Honduran Bishops Oppose Zelaya

Mark Tooley writes at The American Spectator:

They haven't gotten much attention, but church leaders in Honduras, while not specifically endorsing the coup, have not condemned the June 28 overthrow of leftist Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, and a Cardinal, strongly warned against Zelaya's return to Honduras, which could lead to a "blood bath." Rodriguez, in a televised speech on July 4, asked the Organization of American States (OAS), which has demanded Zelaya's restoration, to examine the "illegal deeds" under Zelaya's regime.

"To the Organization of American States: we ask that you pay attention to all the was happening outside the law in Honduras and not only what happened starting on June 28," Cardinal Rodriguez said, reading from a statement approved by the Honduran bishops. "The Honduras people are also asking why the warlike threats against our country have not been condemned," he continued, by implication referring to invasion threats by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. "If the inter-American system is limited to protecting the system of ballot boxes but not to monitoring good governance and the prevention of political, economic, and social crises, a belated reaction in the face of these will be worth nothing to the international community."

In June before the coup, the Honduran Catholic bishops had urged a negotiated settlement between Zelaya, who was pushing a plebiscite to ultimately grant him the right to reelection, and the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress, who insisted the Constitution prohibited such a referendum. Later, the bishops met with Zelaya and urged him to abandon any reelection efforts. Reportedly Zelaya promised to leave office when his term ends in January 2010. When Zelaya then still insisted on a referendum, inciting a mob of supporters to storm a military warehouse and seize the Venezuelan-printed ballots, so the referendum could proceed despite the Supreme Court's injunction against it, the bishops reportedly felt betrayed by Zelaya.

"We declare the right we have to define our own destiny without unilateral pressure of any sort, seeking solutions which promote the good of all," said Cardinal Rodriguez in his July 4 broadcast, reading from the bishops' statement. "We reject threats of force or blockades of any sort which only make the poorest suffer."

Implicitly defending Zelaya's ouster by the Supreme Court and Congress, Cardinal Rodriguez said: "Each and every one of the documents which have come into our hands show that the institutions of the Honduran democratic state are valid and that what it has executed in juridical-legal matters has been rooted in law." Rodriguez noted that the Honduran constitution asserts that "whoever proposes" to change the constitution's prohibition against presidential reelection "immediately ceases to hold his post and remains disqualified for ten years for any public function." The Cardinal concluded: "Therefore, the person sought, when he was captured, no longer held the position of President of the Republic." The Supreme Court had authorized an arrest warrant for the President, he noted.

Cardinal Rodriguez seemed to criticize the coup when he observed that the constitution prohibits expatriation to a "foreign State," since Zelaya was shipped to Costa Rica. "We believe that we all merit an explication of what happened on June 28," surmised the Cardinal, who insisted it is "fundamental" to abide by the scheduled election for a new president in November.

A representative of a Catholic missions group in Honduras, Missioners for Christ, was more direct, accusing Zelaya of leading Honduras towards a "socialist dictatorship" while disregarding "democratic rule and practices." The missionary concluded: "He purports to be a voice for the poor and marginalized but has spoken for them and the country without comprehensive consensus and support."

The Episcopal Bishop of Honduras was not so explicit but also declined to criticize ousting President Zelaya, who had "pressed on with plans for a nonbinding referendum which opponents said would open the gate for him to rewrite the constitution to run for re-election." Defying the Congress and Supreme Court, Zelaya had "led a group of protesters to an air force installation and seized the ballot boxes, which the procurator's office and the electoral tribunal had ordered confiscated." There are 50,000 Episcopalians in the Diocese of Honduras, which belongs to the U.S. Episcopal Church.

Maybe thanks to the Episcopal Bishop in Honduras, the U.S. Episcopal Church did not join a "faith-based" coup condemnation by officials from other liberal led denominations and left-wing advocacy groups, including the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Washington Office, Church World Service of the National Council of Churches, the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, the Washington Office on Latin America, Witness for Peace, and School of the Americas Watch, among others.

"President Zelaya was forcibly removed from his home by the military and put on a plane to Costa Rica," the activists complained. "The coup took place on the very day that a controversial non-binding referendum about the Honduran constitution had been scheduled." The activists insisted that "actions by the Honduran military to arrest the President and force him out of the country cannot be accepted." Included in the "faith-based" coup coalition were old and nearly forgotten groups not similarly excited since they lobbied for Central American Marxist insurgencies in the 1980s.

Meanwhile, Honduran evangelicals told Christianity Today that the Honduran coup answered prayers. "It's sad to see the OAS and the UN forcing Honduras to take back this president," one evangelical told the magazine. "We feel that what has happened is a reply to the fervent prayers of so many Christians. For many of us, it's not a coup, but the rescue of our country and our democracy." Before and after the coup, large numbers of evangelicals had demonstrated in Tegucigalpa for the Honduran constitution and against Zelaya.

On June 29, an anonymous Honduran official told the Washington Post, "The decision [against Zelaya] was adopted by unanimity in the Congress. That means all of the political parties. It has been endorsed by sectors that represent a wide array of Hondurans -- the Episcopal Church, the Catholic Church. And well, of course, the armed forces." He added: "The difficult part will be for the international community to see things as the Honduran people see them."

Whether the "international community," which continues to demand Zelaya's return, will heed Hondurans, or their church leaders, is an open question.

O'Grady on Honduras: Why is the U.S. Not Supporting the Rule of Law?

Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady wonders what has happened to reason when it comes to the situation in Honduras. Why is the U.S. throwing its support behind a legally ousted wannabe dictator who is a stooge of Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro?

Hundreds of emails from Hondurans flooded my in-box last week after I reported on the military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent banishment from the country.

Mr. Zelaya's violations of the rule of law in recent months were numerous. But the tipping point came 10 days ago, when he led a violent mob that stormed a military base to seize and distribute Venezuelan-printed ballots for an illegal referendum.

All but a handful of my letters pleaded for international understanding of the threat to the constitutional democracy that Mr. Zelaya presented. One phrase occurred again and again: "Please pray for us."

Hondurans have good cause for calling on divine intervention: Reason has gone AWOL in places like Turtle Bay and Foggy Bottom. Ruling the debate on Mr. Zelaya's behavior is Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, who is now the reigning international authority on "democracy."

Mr. Chávez is demanding that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated and is even threatening to overthrow the new Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti. He's leading the charge from the Organization of American States (OAS). The United Nations and the Obama administration are falling in line.

Is this insane? You bet. We have fallen through the looking glass and it's time to review how hemispheric relations came to such a sad state.

The story begins in 2004, when Mr. Chávez was still an aspiring despot and the U.S. pursued a policy of appeasement toward him. Not surprisingly, that only heightened his appetite for power.

Mr. Chávez had already rewritten the Venezuelan Constitution, taken over the judiciary and the national electoral council (CNE), militarized the government, and staked out an aggressive, anti-American foreign policy promising to spread his revolution around the hemisphere.

DeMint Statement on Honduras

July 2, 2009 - Greenville, SC - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, made the following statement about the ongoing situation in Honduras.

"The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a Chavez-style dictator. The Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran military have acted in accordance to the Honduran constitution and the rule of law.

“For weeks leading to his arrest, Zelaya flouted the constitutional authority of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court, and claimed for himself extra-constitutional control of his nation’s military and political institutions. Every institution from the Electoral Tribunal to the Supreme Court ruled that his actions were unjustified and illegal. Zelaya’s open defiance of democratic norms has set Honduras on a path toward violence, instability, and tyranny.

“I am hopeful that as President Obama grows in office, he will eventually turn away from despots like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Zelaya, and give the United States’ full-throated support to the people of any country who are fighting for the same values we cherish and defend in America. The people fighting for freedom around the world, in Iran and Honduras, should never have to wonder which side America will choose between freedom and tyranny.

“President Obama’s call for the reinstatement of Zelaya is a slap in the face to the people of Honduras. And the resolution written by the Organization of American States tramples over the hopes and dreams of a free and democratic people.

“The rule of law is working in Honduras. President Obama should not undermine the democratic institutions that guarantee freedom by forcing an illegitimate President back into power.

“This is not an ideal transition, but Hondurans are adhering to their constitution. The United States should support the Honduran people and their legitimate leaders in their brave and heroic stand for freedom and the rule of law.”

The Truth About Honduras

A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.

Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.

By Octavio Sánchez

Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.

It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.

It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British – pragmatic as they are – in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.

UPDATE: Christians in Honduras overwhelmingly support Zelaya's ouster.

Romney's "Irremediable" Position with Evangelicals

Mark Silk tries to connect the dots between concerns over Mitt Romney's religion and his tendency to flip-flop on issues of importance to "values voters."

Many values voters--i.e. evangelicals--distrust Mormons. Why? Because, in evangelical eyes, Mormons claim to be something they're not; to wit, Christians. People who change positions are not trustworthy because they claim to be something they didn't use to be. The suspicion is they're sailing under false pretenses, pretending to be something they aren't. So what I'd say is that by so vigorously embracing all the values values voters embrace--rather than maintaining a certain distance--Romney actually reinforced anti-Mormon sentiment among evangelicals. (As in: "He says he's just like us? What else would you expect from a Mormon?") Just the opposite of what he intended. And at this point irremediable.

Silk has a point, although I would not assign a sinister motive ("anti-Mormonism") to evangelical concerns about Romney which were first raised during his unsuccessful presidential bid and are now being revisited as he is rumored to be a potential running mate for John McCain. The fact that many evangelicals are uncomfortable with Romney's religion does not necessarily reflect bigotry. More likely, it reflects a serious devotion to their own religious faith which, quite naturally, would cause them to have some very legitimate concerns about the extent to which Romney's devotion to his faith would influence his conduct in office. As I have said before, it is not so much a question about how committed Romney is to his faith "but how committed the voters are to their faith and what influence it will have, first, on their making an informed decision in the voting booth and, second, after the votes are counted, on their praying God's blessing and favor upon the elected leader of their country, regardless of the faith the winning candidate professes."

A Legitimate Question

Mitt Romney is upset over a question about his Mormon faith posed by rival Mike Huckabee. "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Huckabee asks in an upcoming New York Times article. Romney characterizes the question as an "attack" on his religion. Yet he refused to answer it, deferring instead to the home office in Salt Lake City. Huckabee is not the first to bring up this quirky Mormon doctrine. David Frum called Romney to task for obfuscating the issue after Romney's highly touted "religion" speech last week. Unlike Huckabee, however, Frum is neither a Baptist minister nor a rival candidate for president, so Romney apparently let this initial "attack" on his religion go unchallenged.

But whether coming from a political commentator or a political opponent, it is perfectly legitimate to raise the question about the Mormon belief concerning the familial relationship between Jesus and Lucifer. What Romney believes in this area says volumes about the seriousness of his commitment to his faith, and the more serious he is about that faith, the more it is bound to influence the decisions he makes should he ascend to the nation's highest office.

It is not a bad thing, of course, to allow one's faith to influence the way one governs and whether or not one agrees with the tenets of Romney's faith, that factor alone does not disqualify him from seeking or perhaps winning the presidency. Neither does Huckabee's outspoken commitment to evangelical Christianity make him more qualified than, say, Rudy Giuliani who seems not to be influenced at all by his Catholic faith in either his public or private life. One could legitimately ask Huckabee if he subscribes to the popular Southern Baptist belief in dispensational pre-millennialism, not exactly the most orthodox view of the end times. A serious Christian's view on such a subject would undoubtedly influence some very important presidential decisions concerning, for instance, Middle East policy in an age of Islamic terrorism.

Whether it is Romney's beliefs about Jesus and Lucifer or Huckabee's beliefs about eschatology, both are mere snapshots of a larger worldview which cannot be anything but highly influential in the way a candidate for the presidency would conduct business should he be chosen by the people for that responsibility. Questions about a candidate's fundamental beliefs, whether raised by a rival candidate or by the voters themselves, cannot be dismissed as "attacks" on the candidate's religion. When one claims allegiance to a particular religious faith, one should not only be willing but, indeed, eager to answer any and all questions raised about that faith. Ultimately, it is not a question of how committed a candidate is to his or her faith, but how committed the voters are to their faith and what influence it will have, first, on their making an informed decision in the voting booth and, second, after the votes are counted, on their praying God's blessing and favor upon the elected leader of their country, regardless of the faith the winning candidate professes.

Follow-up on Colorado Shootings

After the YWAM incident yesterday, there was another shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. This time, the gunman was killed by an armed female security officer.

New Life was previously in the news when its former pastor, Ted Haggard, was involved in an embarrassing sex scandal.

YWAM Missionaries Killed

Tragic news from Colorado. Pray for the victims and their families.

A gunman walked into a training center dormitory for young Christian missionaries early Sunday and opened fire, killing two people and wounding two others. No arrests had been made by late morning.

The shooting happened at about 12:30 a.m. at the Youth With a Mission center, police spokeswoman Susan Medina said. About 45 people were evacuated from the dormitory in this Denver suburb.

Witnesses told police that the gunman was a 20-year-old white male, wearing a dark jacket and skull cap. He may have glasses or a beard.

"There's no blueprint for this, we're just going to be honest and pray for one another, cry with one another," center director Peter Warren told KUSA-TV. "Who knows what was going on in this young man's life."

Police with several dogs searched the area through the night, and residents of nearby homes were notified by reverse 911 to be on the lookout. Medina said residents were asked to look out their windows to see if the snow had been disturbed during the night. About 4 inches of snow had fallen in the area in the past day.

Conditions of the two injured people were not immediately available.

The dormitory is on the campus of the Faith Bible Chapel. People bundled up against freezing cold arrived for Sunday services at the sanctuary, about 300 yards from the dormitory.

Darv Smith, director of a Youth With a Mission center in Boulder, said people ranging from their late teens to their 70s undergo a 12-week discipleship course that prepares them to be missionaries.

He said the center trains about 300 people a year.

Youth With a Mission was started in 1960 and now has 1,100 locations with 16,000 full-time staff, Smith said. The Arvada center was founded in 1984.