Karl Keating's E-Letter of August 9, 2005

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by patricio_b

Well, maybe bill hughes is just some paranoic anti-catholic writer, but you can´t deny that the catholic church didn´t protest when germany was doing all those atrocities,

Not true. See http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0611tbt.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0704fea2sb1.asp

Perhaps you mean "didn't protest enough." That would be fair criticism. Criticism that can be leveled at all the countries, and religious institutions at the time.

the church supported and made money off exploting all natives in the new world.

It is true that the Church assisted in the exploitation of natives when bringing Christ to them, but the ones who mostly profited were the secular leaders not the Church.

As a cristian- catholic I feel that our church at least its representatives does not follow Jesus Christ´s examples.

I couldn't disagree more. If you're expecting perfection, then look to Christ, not our human leaders. But I think most of our leaders do a very good job of following Christ's examples.

How many times have you seen the pope defending the immigrants, the poor, the sick.

All the time. See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...s/index_en.htm

This is a list of the pope's speeches. Many of which defend the poor, sick, and destitute. It makes me wonder why you would falsely attack the pope. Did you even try to read his speeches and pronouncements?

What efforts has the pope made to help people in Africa?

The Church has more orphanages in Africa than any other organization. Catholic Relief Services is one of the largest distributers of aid in Africa, to say nothing about Catholic Charities and others. Have you even tried to see if your claims were true?

Catholic wealth has being piling up over 2000 years and the church still looks out for the rich and powerful. Is that what Jesus would´ve done?

What wealth are you talking about? The Vatican has run deficits on and off for the last 20 years, the US Church has been selling properties to pay settlements since it doesn't have the money. The bulk of the Church's wealth is in art and archives. Are you suggesting we sell our history? On the charge about rich and powerful, please provide an example that applies today. I couldn't find one. As for Christ's example, Christ preached to everyone including the rich, powerful, and tax collecters. Not just the poor. Are you suggesting we only minister to the poor and destitute?

For a Christian-Catholic, you sure show a great disdain and misunderstanding for your Church and it's leaders. It appears to me you've been misinformed by anti-catholic writings.

[patricio_b]

It is true that the Church assisted in the exploitation of natives when bringing Christ to them, but the ones who mostly profited were the secular leaders not the Church.

The Catholic Church was one of the most proper landowner here in Latinamerica. It even had several monopolies such as the liquor which was used to relieve the suffering and make forgett what europeans had done in the new world. And no the curch didn´t pay the natives it exploited them in their own lands which the church the spanish had stolen. By the church and its preaching was how the spanish subjected the natives, and because of that for every finding of things of value it was divided like this:
The finder, the church and Spain.

If you're expecting perfection, then look to Christ, not our human leaders. But I think most of our leaders do a very good job of following Christ's examples.

I´m not asking for perfection just let´s start with something simple.... sincerity
for example:
There are millions of documents in the secret archives, housed in shelves that stretch for 50 miles
If the church is the holliest organization why does it have to hide so many things from us. Are you going to say that they are protecting us from the truth?

What wealth are you talking about? The Vatican has run deficits on and off for the last 20 years, the US Church has been selling properties to pay settlements since it doesn't have the money

So why is it that the only state of the world which you can´t see how much money does it make per year is the Vatican?
Yes the US church has been paing setlements but could´ve not paid them as well. The setlements with the families of the raped kids wasn´t necesary. You don´t need to be PERFECT to know that the priests who did should´ve been thrown into jail for doing this despicable act.

On the charge about rich and powerful, please provide an example that applies today. I couldn't find one. As for Christ's example, Christ preached to everyone including the rich, powerful, and tax collecters. Not just the poor. Are you suggesting we only minister to the poor and destitute?

Perfect? You don´t need to be perfect to realize that Jesus was one of the most revolutionary in the history of the world. Unfortunately the church still suports conservative political parties that only represent the elites that don´t want any changes and opress the rest. This groups of power donate large amounts of money to te church thinking that doing this they´ll be forgiven.
Let me give you an even more especific example:
Where I live there are a lot of rich people ones who made their fortune legally and one`s who didn`t and contribute to the lack of development of my country. The priest from my neighborhood has received many donations from these people and always goes to their farms and rides their horses. Rafael Correa, the most progressive President we´ve had in a very long time, has been atacking these people and as soon as he did this the priest started defending them in church. The Archbishop is always invited to bi events that the party that represents the elite organizes, you can see the archbishop clapping uring their very political speeches. When there where elections they gave fliers OUTSIDE OF CHURCH making propaganda to this conservative parties that are against our revolutionary President.

As for Christ's example, Christ preached to everyone including the rich, powerful, and tax collecters. Not just the poor. Are you suggesting we only minister to the poor and destitute?

Of course not evryone should hear about Christ´s examples. But jesus always fought against all of those priests that defended the elite of that time which opressed further more the majority of the people. Those priests that where well acomodated and just praied for the most needed instead of actually taking action.

The Church has more orphanages in Africa than any other organization. Catholic Relief Services is one of the largest distributers of aid in Africa, to say nothing about Catholic Charities and others

Alright, but how does that solve the problem? Even the priest near my house has a school for poor kids. But that still doesn´t solve the problem. The church most get together with all the Presidents of developed and undeveloped countrys and really politically pressure them to find a solution. Work together with every government so that these critical problems can be fixed.

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by patricio_b

The Catholic Church.....Spain.

Well, you've certainly bought the anti-Catholic rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Let's start with land. Every village, town, and neighborhood had a church set up in Latin America. In many instances, schools as well. This resulted in the Church owning a lot of land. As the cities grew, the land became more valuable. But this isn't really wealth per se. For land to be considered wealth, there must be an intent to sell it and/or commercially develope it. That is not the case for the Church. It does not matter that the land under the Cathedral in NY would be worth millions. It is charity, not wealth.

The Church did assist in the exploitation of natives, but mostly by giving the Conquistadors moral cover for their actions under the auspices of conversion and bringing Christ to them. But it was rare for the Church to enter private business. The gold and silver mines and the farms were all run outside the Church. Those were where the wealth was. The claim that the Church commercially developed liquor for the purposes of keeping the native masses ignorant is just false.

I´m not asking for perfection.....truth?

Give me a break. This is right out of the Da Vinci Code. The contents of virtually all the controversial documents have been revealed in one form or another already. Some items are to remain secret. Items such as written confessions and papal elections. I think it's fair to keep those items secret. Virtually all of the archives are now open to the public in one form or another. Here is a link to find whatever you're looking for: http://asv.vatican.va/home_en.htm

So why is it ...... act.

The Vatican budget is published every year via press release. See http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=30675
http://www.cathnews.com/news/407/42.php
Fair criticism about the molestation scandal. But if you judge anyone or any organization by their failures, we all fall short. You talked about Church leaders. Well let's look at our main leaders - the ArchBishops of our country. Here is a list to find them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
There are only about 25 of them. They represent our main Church leaders. If you can find me evidence of them running their ministry without faith, love, and charity on a consistant basis, then I will accept your criticism. I could not find any.

Perfect? ....rest.

Well now we see where your true motivation lies. Political. It is proper to use the voter's guide for Catholics as a benchmark. See: http://www.caaction.com/index.php?op...d=54&Itemid=95
That's the basis for any serious Catholic to use. It's sad that liberal parties have become so secular that they can't follow these moral tenets. I respect your belief that conservative parties represent the elites. I hope you can respect my beliefs that conservative parties represent people who work for what they have, and a God centered moral system. To make the claim that by following the voters guide, Catholics are supporting the elites against the masses, is false.

This groups ....forgiven.

I know of no political parties that donate large sums of money to the Church. Please provide a documented example. I donate to the Church and I'm a conservative businessman. My motives are charity and following God's laws, not buying my forgiveness. To judge my or other people's motives is wrong.

Let me give you ....President.

Now we can see where you're coming from. It would have been better to mention a specific example in you complaint rather than a blanket criticism that was not fair to apply. I cannot speak of the specifics of the situation in Ecuador and the Church, but there are two sides to every story. Correa has been scaling back on cooperation with the US in drug interdiction and I found some other criticism: http://ecrisis.net/2007/03/18/rafael...ccidental.aspx
I really don't know how true this stuff is, but it does suggest the Church's disagreements with Correa might have some merit and not be obviously biased toward the elite as you suggest.

Of course not evryone should hear about Christ´s examples. But jesus always fought against all of those priests that defended the elite of that time which opressed further more the majority of the people. Those priests that where well acomodated and just praied for the most needed instead of actually taking action.

I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here. I don't see Christ's preaching of faith, love and charity as being different than the Church's.

Alright, but how does that solve the problem? Even the priest near my house has a school for poor kids. But that still doesn´t solve the problem. The church most get together with all the Presidents of developed and undeveloped countrys and really politically pressure them to find a solution. Work together with every government so that these critical problems can be fixed.

I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. We are called to be faithful, not successful. Morally judging someone or some church on the basis of their success is just wrong. They should be judged on their faithfullness and leave the success to God. Now, judging actions on the basis of success in order to change and accomplish more is fair. But your judgments were moral ones not operational ones.

[patricio_b]

The claim...Church commercially developed liquor...false.

So you really don´t think that the church runs any profitable business at all? Well, that´s a very blindsighted town of yours. The church even has the International Trappist Association which produces beer in Holand, Belgium and Germany. What makes you think they didn´t do that 300 years ago. Africans and natives were brougt to the Chota Valley in actual Ecuador as slaves during the colonial period, particularly when many of the great sugar states and mines were owned and organized by the Jesuits and Mercedarians. The sugar was extracted obviously from the same sugar cane from wich they extracted the alcohol that put down the natives fighting spirits. The Jesuits stablished in these lands by 1659. This lands extended from the river Mira to the moorland. They were so extense that they could´nt be measured in their totality. With the presence of this two latifundia in hands of the Jesuits, they where forced to have a slaves' new import. In 1690 they brought slaves from Guinea, imported by the British. Five years later they brought slaves from Congo.And that`s just in a small part of Latinamerica, if I had to write what happened in each country I could fill a book.

For land...commercially develope it.

The church bought a channel network that was retained by the feds because it belonged to some bankers who took the money from the bank and scaped. After getting this network by a very small amount of money compared, to what its value was, the church sold it to the same bankers which bougth it from the U.S., where they live now. And, yes the church sold it for a large sum of money. So you still think that the church doesn`t make any profitable business? Well, let me tel you, with all due respect, that there isn´t a worse blind than he who doesn´t want to see. Well, here`s another example that opposes what you say about the Chuch not having any profitable land, only for charity:
The church owns the land were the Grand Hotel Guayaquil stands, they charge rent and every certain amount of time they renew (negotiate) the contract.

It is proper to use the voter's guide...is false.

The catholics voters guide says "catholic citizens must vote in the way that will limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates". So How those this justify that our church supports conservative political parties which, at least in Ecuador, represent the people who literary stole money from the education, health and social security systems, stole money from the savers from the banks and ran to The U.S. This people even belong to the Opus Dei and contribute large sums of money to the Catholic Church which defends them on Sunday morning and gives out propaganda outside of church so you vote for them. And there are so many other corrupt things that this conservative parties have done during the last century. All right now let´s talk about, church supported, conservative parties in the U.S.A ,my place of origin, if the catholic voter´s guide states that we shoould vote for the one who will do the less harm, so, what we catholics should look for: is for the social wealth rather than the economical wealth of our country, because Jesus was a social revolutionary and tried to change how society was functioning, and he even atacked the church of that time. So, what is the lesser bad?Well, Shouldn´t it be the lesser bad not killing inocent people in foreign countries, not letting people die of hunger, helping the most needed including the immigrants, providing excellent education, health and a harmless environment (free of weapons, air and sound pollution) to everyone? Shouldn´t that be what the church would most likely support? I as a catholic, feel very unconfortable with people saying that conservvative parties follow christian moral while their actions proof the opposite.

...but there are two sides to every story. Correa has been...with the US in drug interdiction...

Chief pornographer?? Hopping in bed with ministra Espinoza?? This is just outrageous, not even Correa´s worst opposers would say that, because he´s the most dedicated, honest and smart President that Ecuador has had in a century and everyone knows
that. The only thing the media,which are controlled by the elite, always arguments is that he is moody and always criticize his personality, well if that´s the most dirt that they could dig from Correa, I guess he is doing very well.
About the drugs, Ecuador is geting he ATPDEA renewed because of its continuos effort of fighting drug dealers and drug trade and have impounded tons of drugs that come from colombia. I still can´t think of no other reason for the church to support the conservative parties, which have treated Ecuador as their personal farm, doing and undoing whatever has comed into mind and haven´t let Ecuador to properly devolped socially but have becomed rich illegally with the ecuadorian´s taxes. So if the church is getting involved, at least it should support the actual President who is trying to undo all the social harm that the conservative parties have been doing during the last century. But instead, we see the Archbishop clapping along to the speeches against our social revolutionary President, that Jaime Nebot(major of Guayaquil that represents the elite, the oposition and the conservative parties) gives.

I don't see Christ's...than the Church's.

I´m just saying that the church may be turning into what Jesus fought against. He fought against those priests who were to well accomodated that wouldn´t oppose the elite and even support them when powerful grous of people were acting against every
social principle that the church stood for, like "defending people in need". So how is the catholic church deffending this groups any different from the jewish church in that time?

[qmvsimp]

Well, I can't really convince you if you choose to believe fictional accounts from the Da Vinci code. I can't prove universal negatives (The Church has huge wealth hidden away, The Church has secret agreements, etc.)

I never said the Church never has had any commercial enterprise, nor that the Church never made money. I was merely refuting your assertion that the Church has untold wealth that is hidden from the masses, and that the Church came to Latin America to enrich themselves instead of conversion.

You have yet to prove your point. Perhaps if you could provide a statement of liquid assets the Church posseses that are in the billions, or perhaps bank statements where the clergy's illegitimate children were given the millions stolen from the masses. I could not find any. But I did find the Vatican's financial statements, statements that you claimed were hidden and will probably now claim are falsified. Showing a commercial enterprise or two over history does not prove your point.

As for Correa, I just found out this weekend that Ecuador under Correa, has been harboring Columbian FARC rebels. Rebels that promote abortion, kidnapping, drug dealing, extortion, murder and anti-Church propaganda. Now Ecuador wants to go to war to protect FARC rebel hideouts. I can't think of a better reason for the Church to oppose Correa. Correa should be thanking Uribe for ridding his country of these demons.

[patricio_b]

Well, I can't really convince you if you choose to believe fictional accounts from the Da Vinci code

First of all, I have not read this book, neither have I watched the movie because since it had a lot of criticism from the church, I thought this would make my opinion biased, therefore not very useful. I´m not quoting anything from an anti-catholic book, I´m just giving you facts and just simple reasoning: Like the church shouldn´t support conservative political parrties because they don´t have as a priority the development of society. They only care about the devolpment of the economy. Society could be in the worst state but if economy is working fantasticly, they´d be satisfied with that.

Perhaps if you could provide a statement of liquid assets the Church posseses that are in the billions, or perhaps bank statements...

You gave me the church`s budget, but as a businessman, that you are, you should now that where you can actually see the church´s actual size of economy is in the GDP and that is nowhere to be found.

...where the clergy's illegitimate children were given the millions stolen from the masses

I said that the people who took money from the bank and never gave it back to the savers and the conservative parties that use to have power in government, gave and still give donations(dirty/ilegal money) to church, and that´s why the church supports them, even though they contribute to de decadence of society.

As for Correa, I just found out this weekend that Ecuador under Correa, has been harboring Columbian FARC rebels

Well, you really don´t have your facts straight. In the government of Correa, there have been 47 farc camps that have been destroyed and numerous farc memebers that have been captured and deported. Correa has openly condemned Farcs actions
and has even been trying to negotiate freedom of 12 prisoners that include betancourt and an ecuadorian.

Now Ecuador wants to go to war to protect FARC rebel hideouts. Correa should be thanking Uribe for ridding his country of these demons

Ecuador doessn´t want to go to war. Correa is simply condemning Colombia´s invation. Colombia has been poisoning our citizens, agriculture and animals that live near the border.
On March 1st colombian Air force invaded ecuadorian air territory and bombed ecuadorian land. After that, Colombian helicopters landed and colombian army invaded land territory just to take some dead bodies and kill the others that were relatively alive. That was a masacre. Most of the people there weren´t even involved in Farc they were mexican students that were spending the night doing research on social groups of Latinamerica. Every person in the camp was defenseless, they were in pijamas. This violates every war act there is.
So Correa should be thanking Uribe for invading Ecuador and commiting a masacre in Ecuadorian terroritory, plus trying to involve Ecuador in a colombian Civil War? This is an act of war.
Do you even know Colombian history? or just read what the conservative media says?
The Farc was created after the conservatives, supported by the church, killed Gaitan, a progressist president that looked out for society rather than economy. There were protests were the army, commanded by conservatives, killed thousands of colombians. When the Farc was a strong force, the conservatives created the paramilitars, which committed over 3500 masacres and killed over 120,000 colombians. This is the reason why the Farc has been fighting conservative governments for almost 50 years.

I can't think of a better reason for the Church to oppose Correa.

So the church should oppose Correa because he defends Ecuador´s freedom? And if it was right for Colombia to invade Ecuador without its consent, then Ecuador should invade the USA and Bomb the Isaias and all fugitives that are living over there because they stole billions of dollars from ecuadorians and have caused the seize of the development of this country .
All right, lets simplify this:
Conservative parties have committed masacres during the histrory of the world with the support of the church, they have prived society from an excellent education, health and secure environment, they have prived society from equalness of opportunities. Bottom line: conservative parties have taken society to total decadence and have centered only in economy. They do anything for economy, even invade countries and kill innocent people. And then say that they are against abortion, after killing thousands of people the day before, they are "pro-life". Maybe that means they support life while you are still a parasite, after you are born its ok to kill you. I really condemn the church supporting conservative parties for such a long time and at the same time complaining of the degeneration of society while they support this parties. The church complains of the indecency of clothes nowadays, but support conservative parties that represent the industries that make money out of these clothes, and also complains of how materialistic society has become but supports conservative parties who also represent and manage the materialistic media that induces society of acting in the convenience of the economy. As long as money is made, it doesn´t matter what it takes, and this is what conservative parties ideology comes down to. And that´s what our Church, that looks out for "society and the most needed", supports.

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by patricio_b

First of all, I have not read this book, neither have I watched the movie because since it had a lot of criticism from the church, I thought this would make my opinion biased, therefore not very useful. I´m not quoting anything from an anti-catholic book, I´m just giving you facts and just simple reasoning:

Oh if that were true. Keeping the indigenous population drunk so they can be exploited is not a fact. Claiming large untold wealth by the Church and hidden budgets and archives were falsehoods, not facts.

You gave me the church`s budget, but as a businessman, that you are, you should now that where you can actually see the church´s actual size of economy is in the GDP and that is nowhere to be found.

GDP is Gross Domestic Product. The GDP of the country Vatican City, is the Vatican budget.

I said that the people who took money from the bank and never gave it back to the savers and the conservative parties that use to have power in government, gave and still give donations(dirty/ilegal money) to church, and that´s why the church supports them, even though they contribute to de decadence of society.

You bring up a legitimate point, but draw erroneous conclusions. The claim that the Church supports those people solely because they give them money is conjecture on your part. There are many other reasons why the Church might support them. Also, criticizing a socialist party does not always equate to support of the conservative party.

Well, you really don´t have your facts straight. In the government of Correa, there have been 47 farc camps that have been destroyed and numerous farc memebers that have been captured and deported. Correa has openly condemned Farcs actions
and has even been trying to negotiate freedom of 12 prisoners that include betancourt and an ecuadorian.

What is said aloud is not what is happening in private. Here are two AP articles about what was found during the raid.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335128,00.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/...ia_farc_laptop

I must say I was surprised at how complicit the Correa government was with FARC. As one AP reporter said, if the texts are lies and fabrications, they are expertly done. In the texts we find that Correa's government was tacitly supporting the rebels. Columbia says that they would tip Ecuador off to the rebel bases, but when they were raided, no one or anything of value was there. Ecuador would tip the rebels off about the raid. Don't you find it suspicious that after all those raids that netted no one of importance, Columbia does one raid that nets several important figures and intelligence?

Ecuador doessn´t want to go to war. Correa is simply condemning Colombia´s invation. Colombia has been poisoning our citizens, agriculture and animals that live near the border. ... or just read what the conservative media says?

The pictures I saw that were released by the Ecuadorian government show bodies that were burned and mutilated by bombs dropped by Columbia. I saw no evidence of your claims. But more to the point, if you're attacking me from the house next door, and I've tried calling the house and the attacks continue, I'm perfectly right to go next door and take care of it myself.

The Farc was created after the conservatives, supported by the church, killed Gaitan, a....Farc has been fighting conservative governments for almost 50 years.

Well you certainly have a skewed sense of right and wrong. Condemning FARC and left-wing dictatorships does not equate to support for right-wing dictatorships. Are you honestly saying that FARC is a righteous organization? Do you believe the murders, kidnappings, extortion and drug running that they do is OK since they have no other choice?

So the church should oppose Correa because he defends Ecuador´s freedom? ...of the development of this country .

The Church does not oppose a person per se, just the actions the person takes. Supporting FARC and lessoning drug seizures does not equate to defending Ecuador's freedom.There is a big difference between invading a country to catch a thief and invading a country to stop military attacks on your territory.If there weren't, we'd be invading Cuba and Venezuela right now.

All right, lets simplify this:
...most needed", supports.

Again, attacking left-wing despots does not equate to support for right-wing despots. The Church condemned Somoza and Batista. Criticizing Castro and Ortega afterword did not equate to support for their predecessors.

[qmvsimp]

Addendum:

Undoubtedly, you will dispute what was uncovered during the raid. But let me appeal to your intelligence. Does it make sense for Columbia, who is fighting several rebel groups, to raid Ecuador and risk war if they could just call them up and Ecuador would take care of it? Which is more likely, that FARC released the hostages out of the kindness of their heart or because Venezuela paid them? If it was kindness, it would be a first for FARC. Since its inception, they have only released hostages for three reasons, money, prisoners, and extreme illness.

[patricio_b]

There are many other reasons why the Church might support them.

Other reasons? Well, if you mean other reasons like opposing abortion, you re saying that it’s ok to support people that contribute to the decadence of society as long as they are against abortion and euthanasia. If this is the reason the church supports them, rather than the large amounts of money that conservative parties donate, I still think that it’s wrong for the church to support them.

Also, criticizing a socialist party does not always equate to support of the conservative party.

I never said the church criticizes Correa`s government, I said that the church supports the capitalist conservative parties that have kept Ecuadorian society undeveloped in order to look out for their economic interests.

As one AP reporter said, if the texts are lies and fabrications, they are expertly done. In the texts we find that Correa's government was tacitly supporting the rebels

Right...AP? Press from the U.S? The U.S. was the only country in the world that supported Colombia’s invasion and massacre in Ecuadorian territory. During the last year, Latin America, specially South America, has started a process of social, economic and political integration. Which would have stopped 0vre50 years of U.S.` intrusion in social, political and economical aspects in South America. Colombia and Peru are the only marionette governments in South America that’s why Bush calls them "Allies". Uribe is trying to run for a 3rd period and he needed the Colombians to approve it. For 50 years the media, the church and conservative parties, specially in Colombia, have demonized the Farc and ignored the paramilitar`s actions. This is why Uribe got 83% of approval after the massacre and the next day he started the process of the referendum to ask the Colombian people if they approve a re-election.It was all abuot politics. If Colombia`s politicians really wanted to finish war with the Farc they would sit down and negotiate a peace treaty or bomb all colombian territory that the Farc ocuppies (which is much much more that the territory that they trespass when trying to rest.

...if you're attacking me from the house next door, and I've tried calling the house and the attacks continue, I'm perfectly right to go next door and take care of it myself.

Well, in this case your example is wrong, since the attacks of the Farc come from Colombia not from Ecuador(the Farc don`t have satellite-directed missiles or any technology or resources at all to attack Colombia from Ecuador). The result of rebels crossing the borders is caused by the lack of responsibility that Colombia has for its borders and the little unsourceful Ecuadorian Army that tries to guard this inhospitable border. So, if I were you I`d st5art cleaning my own house before cleaning my neighbors`

Are you honestly saying that FARC is a righteous organization? Do you believe the murders, kidnappings, extortion and drug running that they do is OK since they have no other choice?

Of course not, I condenm any act of violence including the Colombian conservatives supporting the paramilitars just because they were against the Farc but the paramilitars commited 3500 massacres and killed over 120,000 Colombians. Don`t you ever wonder why this even happened in the first place? Why don`t they look for a peaceful way out of this conflict?
The answer to the first question is very simple: Conservatives witj the support of the church killed the only progressist president that Colombia has had and after that killed thousands of people that protested unarmed. Isn`t it logical that when you watch your own people dying, because the groups of power with the support of the church are against any social progress in your country, you take the guns and fight for social change, for the progress of your society?
The anwer to the secons question is complicated: The first president that actually has made a political and economical profi tout of this conflict is Uribe and how could he end this conflict if this war gives him political power. Because of this war he can run for president for the 3RD TIME! He wont negotiate because if the conflict ends the US wouldn`t supply with the billions of dollars and he wouldn`t reach the same poppularity in Colombia.

Supporting FARC and lessoning drug seizures does not equate to defending Ecuador's freedom

Correa doesn`t support the Farc. You should stop believing evrything that conservative press, manipulated by groups of power, write. just because he was negotiating the release of 11 hostages and had conversations with the Farc soesn`t make him a supporter. Colombia has been lying so much that has lost credibility. Uribe even denied Chavez giving 300 million to Farc after 5 days of saying it through all media, he even dropped the case on international court. In Correa`s government the army has captured more Farc members and destroyed more camps than any conservative Government.

big difference between invading a country to catch a thief and invading a country to stop military attacks on your territor

YOu are right, this was a poor example. But what would happen if Spain invades French territory and commits a massacre because ETA was sleeping in France? So , according to you, Cuba should bomb the U.S. to kill the terrorist thread that the U.S. shamelessly harbors, a cuban terrorist that bombed a Cuban airplane filled of baseball players that played in the minor league and were going to a tournament.

[qmvsimp]

OK, there's nothing more to be said. You believe press reports against the Correa government are conservative media conspiracies. I don't. You believe Columbia got lucky getting Raul Reyes the first time and that Ecuador was unlucky the 47 times (your number) they tried. I don't. You believe a country doesn't have the right to invade another country if attacks consistantly occur from their territory and the other country doesn't stop it. I don't. You believe that FARC let the hostages go out of the kindness of their heart and not paid by Chavez. I don't. You believe the Church has been a force for elitism, hypocrisy, and heresy, now and throughout history. I don't. You believe the Church supports a candidate for abortion only and/or because they get money from their friends. I don't.

We'll leave it at that and let the viewers decide. Pray for me as I will surely do for you.

[patricio_b]

You believe press reports against the Correa government are conservative media conspiracies. I don't

Ecuadorian intelligence service, as all latinamerican intelligences, is infiltrated by CIA. All videos and fotos tha the press published were taken by ecuadorian intelligence which reported to the us Embassy rather than to Ecuadorian President who finds out when he reads the news. All information was used to cause a lack of credibility, worldwide, of progressist governments in Southamerica just as the suitcase incident in Argentina where the US intervined made an scandal and the man of the suitcase is living in miami with no detention. Now, colombian government believes every document and oral statements that were found but when the farc accused them of being involved in paramilitarism, they said that the Farc was lying. So who`s the liar here? Colombia which acsued Chavez of giving money to farc and then saying he didn`t? The press, with support US intelligence infiltrated in ecuadorian intelligence, that put pictures on the papers of Ecuadorian Secretary of State with Raul Reyes before the reunion of OAS? (After the reunion the newspaper claimed that it was an honest mistake when they put the picture of another man that wasn`t Ecuadorian Secretary of Defence) Or the Colombian Secretary of defense who claimed that no one in the masacre was Ecuadorian, and then it appeared that in fact there was an Ecuadorian?

You believe a country doesn't have the right to invade another country if attacks consistantly occur from their territory and the other country doesn't stop it

If your house is infested with rats and your neighbor keeps telling you to get rid of the infestation. But instead you let the rats go into your neighbors house and start killing the rats in your neighborhood by tresspassing and destroying your neighbors` backyards. And then blame your neighbor of being guilty of rats in the neighborhood when it was your lack of hygiene that caused the rat infestation. And even worse, then try to justify your actions by saying that they didn`t take care of the rats so you had to. Isn`t this plain hipocresy?

You believe the Church has been a force for elitism, hypocrisy, and heresy, now and throughout history

Hypocrisy and elitism weren`t always practiced by the church. They began when the church made a political pact with Emperor Constantine when he shifted the official policy from hostility towards Christians to tolerance - even going so far as to use Christian symbols in his conquests, supporting the church and becoming a kind of de facto leader. Earlier opposition to war, violence, and police was largely reversed within the church, and the church became a sort of chaplain to the Empire. after Rome’s collapse, a number of events led to Charlemagne finally becoming possibly the first “Christian leader”. Charlemagne’s practices formed the basis for the later Crusades, and it is probably since this era that the church and governing powers became nearly synonymous. This isn`t a matter of beleivng or not, this are facts and thay can`t be changed just as gravity. You just simply can`t deny that the church has practiced historical hypocrisy and elitism. Always it has supported conservative governments from emperors in the 4th century to elitist and conservative presidents in the 21st century. Both who have violated every social standard and the 10 commandments. But know at least they try to justify their support to conservative and elitist parties when they say conservatives are against abortion. But àpparently forgot that after the child is born he/she isn`t being provided with a good education and/or health. Probably this child will have to join the army, kill some innocent people overseas and come back home still ignorant and very unhealthy not only physicly but psychologically, aswell.

[qmvsimp]

I believe the Church is a force for good in the world, and but for a few mistakes here and there, have been throughout history. If you judge someone only by their faults and mistakes, then all of us fall short.

[patricio_b]

I believe the Church is a force for good in the world,

Theoretically, the church represents evrything good and pure in the world. But that`s the reason why I refer to the church`s hipocrisy.
The Church has a two faces, one to the public and one behind doors. For example: Some days ago the Pope visited the U.S.A and said an encouraging, pure and excelent speech about peace and love. What the Pope stated is the antithesis of the policy of brutality and force applied by U.S government. But how can the Pope speak against the U.S government and at the same time spend much time wth bush celebrating his 81st birthday and let us not forget that the church supported Bush on both elections. So I guess this errors in judgement and morale aren`t historical after all, at least for me they seem pretty actual.

If you judge someone only by their faults and mistakes, then all of us fall short.

Well, then when we talk about Hitler we should ommit any crime he committed because probably he could`ve been a good person after all-if you ommit all crime committed-. I believe that the church still committs a lot of social crimes when supporting conservative parties that now, by the same capitalist doctrine of making money out of exploiting the earth and its inhabitants, want to use food as fuel. This is an insult to every human that barely gets to eat daily.
The consecuences of this are fatal, food prices will increase-more than they already have- there will be less food and more people on earth. When I refer to the catholic church`s historical hypocresy and elitism I mean that it has acted that way since political agreement with Constantine, not that in history it used to be this way. It`s hypocresy and elitism is still being practice, wether it`s supporting conservative parties all over the world or looking the other way on the exploitation of our earth.

[qmvsimp]

Interpol (not known for it's conservative bias) has now confirmed that Venezuela helped FARC. So either Venezuela and Ecuador were helping terrorists or the whole world has a conservative bias against Chavez and Correa. You be the judge: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356018,00.html