Hugo Chávez continues his assault on political and legal protections in Venezuela. In a move that has been denounced internationally, including by Amnesty International, Chávez demanded the arrest of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni after she granted bail to an accused banker. He is demanding 30 years in prison even though his prosecutors could find no bribe (as he originally alleged on the radio). Instead, they found “spiritual corruption” and threw her in jail with many convicts that she previously incarcerated.
Afiuni’s life is in obvious danger in the Los Teques women’s jail. Various Human Rights groups have denounced the arrest as one more example of the growing authoritarian rule in Venezuela.
Afiuni’s health is poor and many fear that she could die in prison. Many judges have been horrified at the loss of their independence and the obvious threat to anyone disagreeing with Chávez.
Supreme Court justice Blanca Rosa Mármol de León stated “before there was a lot of fear on the bench but now there’s panic. In 35 years in the judicial system I’ve never seen judicial power so submissive.”
I continue to be baffled with some in the United States continue to make excuses for Chávez, who has shown himself to be a petty dictator and a committed enemy to civil liberties. Obviously, there are many who Chávez would consider “spiritually corrupted” in his distorted view of society and the law. The attack on the independence of the judiciary was an inevitable step for Chávez in his consolidation of authoritarian powers.
Source: Guardian
Jonathan Turley
BIL
In my post on Jan 17, 10:06pm I wrote:
“I didn’t mean that the words about faith and religion would be included in the text of law or statute. I meant the words of faith and religion would be included in the public square–in the public debate. I didn’t make that clear enough.”
This was a clarification of my earlier statement that ALSO referred to the public square (near the top of the the post at 11:58 am on the 17th). The portion of that post on the 17th at 11:58am reads:
“When they reach the public square all ideas–religious and secular–are equal for a hearing.”
There again, I was referring to the public debate, not the text of any law.
Further down I said:
“It is just as legitimate (IMO) to say I want a law against adultery as it is to say adultery is against my biblical beliefs and I want a law against adultery.”
And it is legitimate to SAY such a thing. We can say these things can we not? You mean to say I cannot say it? I don’t believe you.
Now for the self-admitted badly written portion I think you think I’m lying about:
“Whether or not I get such a law [against adultery] is up to the citizenry at large and the legislative process (state and local levels only). Of course, I think more headway in such matters would be made (and I don’t advocate for such a law) by leaving out the religious jargon. Nonetheless the religious words are merely superfluous and irrelevant to any proposed legislation.”
There. I said I don’t support legislation if it had religious jargon in it.
Also, I’m not saying (in this hypothetical) that I am writing such a law. I’m saying I might “get” such a law. This allows that someone else is writing it, which is the only way I viewed it. But, hypothetically, I had nothing to do with writing it because, I’m not taking on the role of the legislator. I’m speaking of philosophically getting what I wish for.
I’m half-way agreeing with you in that portion of my post. And I’m disagreeing with someone who would use religious terms in legislation and called those superfluous.
Not only would such words be superfluous, they would be counter-productive because they would ultimately lead to the law being struck down by the people themselves. They just wouldn’t like laws written like that. I was granting that to be the case.
We wouldn’t have to go on like this if you didn’t feel you had cause to go on a witch-hunt about my motivations for the laws I would like to advocate (but do not write because I am not a legislator).
You brought this confusion on yourself by assuming the worst of me and people who are religious. You deny it, but then you go right back to saying religious people can participate only if they have ethically neutral positions. Not even YOU have ethically neutral positions. Your comment is a bunch of horse-pucky.
You seem to believe we cannot advocate for anything that would reflect our religious beliefs even when there is no such prohibition in the Constitution forbidding it. You and those who think like you have fabricated this out of thin air. It’s a magic show.
So your screwy interpretation of what I mean is that I ADVOCATE using religious terms in legislative text when I said I did not.
Let me leave out the parenthetical remarks and re-quote it:
“I think more headway in such matters would be made…by leaving out the religious jargon.”
This is not true? Headway wouldn’t be made? Really?
And for your last post to me at Jan 18 2:06pm
You said:
“That would be because you are bereft of both logic and reason, Tootles. I choose systems with both verification and error correction over blind faith for a reason: they are wrong far less often. Plus nobody has ever gone to war over logic and reason and religion – throughout our history – is the number one cause of war next to simple greed.”
Me: I consider you bereft of both logic and reason as well.
You say you choose systems with both verification and error correction over blind faith.
Me: I say you choose them blindly.
BIL: So
ME: So
BIL: I’m right.
Me: So am I.
BIL: I’m logical.
Me: So am I.
BIL: No you’re not.
ME: Yes I am.
BIL: whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I’m logical! I know I am. I know I am. And I know you are not. (stomping foot)
ME: (rolling eyes)
BIL, the point is that we both reach for logic and arrive at different conclusions. But you want to insist your conclusions are correct and I insist mine are. I understand that.
But you nigh unto hate me for it and I do no such thing towards you.
You became the aggressor early on and I the defender. And that is how we conduct our affairs on this blog. Your actions towards me underscores the character of godlessness: cruelty. It describes your character to a tee. You are just plain mean and vicious to me and others you disagree with and I can only see your godless moral philosophy fueling it.
The last century proved that it is the godless who are the biggest threat to the human race. In one short century they outdid all the religious conflicts for all time thus far.
Afiuni is charged with bribery. Venezuelan law requires that there be a “benefit” received or promised before bribery/corruption can be proven.
The preliminary hearing court decided that “spiritual benefits” such as general approval of a decision by foreigners, could be enough to come within the statute.
Consequently, they sent Afiuni to trial (which will likely never occur) because her release of Cedeno had received international approval–which benefitted her.
Here I have included the reaction to this reasoning by an eminent Venezuelan professor of criminal law, Alberto Arteaga.
jeffryhouse.blogspot.com
By the way, I don’t have “a religion”. I have a philosophy. Your distortions to the contrary notwithstanding.
“That is what I say about your beliefs. I don’t find you logical nor reasonable.”
That would be because you are bereft of both logic and reason, Tootles. I choose systems with both verification and error correction over blind faith for a reason: they are wrong far less often. Plus nobody has ever gone to war over logic and reason and religion – throughout our history – is the number one cause of war next to simple greed.
And the point of my example about thieves was not “based on my religion” and that was the entire point. It was based on ethics which is a branch of philosophy – not religious studies. Unlike religions, philosophy and ethics must be backed by logic. Logic has rules and methods of error detection and correction where beliefs do not. This is why we have a secular government.
“I already said that the law would NOT have religious references. And yet your post pretends that I did not.”
No. You said the religious language was irrelevant or should be scrubbed. Scrubbed is just another way of saying “lied about”. Religiously motivated legislation is unconstitutional on both the Federal and state levels. If you cannot make a religiously neutral argument for a law, it is unconstitutional. End of story.
More verbosity doesn’t make your theocratic self-rationalizations any less theocratic self-rationalizations.
It just makes you more long winded than you already are.
Your cup is full to overflowing with self-righteous certainty that you are “specially chosen” by an imaginary man in the sky you cannot prove exists. There is no room in your cup for logic. There is no room in your cup for reason. If there were, you might have been able to prove me wrong at least once because those are the skills required to do so. Others have done so. However, since you haven’t and lack the skills to do so? That facts speak for themselves who has chosen the better operational principles in re correct formulation of ideas.
no this=know this
Buddha:
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I won’t let you.
You said:
“Your beliefs are nothing more than beliefs not founded upon logic and reasoning.”
That is what I say about your beliefs. I don’t find you logical nor reasonable. Who died and made you god of what is reasonable?
Yet you persist in insisting your viewpoint of reason should have ascendancy.
And, no this, it doesn’t impress me how distinguished people are who make incorrect decisions on the court. It never will.
This only impresses simpletons.
I wrote and you responded:
Tootie: “For example, I reckon you think thieves should be punished somehow. So do I. And it is completely irrelevant that my beliefs about this stem from my religion. But if you had your way you would effectively bar religious people from the democratic process by virtue of them being religious.”
BIL: No. Because a religiously neutral ethical argument can be made against thievery. It goes something like this: thievery unjustly deprives a person of their property and is inherently inequitable. In addition, if unpunished, it encourages vigilantism and creates general conditions of lawlessness when the government does not intervene on behalf of the rightful owner to punish the thief and/or recovery the property if possible. In order to be equitable and to promote justice as defined by the Constitution as an ethical duty of government, thievery must be made illegal and the police allowed to arrest thieves and the judiciary to prosecute them in accordance to the procedures and rights found within the Constitution.
You’ll note I did that without once calling thievery a sin or the thief a sinner. ”
It doesn’t matter if you call the thief an apple. If we both want thieves punished it doesn’t matter if my motive is from faith and yours is not.
I already said that the law would NOT have religious references. And yet your post pretends that I did not. I trust you were working on your response to me and missed that clarification and you are not basing your comments on things I did not say.
“keep your religion off the law books”
Tootles,
Mine cite is based on case law from the Burger SCOTUS – one of the most respected and upheld of all SCOTUS sessions – and Constitutional law. You’re position is based in theocratic lunacy only a layman could hallucinate. To be clear the most corrupt and unconstitutional of all SCOTUS session is the one currently sitting.
“The states and local government can establish religion even though that is not what is going on when religious people advocate for laws.”
No. They can’t. As to state’s rights?
“You have to distinguish between the powers allowed the feds and that allowed the states in order to draw the correct conclusions.”
I am. You’re not. Also “correct conclusions” shows you are thinking in a form of outcome determinism that your religious beliefs are correct. That’s a logical fallacy. Your beliefs are nothing more than beliefs not founded upon logic and reasoning. This is one of the reasons the Founders included the separation of church and state in the Constitution. We are supposed to be a land of secular laws based upon reason, not the religious beliefs of men which may or may not be rational. Jefferson himself said in a 1799 letter to Elbridge Gerry, “I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” Seems you are wrong about what Jefferson wanted.
“The feds may do nothing establishing or prohibiting.”
Neither can the states. There are limits on what states can and can’t do. Those limits are defined by the powers delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution. Which includes holding state laws unconstitutional according to the Federal Constitution. The States may do anything they wish which does not contradict or circumvent the U.S. Constitution. This is found in the 10th Amendment which reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” However, it is limited by Article VI, Cl. 2 of the Constitution which reads “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This is bolstered by the Privileges Clause of the 14th Amendment which states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
Since the 1st Amendment applies to the states via the Supremacy Clause, and the 10th and 14th Amendments, you are simply wrong.
“For example, I reckon you think thieves should be punished somehow. So do I. And it is completely irrelevant that my beliefs about this stem from my religion. But if you had your way you would effectively bar religious people from the democratic process by virtue of them being religious.”
No. Because a religiously neutral ethical argument can be made against thievery. It goes something like this: thievery unjustly deprives a person of their property and is inherently inequitable. In addition, if unpunished, it encourages vigilantism and creates general conditions of lawlessness when the government does not intervene on behalf of the rightful owner to punish the thief and/or recovery the property if possible. In order to be equitable and to promote justice as defined by the Constitution as an ethical duty of government, thievery must be made illegal and the police allowed to arrest thieves and the judiciary to prosecute them in accordance to the procedures and rights found within the Constitution.
You’ll note I did that without once calling thievery a sin or the thief a sinner.
As a counter example, you can’t do that on a law to discriminate against homosexuals. Because the prohibitions on that are moral, in your case based on Leviticus, and not ethical or secular in purpose. They are in fact, bigoted nonsense that flies in the face of biology as well as the teachings of 1 John. You are in essence saying God made a mistake in making homosexuals in addition to trying to violate a citizens civil and human rights by forcing your religion upon them whether your religion is their choice or not. Your ideal of legislated discrimination against homosexuals based on your religious prejudice and bigotry would be a violation of both the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as the valid precedent of Lemon v Kurtzman because there is no secular purpose to the law, it would advance your particular religion, it would create excessive entanglement and it would abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States to be free from your religious dogma. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of the Constitution whether you like it or not and it applies to the states.
And the democratic process is the right to vote, Tootles, not the right to legislate your religious mores into law. Vote all you like, but keep your religion of the law books. They have no place there according to the U.S. Constitution.
The States are bound by the U.S. Constitution. You’re simply out of your mind on your reading and understanding of the Constitution as it applies to state’s rights. It’s as distorted as your reading of the Bible as being literal – full of outcome determinism and bigotry. Nothing at all frightens me about state’s rights. I’m all for them. You simply don’t understand them as they actually exist according to the Constitution. Your state is free to adopt any religion or religious code they want as law as soon as the secede from the union.
And we all saw how well that worked out last time, didn’t we?
most of my relatives are way to the right of me, so when ever they’re around i always gas up at citgo while yelling “viva chavez”.
makes the reunions interesting
Buddha:
Your argument is based on a fictional understanding of the Constitution. Mine is based on what the Constitution says and original intent.
It is like Jefferson saying that no matter how many times the British violated the rights of Americans, it did not make it right for them to do so.
And thus, no matter how many corrupt court decisions you post to prove the Constitution means thus and so (when it does not) they will never change the original intent and meaning. Only amending the Constitution can do anything against the original intent, the exact wording of the Constitution, and the meaning of the words.
The states and local government can establish religion even though that is not what is going on when religious people advocate for laws. For example, I reckon you think thieves should be punished somehow. So do I. And it is completely irrelevant that my beliefs about this stem from my religion. But if you had your way you would effectively bar religious people from the democratic process by virtue of them being religious.
No one rightly believes this is what the founders and framers had in mind.
When I said that the religious words were superfluous, I meant that in terms of discussing the issue. I didn’t mean that the words about faith and religion would be included in the text of law or statute. I meant the words of faith and religion would be included in the public square–in the public debate. I didn’t make that clear enough.
Several states had state religions at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and they voted for it only after assurances that the feds could NOT PROHIBIT them. So not only can people with religious values vote for laws that reflect those values, indeed they can (through state government only and not through the feds) establish religion or prohibit it.
Jefferson mentions this fact when he says that false religions could be legislated against at the state level (he said the same thing about some speech). But the feds can do no such things. And we have always done this to a limited extent already in the states (though less and less so).
You have to distinguish between the powers allowed the feds and that allowed the states in order to draw the correct conclusions. The feds may do nothing establishing or prohibiting. The states may do what they wish. Indeed, eventually the states which had state religions abolished them. But they did that willingly and not by force from the general government. This is exactly as it should be and as it only can be legally as the Constitution is and was written.
This is the part that frightens you. You do not want the states to exercise powers you are uncomfortable with them having but which they are allowed to do. And so you cite corrupt cases which support your fears.
You shouldn’t be afraid because it could give you everything, or even much, of what you want out of life if like-minded people like you live concentrated in one, two, or more states. Instead, you take the busy-body approach to federalism, not wanting another state or group of people to have something you don’t approve of. In other words you don’t want me to have a way of life I prefer, but you insist you get to have a way of life you prefer.
Federalism is meant to solve this problem if you will let it. And if you don’t allow it to work you are a usurper and a subversive. I don’t despise you for this, I’m just pointing it out. And citing case which support the usurpation doesn’t cut it either.
Only by this process trial and error (or success) operating at the state level can we see for ourselves which is the best way to govern ourselves. Your theory of things takes self-governance away from the people. That is opposite of what is supposed to happen.
That is opposite of what our founders and framers wanted.
Maybe he has seen and taking off of Minority Report?
Tootles,
“Nonetheless the religious words are merely superfluous and irrelevant to any proposed legislation.”
Uh . . . no, they’re not. They are religious terms you are attempting to turn into law. That makes them totally relevant for their inappropriateness under both the 1st Amendment and Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Go ahead and ignore the fact that imposition of Christian values upon a legal system is exactly the same thing as endorsement. It creates
1) a law that may not have a secular purpose. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose
2) The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, but by using religious language, what you propose would effective advance religion;
3) The legislation must not create “excessive government entanglement” with religion, but by using religious language, that’s exactly what it does: create excessive entanglement.
It what we expect of you: contradiction and contortion to rationalize your theocratic bent. However, if you can’t make a religiously neutral ethical case for legislation but instead rely upon religious based reasoning?
It’s unconstitutional.
If you can’t make an argument for a position based on ethics – as opposed to religious morals? It has no place in a secular government.
We have a secular government by design of the Founding Fathers.
Harris,
I really don’t think Chavez was referring to spirituality, per se, in the religious sense.
I think he wanted to accuse the judge of wrong thinking and criminalize it without getting too much bad press.
And I think he is using this nonsensical term hoping people might think it an issue about religion vs state.
No!
Not Again?
What is wrong with me?
Why can I find no hint of a trace of evidence contrary to the notion that what is, and what is not, religion, is purely a matter of religion and its self-contained religious opinions?
As I find that the belief that religious opinions, being ultimately rather ubiquitous and usually not recognized in terms of their inextricably religious core nature, can be kept of any and all theories of law, whether theories merely espoused or theories in use, were someone to ask me what I understand is and is not religion, from a purely brain-biology-activity viewpoint, I beg to not be asked, because I anticipate some fur flying in ways I would find unpleasant.
I would guess that it may be easy to complain about the conduct of a person when the circumstances which consummated in the conduct are not recognized and understood.
I would guess that it may be easy to complain about anything and everything not well-recognized and well-understood.
Instead of complaining, I put my effort into better recognition and better understanding, and complaining, for me if for no one else, profoundly impedes my being better able to recognize and understand what I might decently do as a member of human society.
Of anyone other than myself I can only know and understand that of which I have been told, however told, that gets through to me.
There is something that has never gotten through to me, how to blame anyone for anything, and therefore, how to find fault with anyone or anything.
Yet tragedy and its associated agony and excruciation always gets through to me, unfiltered.
Oh, sorry. The sort of difficulty I seem to encounter as a scientist, someone else seems to me to perhaps also have encountered.
Robert DeRubeis, “Gotcha Moment: When science is taken out of context,” Observer, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 13 & 15, January, 2011, which arrived here via the post in yesterday’s mail delivery.
When my work in bioengineering is taken out of its bioengineering context and is relegated solely to being understood within the social traditions of law and law enforcement, my work is taken absolutely and totally our of its relevant and pertinent context, and plausibly makes perfectly atrocious nonsense.
As I do not expect others who do not understand my work until the opportunity for understanding has become complete, I do not expect to understand the work of others until the opportunity for understanding has become complete.
The expectations, if any, which I have for myself are not distinguishable from the expectations, if any, which I have for anyone else.
I called in to the Joy Cardin program on Wisconsin Public Radio this morning, and, before trying the “Fox News” and or the “Hardball” method of communication disaster in response to being “talked over” by the program host, was able to prod some little of my work into the broadcast. In a few days, my avowed silliness may appear in the online archives of the program.
The guest on the program, as I earlier understood him, seemed to me to intimate that there are not autistic people who function as I do, so I thought I might make an effort to disabuse him of an aspect of his incomplete understanding of those of the autism spectrum.
Is it spiritual corruption to propose that I, as an autistic person, am other than as I say I am?
What on earth, or anywhere else, is spiritual corruption? Methinks it is impossible for spiritual corruption to actually exist.
Buddha:
It doesn’t matter from where one gets their legislative ideas. When they reach the public square all ideas–religious and secular–are equal for a hearing. This would include, for example, Muslim ideas (which I loathe beyond loathing). And here I speak especially at the state and local level.
The question is about which ideas win out within the Constitution and the laws if they are Constituional. This is about who is most persuasive.
To deny people a voice because that voice draws from religion is to deny them the right to participate in the legislative process. I don’t see such prohibition especially in terms of something to prior restraint. Let the process shake it out.
You seem to be tripped up by the words. It is just as legitimate (IMO) to say I want a law against adultery as it is to say adultery is against my biblical beliefs and I want a law against adultery.
Your reaching to the 1st Amendment puts your argument in a bind. For if congress cannot establish it (as you would like to argue) it most surely cannot prohibit it (as I now get to argue because you brought it up).
If we cannot establish, then we cannot prohibit. But we are not establishing relgion or prohibiting it anyway. We are only trying to establish a law about adultery based on our opposition to it regardless of why we are opposed.
So, seemingly, the reason this argument isn’t working out is because you have reached for the wrong means to justify your position.
The only way to get out your bind (wherein I get to claim that government shall not prohibit) is if you take my view of it which doesn’t trigger the 1st Amendment.
Whether or not I get such a law is up to the citizenry at large and the legislative process (state and local levels only). Of course, I think more headway in such matters would be made (and I don’t advocate for such a law) by leaving out the religious jargon. Nonetheless the religious words are merely superfluous and irrelevant to any proposed legislation.
Now, if congress wants to force you and I to pray to Christ, Buddha, or Allah, the 1st Amendment is absolutely triggered. That is establishment. And that is forbidden. Congress must remain completely silent.
Also, one doesn’t even have to admit from where their ideas originate. And to start divining on motives behind ones legislative goals is to practice witch hunts.
All one has to do–and what one has the right to do–is advocate for the laws one likes. And federally, this must be short of forcing people to participate in religious activities.
By spiritual crime, I taking it that Chavez means a crime of “ideas” and not a crime about religious matters.
The issue in the case before the law is whether or not the bail was legal or whether the judge violated the law.
If this was a illegal act by the judge, then the case has nothing to do with ideas–spirituality–but law and it was silly of Chavez to use that word.
He probably wanted to avoid using the term “thought crime” or a similar phrase. The impact of that would have revealed him to be more the despot his critics say he is.
Perhaps some good can come from this deplorable act since the judge exposed the jail conditions to others in the judiciary and the public.
__________
Quote: “Prisoners prey on each other for money and sex. Afiuni denounced one gang leader who tried to intimidate her into sex. Prisoners supply mattresses and medicines or go without, and “rent” plastic chairs for visitors. “I knew conditions were tough but didn’t realise just how degraded,” said Afiuni. “If I was back on the bench I’d find it difficult to send anyone to jail unless the system was changed.”
“If disease does not kill Afiuni, a heavy smoker, other prisoners may, not least those she sent to Los Teques. Some have threatened to burn Afiuni with petrol, others to cut off her head and to bathe the jail in her blood.” End Quote
Is being jailed for “spritual crimes” any worse than arresting people like Pvt. Manning and keeping him drugged and held in solitary confinement? How about Gitmo? It would be hard for the US to complain about Chavez when we are doing some of the same things we accuse him of doing.
Tootles,
It’s one of those rare occasions when we agree.
However, I will point out that “spiritual crimes” of which you speak goes directly against (i.e. a contradiction of) your previous assertion that Christians have the right to impose their religious values on the law and government despite the fact that the 1st Amendment provides “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Imposing any religious values upon the law will inevitably lead to “spiritual crimes”.
well, governments and religion but, yes, evil tools for evil people
Spiritual crimes.
Thought crimes.
Hate crimes.
All the tools of evil governments.