Blogs > Liberty and Power > Telling It Like It Is

Feb 3, 2007 3:13 am


Telling It Like It Is



God, I do thank, evangelist, the Rev. Pat Robertson for telling it like it is.

Earlier, he told us, “God’s blessing is on him [George W. Bush]. It’s the blessing of heaven on the emperor.” I think GeorgeII/43 must have liked that!

Now, Robertson announces its time for the CIA to take out Hugo Chavez. Well, its probably easier than attempting to invade Iran.

Readers of John Perkins', Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004), will recognize this as the approved intermediate tactic of the American Empire, in between economic pressure and invasion, and often practiced on the Latinos.

Just as the Roman Emperor Constantine, sought a union of the Empire with Christianity, proclaiming the notion of the Trinity by a vote of his stooges at Nicea, and making him God's Man here on Earth, so the convergence of Church and State marches on in the modern Empire.

Just as Jesus had to get off by himself for 40 days of contemplation, so George needed to retire to his ranch. During that time, Satan tempted Jesus, and GeoII/43 now has Cindy Sheehan picking at him.

Hey, may there is divine retribution, after all!

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


kgregglv - 8/28/2005

Kevin,
I would agree with Bill on this.
The level of complexity is far from the arian nature of the dominant Christian theologians of the time. Interestingly enough, arianism led to the dominance within the southern mediterranean regions--which were the hardest for conquest by the Roman Empire--and led to the acceptance of Islam later on in those same regions.
Arian doctrines require little, if any, doctrine requiring a special priesthood to maintain doctrinal control over a populace, as was the case with the trinitarianism of the Nicene Council.
The resulting trinitarianism was the result of a patchwork of various strains of Christian thinking mashed together into a fairly incoherent whole, much like you would expect coming from any rather large committee. And majority rules make politicians rulers!
Of course a politician would be happy with this result. It would give him great leeway (and did!) to attach papal bull satisfying any direction that his policy takes. Just put the right politically-savvy priest in charge (every cardinal that I've ever heard of was quite the politician himself), and he will understand how to make his "cui-bono" beneficial to the current political leadership. And if he didn't, he would be smart enough to know the next high priest will find which way his "cui-bono" is buttered.
I don't underestimate the intelligence of church leaders of any denomination, nor would I assume their interpretations were handed down from "on-high".
Just a thought.
Just Ken


Kevin Vallier - 8/27/2005

Prof. Marina,

Why do you think that the participants in the Council of Constantinople were the "stooges" of Emperor Constantine? The council records don't bear a resemblance to a group of people congregated for the soul purpose of enacting the theology of a recently converted emperor. What reason do you have to think that the Doctrine of the Trinity in all of its complexities was somehow the will of what was in all likelihood a theological infact? What emperor would demand that such a complex and mysterious point of dogma be set in stone? It just doesn't make any sense. Does the Nicene Creed really sound like the demands of an emperor?

Nah, if anything, it should just sound bizarre and contradictory to a secularist. There's no obviously "cui bono" analysis to be made from the details, I don't think, unless you think it's just the logical consequence of denying the central doctrines of any group that challenged the church - but I'm not sure that's true.

I mean, they probably really believed the stuff. What's wrong with that?