Chavez calls Honduran cardinal a 'clown'

[Gan]

President Hugo Chavez called a cardinal from Honduras an "imperialist clown" after the Roman Catholic prelate warned of increasing authoritarianism under the Venezuelan leader.

"Another parrot of imperialism appeared, this time dressed as a cardinal. That's to say, another imperialist clown," Chavez was quoted as saying in a bulletin posted Tuesday on the state-run news agency's Web site.

Chavez — a close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro — was responding to criticism from Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, who said in a recent interview cited by Venezuela's Bolivarian News Agency that Chavez "thinks he's God and can trample upon other people."

Chavez made the comments during a government event late Monday. He has repeatedly clashed with Catholic Church leaders in Venezuela, calling them "liars" and "perverts," but he rarely targets high-ranking priests abroad.

Catholic leaders in this South American country have warned of alleged threats to individual freedoms under Chavez's administration and criticized his plans for a sweeping constitutional reform to transform Venezuela into a socialist state.

Chavez has repeatedly lambasted the local Catholic hierarchy in recent weeks, saying it should be dedicated to parishioners rather than meddling in politics by siding with opposition parties.

Rodriguez Maradiaga, considered a moderate, is one of the most prominent Catholic leaders in the Americas and has often been mentioned as a possible pope.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_1

_____________________________________________

He's like the energizer bunny, he keeps going and going and going...

[Tolwynn]

Well, first, I consider Chavez a modern hero

Ah, the modern hero of socialist freedom. What other wonders might he perform next?

[Back]

I’ll side with Chavez on this issue as I feel religion has no business in politics. Calling the cardinal a clown? Eh, not really diplomatically saavy.

[Gan]

I'm willing to bet the catholic church has more followers in Veneuela than Chavez does. Thats not the group to alienate if you ask me.

[Parkbandit]

I’ll side with Chavez...

Huge surprise there, considering you believe him to be a modern day 'hero'.

[Latrinsorm]

Well, in fairness...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/johnnyoldschool/2.jpg

/Hong Kong Celephais

[Gan]

ROFL

Points to Latrin

[Celephais]

Well, in fairness...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/johnnyoldschool/2.jpg

/Hong Kong Celephais

Lol, awesome.

[Gan]

He needs a lime hat...

[Sean of the Thread]

Lol, awesome.

Agreed that is stellar.

[Clove]

Well, in fairness...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/johnnyoldschool/2.jpg

/Hong Kong Celephais

When Latrin is hot, he's hot. :rofl:

[Clove]

I’ll side with Chavez on this issue as I feel religion has no business in politics. Calling the cardinal a clown? Eh, not really diplomatically saavy.

:wtf: Does that mean? All organizations of people have a business in politics, religious, social, business, labor, minority etc. unless you can think of one that isn't interested in how they are governed.

[Back]

:wtf: Does that mean? All organizations of people have a business in politics, religious, social, business, labor, minority etc. unless you can think of one that isn't interested in how they are governed.

For example, Denmark’s constitution states that no one can hold any religious doctrine above it. How realisitic is it to completely divorce religion from politics on a personal level? Its not. But if a religous organization were to lobby I believe they should have their tax-exempt status revoked.

[Clove]

For example, Denmark’s constitution states that no one can hold any religious doctrine above it. How realisitic is it to completely divorce religion from politics on a personal level? Its not. But if a religous organization were to lobby I believe they should have their tax-exempt status revoked.

So tax them if you like and tax Greenpeace while you're at it. As someone who lives and owns property in a city where half of its land is off the grand list because of religious, or school property I'll be the first to toss in his vote in favor of taxing religious or any other organizations.

Regardless of their tax status they have as much right as any other organization to express their political points of view. This interest wasn't "bought off" by a privileged tax status.

[Bartlett]

Regardless of their tax status they have as much right as any other organization to express their political points of view.

You may think that this would naturally be true, however, that statement is incorrect. Churches, and many non-profit organizations claim exemption by IRS section 501(c)(3) which states:

Political activity. If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.

Currently, a pastor who supports a candidate could, under the ruling of an anti-religious judge, potentially lose the tax exempt status of the church. I think the law is being challenged on the basis of 1st amendment rights, and I imagine that it probably will be changed. If not now, then maybe when a legal battle actually happens on this basis.

If you read further it does give certain exemptions for lobbying, so that all the non-profits can have some kind of lobbying expenditure - except churches.
These elective provisions for lobbying activities by public charities do not apply to a church, an integrated auxiliary of a church or of a convention or association of churches, or a member of an affiliated group of organizations that includes a church, etc., or a private foundation.

IRS Publication 557 (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e7515)

[Sean of the Thread]

No judge would have the balls to do that for fear of the "righties" come election day.

[thefarmer]

Denouncing a socialist agenda isn't necessarily backing a particular political party.. It's simply saying an idea sucks.

A cardinal putting his face on a poster that says , "Vote for Leroy! He be the shiznit, Yo!" is backing a particular candidate/party.

[Clove]

You may think that this would naturally be true, however, that statement is incorrect. Churches, and many non-profit organizations claim exemption by IRS section 501(c)(3) which states:


Currently, a pastor who supports a candidate could, under the ruling of an anti-religious judge, potentially lose the tax exempt status of the church. I think the law is being challenged on the basis of 1st amendment rights, and I imagine that it probably will be changed. If not now, then maybe when a legal battle actually happens on this basis.

If you read further it does give certain exemptions for lobbying, so that all the non-profits can have some kind of lobbying expenditure - except churches.

IRS Publication 557 (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e7515)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said that churches and non-profits have a right to express their political points of view. I did not mean that they had the right to participate as an organization in a political campaign. Expressing political points of view such as "Abortion is right/wrong" "Socialism sucks" "Taxes are too high" is entirely acceptable, even for tax-exempt organizations. This is the sort of expression that I believe the Cardinal used and by extension I assumed Backlash was objecting to. Of course, it could be argued that because the Cardinal was specifically critical of Chavez he was participating but I personally consider that a gray area.

[Back]

When you get right down to it, all this is is namecalling. Simply that. Its two guys taking verbal jabs. Calling a moderate catholic cardinal a clown is less of a jab than calling a democratically elected president authoritarian in my opinion. Neither of them have any real power over the other.

[Latrinsorm]

Do you consider the people who warned that electing Bush would (or did) lead to substantially increased authoritarianism namecallers?

[Back]

Do you consider the people who warned that electing Bush would (or did) lead to substantially increased authoritarianism namecallers?

Well, in Bush’s case it’s true. Chavez may well be heading down that path but I do not know enough to say it’s true.

[Parkbandit]

This thread doesn't deliver nearly as much as the other Chavez thread.. where Backlash was pwned by his own quote.

I miss that thread.. where this thread bores me.

[Atlanteax]

Well, in Bush’s case it’s true. Chavez may well be heading down that path but I do not know enough to say it’s true.

Are you being serious?

You do not see Chavez getting ready to be dictator-for-life with the amendment allowing multiple terms being "rushed" into the Law Books?

[CrystalTears]

Backlash is always serious, which is why he's so fucking funny and entertaining to read.

[Back]

Are you being serious?

You do not see Chavez getting ready to be dictator-for-life with the amendment allowing multiple terms being "rushed" into the Law Books?

I agree but only to the point of our limited knowledge of Venezuela’s history and how it has shaped the present. Also, without actually living there and experiencing it first hand I feel I only get filtered information.

Anyway, basically, yes I agree it is looking like he is headed down that path.

[Gan]

I agree but only to the point of our limited knowledge of Venezuela’s history and how it has shaped the present. Also, without actually living there and experiencing it first hand I feel I only get filtered information.

Anyway, basically, yes I agree it is looking like he is headed down that path.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I need this laugh today. Thanks!

[TheEschaton]

I've never lived in China, can still tell it's communist. You don't need to LIVE in a place ot analyze where the fuck their broad policies are going.

-theE-