus in anticipation to hear his address. Due to security reasons, more were turned away than were let in to see the speech, whether in the 300 seat auditorium or the overflow room that transmitted a live video feed.

More media:

American University's The Eagle and Politico report: Morales urges better U.S. relations / Bolivian president visits AU
    Members of the AU community packed into Ward Circle Building Room 1 Tuesday evening to hear Bolivian President Evo Morales speak about the changes his government made in Bolivia and the need for better relations between Bolivia and the United States.

    Read more

George Washington University's Hatchet reports: " Bolivian president looks to form bond with Obama"
    In the midst of rapidly crumbling relations between Bolivia and the United States, left-wing Bolivian President Evo Morales told an audience at American Tuesday night that he looks forward to forging ties with President-elect Barack Obama - in his first speech ever in the District.

    Read more

Bolivian [Evo Morales] says US bugged his phone
Thursday, 20 November 2008

    Bolivia's left-wing president, Evo Morales, accused the US Drug Enforcement Administration of trying to tap his telephone conversations instead of going after cocaine traffickers.

    Read more

Media in Spanish

Bolivia's La Razon says "Evo waits for Obama to improve relations with the US - Rally: the Morales administration says that allies of Sanchez de Lozada protested against Morales"
    El gobierno de Evo Morales trabajará en mejorar sus relaciones con Estados Unidos, una vez que asuma la presidencia del país Barack Obama el 20 de enero, informó ayer el vocero del Palacio de Gobierno, Iván Canelas.

    Read more

Bolivia's Los Tiempos reports: "Evo asks the OAS for support to apply the new Constitution"
    El presidente Evo Morales pidió ayer, en su primera intervención ante la OEA, que el organismo regional "acompañe" a Bolivia en la aplicación de la nueva Constitución Política del Estado (CPE), ante la "preocupación" que le causa este proceso.

    Read more

Spain's El Pais titles: "Morales assures in Washington that he has "much hope" placed on Obama"
    En plena efervescencia del llamado efecto Obama en Estados Unidos y también en Latinoamérica, el presidente de Bolivia, el indigenista Evo Morales, ha visitado este miércoles Washington para rendir tributo a Martin Luther King, un "gran luchador" contra la esclavitud y la discriminación.

    Read more

El Pais also says "Morales accuses the US to bug his phone"
    El presidente de Bolivia, Evo Morales, ha acusado este martes a la Agencia Antidrogas de Estados Unidos (DEA, sus siglas en ingles) de haberse dedicado a pinchar sus llamadas telefónicas al igual que hizo con el vicepresidente Alvaro García Linera, "como muestra clara de las labores de injerencia política que [la DEA] cometió en Bolivia" durante los últimos seis años.

    Read more

Cuba's Prensa Latina says: "Visit of Evo Morales to the US is considered as positive"
    La Paz, 20 nov (PL) El presidente de Bolivia, Evo Morales, desarrolló una exitosa visita a Estados Unidos, donde sus propuestas fueron acogidas con interés, aseguraron hoy autoridades de este país.

    Read more

More to come...

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The Washington [a]Post[ate] on Morales

From Carlos in DC

The Washington Post about Evo Morales visit to DC - Video of racist attacks at the OAS

The Washington Post has posted this article yesterday/today about the first visit to Washington, DC of Bolivian president Evo Morales Ayma.

The article was written by Pamela Constable, an experienced journalist specialized in foreign affairs and who is member of the very influential Council on Foreign Relations.

Constable points out the fact that Morales did not meet with any US officials, something that in my opinion makes no sense. US President elect Barack Obama should have met with Morales, or at least a member of his transitional team should have had the courtesy of approaching the democratic-elect Andean leader.

But as Morales has said, he is optimistic about improving relations with the next US president –something that Constable fails to mention clearly.

The article tries hard to look balanced and fair, but Constable has a very arrogant view of Morales as she calls his visit as "defiant" and ignores the important facts that motivated Morales to expel the US ambassador and DEA agents from Bolivia.

As Morales has stated, those American officials were involved in serious diplomatic offenses, acting upon internal security and political matters in Bolivia, supporting directly the racist secessionist groups of the Media Luna regions, and even shooting bullets against Bolivian citizens.

    Bolivia's Morales Diplomatic, Defiant in Visit to D.C.

    By Pamela Constable
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, November 20, 2008; Page A14

    Morales, who did not meet with any administration officials here, recently ordered all U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents to leave Bolivia, a major grower of coca plants that produce cocaine. He also expelled the U.S. ambassador, accusing the envoy of conspiring with his opponents. The Bush administration, in turn, expelled Bolivia's ambassador, suspended trade preferences and withdrew all Peace Corps volunteers from the poor Andean country.

    Given that acrimonious official backdrop, and the deep antagonism Morales's presidency has stirred among the large Bolivian immigrant community here, his two-day visit to the capital was an odd combination of symbolic goodwill gestures and harsh rhetoric, cheering students and angry demonstrators.

    In speeches at the Organization of American States and American University, as well as in meetings with the news media, Morales stated adamantly that he would not allow U.S. drug agents back into Bolivia, saying they had been used for "political vengeance" against him. On the other hand, he said he had made serious efforts to curb drug trafficking while protecting small coca farmers as the longtime head of the Bolivian coca growers' association.

    "We are all obliged to fight against narco-trafficking. We know that cocaine hurts humanity, but coca leaf is not poison," he told a gathering of Latin American diplomats yesterday at OAS headquarters. "Even a superpower," he added, does not have the right to punish or spy on another government "on the pretext of fighting narco-trafficking."

    Morales also dismissed critics who portray him as a stooge of leftist Latin American leaders, such as Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and described himself as a strong believer in democracy. He noted that his 2005 election as Bolivia's first indigenous president had been ratified in a referendum in August, and he touted his proposed new constitution as an effort to create an egalitarian state where private property would be respected but public services would be a "human right."

    Morales, 48, was cheered by an overflow crowd at American University on Tuesday night when, in a rambling and often emotional talk, he recounted his rise from a childhood of rural poverty to the leadership of an indigenous majority that had long been "hated, humiliated and discriminated against." But yesterday, he was jeered by a crowd of protesters outside the OAS, whose chants and placards called him a communist dictator, drug trafficker and puppet of Chávez. Most participants were middle-class Bolivian immigrants, including some from Santa Cruz, the wealthy lowland city that has been a focal point of opposition to Morales.

    The increasingly ugly conflict between the Bolivian government and its domestic adversaries has led to a series of violent confrontations. The split has pitted Morales against some provincial governors, large landowners and most major private newspapers and TV stations.

    "We are here to denounce what Evo is doing to our democracy, to our freedom of the press, to our constitution, to our human rights," Elena Abolnik, a Bolivian immigrant and activist from Northern Virginia, shouted into a bullhorn as Morales's limousine, flanked by Secret Service vehicles, arrived at the ornate OAS building.

    Administration officials had no comment on Morales's visit. The Bolivian president said he did not meet with any advisers to Obama, but he did visit several U.S. lawmakers, who reportedly quizzed him on his expulsion of U.S. Ambassador Philip S. Goldberg and the U.S. drug agency. However, several prominent lawmakers also sought to publicly mend fences with Morales, who came to Washington after giving a speech Monday at the United Nations.

    Morales said he and Obama had much in common as emerging leaders of long-oppressed groups in their respective countries. "Who would have believed 10 or 15 years ago that I could become president of Bolivia? Who would have believed 20 or 30 years ago that a black man could become president of the United States?" he said to the OAS special session, speaking in Spanish.

The protest outside the OAS building

The protesters were people with clear racist tendencies, and obviously they represent the tiny elite that are losing its long-standing privileges after Morales got elected.

For instance, in this photo posted by the WP, the white guy in the left looks to me like the nephew of former Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada who has been accused with genocide and eight other crimes.

And here is a video (in Spanish) showing these group of Bolivians who tried to insult president Evo Morales at the OAS building.

Since they didn't succeed with their nasty attempts, they went on to insult a group of Andean dancers. They shout "Assassins, get out, fake Indigenous, sold outs, take that custom off, bastards, piece of shit, get out, Evo faggot son of a bitch, he is a faggot…"

You know, I might be biased because I admire Evo Morales and the work he is doing as President. It’s obvious that he is making history and changing Bolivia for the better. But after watching that video I am more convinced that people who are against Evo are evil and vicious beings.

About the future relations between the US and Bolivia, I hope the Obama administration will change the bully attitude that Bush and his officials had showed towards Bolivia. Both countries must work for a more human, honest and respectful approach towards each other, and for the benefit of their peoples.


As Abiding in Bolivia puts it:
    "WaPo reporter Pamela Constable didn´t tell you that the quoted "activist" Elena Abolnik is a fascist. She also forgot to tell you that these protesters engaged in racist verbal assualts of indigenous Bolivian dancers attending the OAS meeting.
And I just got news that the Indigenous dancers in the video were also assaulted by the racist mob. A report on that is coming up...

Second update - Saturday November 22

The person who posted the video in Youtube -intended to make fun of the victims obviously- has deleted the video. But I was quick to save a copy and here it is:

Another more revealing video is also online and I will include it in my next post. Truth needs to be known.

Another outrageous video of racist attacks in Washington DC against Indigenous Bolivians

As you might know by now, this week's protest outside the OAS building against Bolivian president Evo Morales turned into a racist attack against Indigenous Bolivian dancers.

The protesters were people with clear racist tendencies. Most of Bolivian opposition -with its stronghold in the western city of Santa Cruz- has promoted violence and racist attacks in the Andean nation, but now they are bringing that hate to DC. Among the protesters were friends and allies of former president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who is requested by the Bolivian justice for genocide.

Here is another video showing this group of Bolivians shouting (in Spanish) : "Assassins, get out, fake Indigenous, sold outs, take that custom off, bastards, piece of shit, go away, Evo faggot son of a bitch, he is a faggot"


Do you know what is the saddest part of this video? that some of the protesters are actually Indigenous peoples themselves, and they use racial slurs to insult their own people! Another example why we should never use terms like Latino or Hispanic - people end up thinking they are white... great - nothing better than self-loathing Indians honoring Native American heritage month.

Shame on you people, whoever you are.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Morales Lashes Out At The Vatican

Bolivian government responds to papal call for reconciliation
by lashing out

President Evo Morales / Cardinal Julio Terrazas

.- The rector of the Salesian University in Bolivia, Father Thelian Corona, has expressed disappointment at the government’s reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s message to the Bolivian bishops during their ad limina visit, in which he called for national reconciliation.

Fr. Corona said a “useless controversy” has been created after President Evo Morales and the vice minister for Coordination with Social Movements, Sacha Llorenti, who said the bishops did not represent the Bolivian faithful in their traditional report to the Pope on the state of the Church in their country.

“It is childish to think that the leaders of the Church are going to contradict the faith of the people,” the priest said. “It’s not an individual bishop speaking, but rather the perception of the Bishops’ Conference of Bolivia. Describing is not the same as judging; describing does not mean casting judgment. To deny the reality of what is happening in Bolivia is like denying there is an economic crisis, it is like denying that there has not been an increase in prices,” he added.

Likewise, Father Corona noted that the Church’s teaching “is never political.” “We are concerned about the statements by vice minister Sacha Llorenti. If they were his own personal opinions, his perception is not very objective, and if they were in the name of the government, then things are even more delicate.”

Several days ago, during the opening of the Fourth World Congress of Mediation, Bolivian President Evo Morales lashed out at the Church calling her an “instrument of domination that brings injustice and inequality.”

From Rome, Cardinal Julio Terrazas of Santa Cruz de la Sierra urged Bolivians not to be carried away by a spirit of confrontation. “Let’s not be carried away by confrontational words or statements or phrases in Bolivia and Latin America that claim the bishops are on one side, the priests on another and the faithful on another,” he said.

Morales Speaks At Jesuit Fordham University

Bolivian President Morales to Speak at Fordham on Nov. 17

Contact: Syd Steinhardt
(212) 636-6534

President Evo Morales of Bolivia will address members of the Fordham community on "The Realities Of Democracy" on Monday, Nov. 17 at 4 p.m. at McNally Amphitheatre.

In his address, President Morales will express his thanks to the civil society and nations that supported his government during the recent violence in Santa Cruz; discuss the negotiations that led to the agreement his government reached with the opposition on proposed constitutional changes; and explain how those changes, which are subject to the results of a Jan. 25 referendum, will work within the framework of Bolivian democracy.

His Excellency Juan Evo Morales Ayma
President, Republic of Bolivia

"The Realities Of Democracy"

Monday, Nov. 17
4 p.m. EST

Fordham University
McNally Amphitheater
140 W. 62nd St. at Columbus Avenue
New York

RSVP: by Friday, Nov. 14

The address is sponsored by the Institute of International Humanitarian Affairs at Fordham University (Kevin M. Cahill, M.D., director) and His Excellency Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, president of the 63rd General Assembly of the United Nations.

For security purposes, all attendees must be seated by 3:30 p.m. Large bags and backpacks will not be allowed in the auditorium.

Established in 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations, the General Assembly occupies a central position as the chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations. Comprising all 192 Members of the United Nations, it provides a unique forum for multilateral discussion of the full spectrum of international issues covered by the Charter.

The Institute of International Humanitarian Affairs at Fordham University offers an academic base for the study and development of international health, human rights, and other humanitarian issues, especially those that occur in periods of conflict.

At a time when terrorism and war are at the forefront of world affairs, the Institute trains humanitarian workers in the critical skills needed to aid in crises situations. The Institute identifies fundamental needs and uses its talents, contacts, and resources to define practical solutions, while initiating dialogue, understanding, and cooperation among people and nations divided by war.

Founded in 1841, Fordham is the Jesuit University of New York, offering exceptional education distinguished by the Jesuit tradition to approximately 14,700 students in its four undergraduate colleges and its six graduate and professional schools. It has residential campuses in the Bronx and Manhattan, a campus in Westchester, and the Louis Calder Center Biological Field Station in Armonk, N.Y.

Morales-Vatican Spar in Bolivia

Evo Morales, Catholic Church spar in Bolivia

Associated Press

The Bolivian government says comments by the Roman Catholic Church casting its political reforms as divisive are ``surprising.''

Bolivian Cardinal Julio Terrazas has told Pope Benedict XVI that President Evo Morales is not building ''a Bolivia for all'' with reforms benefiting the country's indigenous poor.

The pontiff later said he was concerned for the South American nation after Terrazas' visit to the Vatican on Monday.

Top government minister Sacha Llorenti said on Friday that the criticism was ''surprising,'' because a once-divided Congress reached a compromise last month on Morales' new constitution.

Morales on Wednesday criticized the church's past ''domination'' of Bolivia's indigenous people and its present-day political power.

Morales and the RCC clashed about two years ago regarding the religious orientation of Bolivia's schools, with Morales then commenting -- words to the effect -- that the RCC sometimes behaves as if the inquisition were still occurring.

Bolivia's President Morales Now Says Church Has A Record Of Damaging Bolivia, Says Church Leaders Always Gravitate To The Oligarchy I posted a similar story yesterday. Yet, I see Morales is still on quite a roll. I noticed that Fidel Castro recently celebrated his 80th birthday. Perhaps Morales' diatribe against the Church is a present for old Fidel. Such revolutionary talk probably brings some joy to the aging thug. Here's hoping that Castro isn't around for too many more birthdays. Meaning he will have a Damascus experience on the road to Havana and change his ways. I am not holding my breath but know with God all things are possible!

Click Here For Comments About Bolivia's Evo Morales

Evo Morales and the Roman Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The socialist administration of Bolivian President Evo Morales has not always had a good relationship with the Bolivian hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. This has become a problem for Morales as polls taken in the early 2000s indicate that 77% of the Bolivian population say they are Catholic, meaning that about seven million of the nine million Bolivians follow the Roman Catholic faith.[1][2] When faced with a Morales policy that they disagree with, Catholic Bishops of Bolivia are able to inspire large demonstrations against the measures. The Catholic Church draws most of its support from the cities, and little from the higher rural areas (where Morales draws his main support) due to "a lack of resources and to indigenous cultural resistance to Church efforts to replace traditional attitudes".[3] Morales has stated that he is a Catholic,[4], he like many rural Bolivians was raised with a combination of Catholicism and belief in "the Pachamama or Mother Earth figure, as well as on Ekeko, a traditional indigenous god of luck, harvests, and general abundance".[3][5] Other indigenous leaders like Felix Patzi (see below) follow a pure indigenous faith and "discard all forms of Christianity; however, this effort has not led to a significant increase in the number of "indigenous-belief only" worshippers."[3]

The special place given to Catholicism in Bolivia can be seen in Article 3 of the Bolivian constitution, which says, “The State recognizes and sustains the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Religion. It guarantees the public exercise of all other faiths. Relations with the Catholic Church shall be governed by concordats and agreements between the Bolivian State and the Holy See.”[6] The United States State Department has characterized this as "the Constitution recognizes it [Catholicism] as the official religion",[3] a statement that the comments of Bolivian Bishops (see below) would seem to disagree with.



[edit] Bolivian Catholic theocracy?

On June 18 2006, the Archbishop of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Cardinal Julio Terrazas, addressed the rumors that congressional candidates to the Bolivian parliament were saying that the Catholic Church was demanding to be made the official religion of Bolivia. In his Sunday sermon the cardinal assured people that they were “not seeking or fighting to achieve such a goal”.[6] He pointed out that the bishops had until recently been open to reviewing the Bolivian constitution’s article that granted special recognition to the role of Catholicism. The cardinal said, “They keep saying we are fighting for that article. Not so! Let it be reviewed, but let it be done intelligently and fully. Let’s not deny that this country has truly received the seeds of the Kingdom of justice and of truth that the Lord has brought, and that that has been part of her history, and that is why in so many parts of Bolivia we are proud to be Catholics.”[6] The cardinal pointed out that Catholicism had stopped being the official state religion of Bolivia since 1967 and said the Church is merely asking for “respect” and “recognition of the work she has done.”[6] He said those who are calling for secularism “are hiding their other intentions” to strip Bolivia of religion and “order a country in such a way that God is not present.”[6]

[edit] Church land seized

In early June, 2006 the socialist party of Evo Morales (Movimiento al Socialismo) seized lands adjacent to a Marian Shrine in Copacabana. These lands where originally given to the shrine decades ago by the Bolivian government so that income derived by use of the land would help support the shrine. At the seizure party loyalists declared that they were taking only the “unproductive lands of the Church”, and the land was divided into seven lots and several trees were cut down. Father Obermaier, in charge of the shrine called for the government to resolve the situation. [7]

[edit] Call to stop having Catholic feast days as national holidays

On July 27, 2006 while the education reform controversy was ongoing (see below) the Socialist Senator Antonio Peredo joined with other members of Morales’ Movimiento al Socialismo in the Bolivian Parliament to call for an end of recognizing Catholic feast days such as Corpus Christi and All Saints Day as national holidays. The suggested policy was to only recognize Holy Week and Christmas. For the nationally recognized holidays to change the policy would have to be approved by the full Parliament.[8]

[edit] Conflict over religious classes in state schools

In early June 2006, Bolivian Education Minister Felix Patzi working under President Evo Morales declared that “education will emphatically be secular and no longer Catholic. Religion classes will now be optional instead of obligatory. There will be a course on the history of religions: indigenous, Arabic, or Catholic.”[9] The reform called for “secular education that respects the beliefs, the spirituality of indigenous and native nations and of the Bolivian nations as the basis of individual and communitarian rights.”[9] The Bolivian Roman Catholic hierarchy immediately opposed this proposal and saw it as an attack on religion in Bolivia they were outspoken against the measure and organized protests against it.

[edit] Announcement by Patzi

In June 2006 Minister Felix Patzi (a sociologist of Aymara Indian descent who practices "a pre-Columbian religion that worships the earth goddess"[1]) brought organizational opposition against the Morales governments' ideas when he declared that "Catholicism would no longer be ‘the official’ religion taught at schools."[10] Patzi’s said that he wanted to end the “the religious monopoly” of the Catholic faith in schools and allow all faith to be taught “from oriental religions to those practiced by our native peoples.”[1][11] He said he end the policy that makes Catholic religious classes obligatory for students, and called the existing system “colonial”.[11] In an interview with the newspaper La Razon, Patzi said, “In Bolivia the people are not only Catholic, but also of other religious faiths.” He stated his fear of the issue “leading to confrontation among Bolivians”.[1]

After protests by the Catholic hierarchy Patzi clarified that the sectarian Roman Catholic classes taught in state schools would be replaced with a "history of religions" class that would include a focus on traditional indigenous beliefs alongside Catholicism and other faiths practiced in Bolivia.[12] Patzi said that “Catholicism would no longer be the ‘official religion’ of the country’s educational system.”[13] The Morales government’s announced its policy as a call for “secular education that respects the beliefs, the spirituality of indigenous and native nations and of the Bolivian nations as the basis of individual and communitarian rights.”[13] It was announced that the proposal would come before the National Assembly for a vote on August 6, 2006.[14]

[edit] Bishops critique Patzi

Immediately after Patzi's statements Archbishop Tito Solari of Cochabamba said the Morales government must be consistent when it talks about respecting beliefs, which “implies respecting the Catholic beliefs of the majority of Bolivians.”[9] He defended the existence of “Covenant schools” which are administered by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, but are paid for by Bolivian taxes drawn from both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Solari said “Parents are the first and foremost educators of their children, therefore they have the right to choose the kind of education they want. …families are very appreciative of the schools that are administered by the Church, which serve the community and, in a special way, those in need.”[9] He defined what he thought was the proper role of the government saying, “The state and the institutions of civil society can contribute, in a democratic atmosphere, to people choosing the best educational model for the integral and critical formation of persons.”[9]

In mid-June, 2006 a spokeswoman for the Bolivian Bishops’ Committee on Education demanded that the Morales government clarify its position on religious instruction in state schools. She said, “We are anxious, not out of fear but out of concern, that the government define its position in order to begin dialogue.”[13] She took issue with Patzi labeling the current system as “colonialist”, saying he “is ignoring the Church’s contribution to culture, education, health care and development in Bolivia.” [13] She pointed out that the Church respects other beliefs and is not asking for Catholicism to be forced upon the people. She accused the socialist Morales government of having an anti-faith bias, “I think the problem is not with the Church, but with the faith of the people who are 80% Catholic.”[13]

Responding to Patzi's comments the Archbishop of Santa Cruz, Cardinal Julio Terrazas Sandoval, called for Bolivian Catholics to defend their faith he also called on President Morales to note “the difference between a lay State and a secular State that is hostile to religions. …[the Catholic Church will defend] the universal right to profess a religion. This is unrenounceable and non-negotiable. This is the basis for helping to form a family that is much more united in the cause of the kingdom of justice and peace and to build a country that is not in constant turmoil.”[11] Bishop Jesus Juarez of El Alto accused the Morales government of using “double-speak” in its educational policies. After the Bishops statements Morales stressed that “religion courses would not be eliminated from public schools”.[11]

[edit] National Educational Congress walk out

In July 10-15, 2006 in Sucre, Bolivia during a meeting of the National Educational Congress delegates from the Bishops’ Conference of Bolivia walked out claiming it “had become political and exclusive… the government is seeking to impose its new education law, which reflects an attitude that prevents dialogue about certain aspects of the future of education in Bolivia.”[15] Education Minister Felix Patzi spoke with several Bishops in a late-night meeting and pledged to uphold religious instruction in schools and respect the Church-State agreement, saying “We recognize the contribution of the Church in the area of education, technical formation, and other areas. Religious subject matter will respect the diversity of religions and that is something we share with the Church, everyone has the right to practice the diversity of other religions, there was never any disagreement on that.”[15] Bishop Jesus Juarez of El Alto, who together with Auxiliary Bishop Luis Sainz of Cochabomba, said that not only do parochial schools have a fundamental right to offer instruction according to their own confession but that in state schools “the parents should be able to choose which type of religious instruction their children will receive.”[15] Bishop Sainz demanded the Morales government “clarify and come up with a consensus about the concept of secular education so that there are no longer any doubts.”[15] At the end of its conference the National Educational Congress led by Patzi approved a resolution saying, “Education in Bolivia is secular and pluralistic because it respects the spirituality of each culture and freedom of belief, it promotes its own values, and rejects every type of dogmatisms.” They called for the "curricula [to] be adapted in accord with the diverse beliefs of the country".[10] While before Patzi had stated that the policy would only go into effect after its consideration by the Bolivian Parliament, after the Educational Congress approved the measure he declared that its conclusions "were binding and would be implemented immediately."[1] This drew another wave of protests from Bolivian Catholics who demanded Patzi's resignation.[10]

Archbishop Tito Solari described the Morales government's actions at the event as operating “in a Communist fashion, the government imposed its ideology without any room for dialogue.”[1] After the Bishops delegates had left those remaining approved the policy to expand the scope of the religious classes. Auxiliary Bishop Estanislao Dowlaszewicz of Santa Cruz characterized the results by saying “Today some people live as if they were allergic to religion or the Church… [depicting it as] a danger for the future of the country…[they are trying to] remove not only religion from the classroom, but God as well.”[1] Archbishop Edmundo Abastoflor of La Paz made comments believed to be in response to the education question saying at a commemoration of Bolivian independence. In front of the attending Bolivian President Evo Morales, the archbishop declared, “It is crazy to think that God doesn’t exist or that we can forget about Him. …No matter how important we might be in this world, there is someone who is more so than us.”[1]

[edit] Leading Protestant responds

In late July, 2006 Protestant theologian, Matias Preisweik, of the Ecumenical Higher Institute endorsed the new policy at a forum called “The State, Religion, and the New Political Constitution”. He said “in this moment of re-appreciation of things Andean, is there not the dream of having a country ruled by the values of its own ancestral and holistic religiosity?”[14] He criticized the Catholic Church saying it “is recognized as the tutelary institution, like the Armed Forces, but in religious matters…[and] it portrays itself as a superior force that intercedes for Bolivians before the Kingdom of God.”[14] He called for a greater separation of Church and State and cited the difficulties of those calling for legalizing abortion on demand as an example of Catholicism imposing its views. (The Catholic Church's position on abortion in Bolivia had recently gained international attention in 2000 when Bishop Jesus Juarez considered excommunicating Judge Juan Luis Ledezma for ignoring Church directives and ordering doctors to go ahead and allow a 12 year-old girl raped by her step-father to have an abortion.[16].) Responding to Preisweik's comments Archbishop Edmundo Abastoflor of La Paz said that the Church “does not exercise or hold any political power and that her members live the vocation of service through educational and social works, in benefit of those in need.”[14]

[edit] Escalating rhetoric

On July 23, 2006 Bolivia's Cardinal Julio Terrazas told Catholics they needed to stop being "passive" and defend the faith. He warned them that “Great wars began with small theories ... with this discourse of hate, rancor, of unforgiveness.”[2] Patzi then came out against the Catholic hierarchy stating, "They are saying we are going to destroy the Church and its beliefs. How untrue! Excellencies, do not lie to the people, give them the whole truth, the hard truth. The truth does not destroy. Hypocrisy sooner or later will become visible.”[10] By July 25, 2006 Catholic organizations had led street marches in cities including Santa Cruz and Tarija.[2][10] After these protests Patzi went further in his claims, saying "The Church is now showing her true face. The Church is now on the side of the oligarchy, because for 514 years the Church has been at the service of the oligarchy and the rich. Nobody can deny it."[10] Morales then came out in support of Patzi accusing the bishops of acting “as if this were the Inquisition.” He claimed that the bishops were “still seeking a certain vestige of power.”[10] Morales explained his comments to reporters, saying "I want to ask the (church) hierarchies that they understand freedom of religion and beliefs in our country. It's not possible to impose their views. …[I am] worried by the behavior of some Catholic Church leaders who are acting like in times of the Inquisition."[2]

[edit] Jorge Quiroga

In late July, 2006 Former Bolivian president, Jorge Quiroga (who lost the 2005 election to Evo Morales), criticized the remarks of President Morales which compared the actions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Bolivia with the Inquisition. Quiroga said “that such rhetoric should be avoided because it only brings negative consequences.” He declared he would champion the opposition against the government policies on religious classes, saying “Religion is an issue that should not be politicized. What we have clearly said (as the opposition) is that the teaching of religion be respected and we are going to defend it” [17]

[edit] Morales' reversal

The calls by the Catholic hierarchy to resist Morales’ policy against sectarian religious classes in state schools caused a dip in his popularity. In mid-July 2006 the newspaper La Razon did a survey of 1,009 Bolivians living in the country's four major cities. The survey showed Morales with an approval rating of 68 percent, down from 75 percent in June. It also found that 83 percent of Bolivians surveyed have a favorable opinion of the Catholic church.[18]

On July 30, 2006, after a 2 1/2 hour conference with Cardinal Julio Terrazas, Morales in the city of Cochabamba, ended the dispute by reversing his stance and backing away from the proposal. The Associated Press reported that in a joint statement “that mentioned religious diversity but made no provision for broadening the scope of the solely Catholic curriculum taught in Bolivia's schools”, both men said “The government and the Catholic church agree to preserve the course on religion, respecting the existing religious diversity in the country.”[18]

[edit] Confederation of Inner City Education Workers of Bolivia

In September 2006, the Confederation of Inner City Education Workers of Bolivia in a proposal balled “Rescuing the Homeland” called for a law that would eliminate all religious instruction in state schools including the 200 state-funded covenant schools which are administered by the Catholic Church. The proposal said “Education should be secular, if we want it to be scientific.” The Catholic Church "warned that all of the advances made by the Church could be lost" if the State takes over the covenant schools and rallied to oppose any such proposals.[19]

[edit] Demonstrations led by Bishops

Bishop Cristobal Bialasik of Oruro with one of the five massive images of the Virgin of the Cavern (who is believed to have appeared in Oruro, in 1789), invoking her intercession to bring unity to Bolivia.

In August 2006, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Oruro, Cristobal Bialasik led thousands of Catholic students and parents through the city's streets demanding that the Morales government leave sectarian Catholic classes in the state schools. They also insisted that the government quash any suggestions toward amending the Bolivian Constitution’s official recognition of Roman Catholicism. The Bolivian Constitution (at article three) says, “The State recognizes and sustains the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman religion. It guarantees the public exercise of all other faiths. The relations with the Catholic Church shall be governed by concordats and agreements between the Bolivian State and the Holy See.” Bishop Bialasik stated that peace and unity will only come to Bolivia “if we respect our faith, if we respect God…[and learn] to live the values that He teaches us.” [20] Auxiliary Bishop Luis Saenz of Cochabamba called on Catholics to protest knowing that “Bolivia is a country of one people devoted to the one true God and his Blessed Mother. Mary, under her different titles, wants all Bolivians to be united. …[Let us pray that] God will illumine the darkness in order to extinguish lies and deceit…because they want to silence us. God’s message is free. God gives us the strength to guide our people. The Catholic Church shall not be enslaved. She is not a slave to the government because she is not a political party. Fear not, Bolivia, because the Church is born of God.”[21]

[edit] Catholic view on Constitutional reform

On January 18, 2007 Fr. Freddy del Villar, Vicar General of the Coroicu Diocese in Bolivia, said that the Catholic Church “remains vigilant” concerning the Socialist Morales government. He said they are still reserving judgement on the upcoming revision to the Bolivian constitution. He said, “The Church is worried, but at the same time optimistic about the new constitution the Morales government is preparing. Obviously, the party of Evo Morales is socialist: For example, it says it wants to have a non-confessional education, or that religion is not important. But let us see what comes out of the new constitution when it will be finished in August.” He declared that with factions in Bolivia seemingly attempting to disintegrate Bolivia, “The Church helps to maintain unity in the country.”[22]

[edit] Sources

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h "Bolivian archbishop decries “Communist” actions of the government", Catholic News Agency (2006-07-18). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  2. ^ a b c d "Morales: Catholic leaders acting like 'Inquisition'", Associated Press (2006-07-26). Retrieved on February 8, 2007
  3. ^ a b c d "Bolivia - International Religious Freedom Report 2005". US State Dept.. Retrieved on Feb. 13, 2007
  4. ^ "Capitalism Has Only Hurt Latin America", Der Spiegel (2006-09-04). Retrieved on Feb. 13, 2007
  5. ^ "Evo Morales profile > childhood". Retrieved on Feb. 13, 2007
  6. ^ a b c d e "Church not asking to be official religion of the State, Bolivian cardinal says", Catholic News Agency (2006-06-20). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  7. ^ "Ruling Socialist party in Bolivia seizes lands surrounding national Marian shrine", Catholic News Agency (2006-06-08). Retrieved on Feb. 10, 2007
  8. ^ "Government contemplates eliminating religious holidays in Bolivia" (2006-07-27). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  9. ^ a b c d e "Bolivian government to eliminate Catholicism from classrooms", Catholic News Agency (2006-06-12). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  10. ^ a b c d e f g "Bolivian president, education minister slam bishops", Catholic News Agency (2006-07-26). Retrieved on Feb. 8, 2007
  11. ^ a b c d "Cardinal Terrazas calls on Bolivians to defend right to practice their faith" (2006-07-12). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  12. ^ Monte Reel (2007-01-31). "In Bolivia, Speaking Up for Native Languages", The Washington Post. Retrieved on Jan. 31, 2007
  13. ^ a b c d e "Church leaders in Bolivia demand clarification from government on religious instruction in schools" (2006-06-14). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  14. ^ a b c d "Evangelical theologian calls for abandonment of Christianity and return to Bolivia’s “Andean religion”", Catholic News Agency (2006-07-24). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  15. ^ a b c d "Bolivian education minister pledges to uphold religious instruction in public schools", Catholic News Agency (2006-07-17). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  16. ^ "Judge May Be Excommunicated For Ordering Abortion", Catholic News Agency (2000-03-20). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  17. ^ "Ex-Bolivian president to defend religious instruction in schools at Constitutional Assembly", Catholic News Agency (2006-07-28). Retrieved on Feb. 13, 2007
  18. ^ a b Carlos Valdez (2006-07-31). "Bolivia keeps Catholicism in schools"", The Associated Press. Retrieved on Feb. 10, 2007
  19. ^ "Inner-city school teachers present plan to eliminate Catholic education in Bolivia". Catholic News Agency (2006-09-28). Retrieved on February 8, 2007
  20. ^ "Keep God in schools, Bolivians tell government", Catholic News Agency (2006-08-14). Retrieved on Feb. 8, 2007
  21. ^ "Bolivian bishop reaffirms right of parents over their children’s education", Catholic News Agency (2006-08-17). Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007
  22. ^ "Church in Bolivia worried, but remaining optimistic about Morales government", Catholic News Agency (2007-01-19). Retrieved on Feb. 13, 2007
Interesting that we hear so little about Evo Morales compared to say Hugo Chavez.