An article in the National Review by Otto Reich implies that Castro may already be dead; and regardless of whether he is or not, preparations are on for a funeral of Catholic (emphasis on the capital ‘C’) proportions
This time the rumors are real: Castro is dying of stomach cancer. He may have already died, even before the funeral preparations were finished, so the news is not out. Confirmation of the terminal illness comes from the usual sources but in a non-conventional manner. The Cuban government has been summoning to Havana representatives of the major international media to negotiate the best seats, camera angles, and interviews with the despot’s political survivors, and to inform them of the ground rules for coverage of the state funeral.The foreign media are being told that the model for Castro’s funeral is that of Pope John Paul II a year ago. The Cubans actually believe — or pretend — that the death of a tyrant deserves the same attention as that of the world’s great men of peace.
This is one of Castro’s lasting legacies to his countrymen: moral disorientation. The Cuban ruling class has been so isolated from reality for so long by fear and Castro’s airtight press control that they equate the burial of a mass murderer with that of a prince of the Church. No doubt there will be “dignitaries”Â? at the funeral: fellow revolutionary leaders from the last repressive regimes on Earth: Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan, for example; and leaders of failed states like Zimbabwe and Bolivia.
Interesting in that Castro is technically an atheist (having not attended church since childhood), and was excommunicated in 1962 on the basis of a 1949 decree forbidding Catholics from supporting communist governments.
But like many, he has taken the appearance of taking religion more seriously in his old age. Catholics were allowed to join the Cuban Communist Party in 1992; described the country as “secular” instead of “atheist.” Pope John Paul II visited Cuba in 1998, the first visit by a reigning pontiff to the island. Castro and the Pope appeared side by side in public on several occasions during the visit, in which Castro wore a dark blue business suit instead of his usual garb of fatigues. Christmas was formally reinstated in 1998 (after being formerly abolished in 1969).
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
kb
October 27, 2006
2:29 pm
"The foreign media are being told that the model for Castro's funeral is that of Pope John Paul II a year ago. The Cubans actually believe — or pretend — that the death of a tyrant deserves the same attention as that of the world's great men of peace."
What tyrant are they referring to? The fellow whose ass Castro booted out in the first place? I thought he had already died?kb
"This is one of Castro's lasting legacies to his countrymen: moral disorientation."
"Moral disorientation"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?kb
"The Cuban ruling class has been so isolated from reality for so long"
As opposed to the criminal ruling class who they booted out after the vast majority of the population decided that they had had enough.(Do these folks have NO sense of cause and effect?)kb
"by fear and Castro's airtight press control that they equate the burial of a mass murderer with that of a prince of the Church."
What mass murderer? They can't possibly be speaking of Castro. Or if he qualifies as a "mass murderer" based of the several who have died under his government in the past 50 years, what would be the label for those who the U.S. has supported in the region who have killed hundreds of thousands more in a much smaller period of time? Once again, one of the leading rags of the supposedly intelligent right demonstrates a comprehension of history that only someone who had dropped out of kindergarten would regard as plausible.(Not really fair to the dropout, I know.)kb
"No doubt there will be "dignitaries"Â? at the funeral"
Hey, when someone has the support of the vast majority of his population, kicks out the few criminals who are "running the place", etc....there sure as hell should be some dignitaries there.kb
"fellow revolutionary leaders from the last repressive regimes"
Notice how all of the revolutionary leaders are all repressive, by definition. Unlike the kinder and gentler dictators, who, incidentally, killed multitudes more people. Perhaps this doesn't count. Perhaps as long as he calls himslef a "free marketeer", "friendly dictator", etc....he can kill as many as he wants and it's not really a problem. It's those dangerous lefties who only have the support of 90% of their population, and who kill a few, who were mostly friendly to the dictator which was being retired who are the real bad guys.kb
"on Earth: Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan, for example; and leaders of failed states like Zimbabwe and Bolivia."
Yes, this is a good example of similar states, with similar problems, and similar leaders. Geez! This is embarrassing.kb
Cuzon said:
"Interesting in that Castro is technically an atheist (having not attended church since childhood), and was excommunicated in 1962 on the basis of a 1949 decree forbidding Catholics from supporting communist governments."
I agree that this is sort of funny. I'm sure that Castro could probably really care less except only in the sense that he's aware of the beliefs of the population and will respect them, even if irrational. Sort of like allowing adults to play Santa if it makes them feel better. I guess they would have had no problem with Castro in the beginning then when he was anti-communist, and, in fact, jailing communists. I guess the "decree" also explains, and is probably an apologetic for, those criminals who killed the much more Christian-like folks who happened to be preaching liberation theology, that horror of horrors which was was one of the few attempts around anywhere to my knowledge where there was something even remotely resembling an attempt to carry out Christian values and ideology. I doubt Castro would have had too much problem with this form of Catolicism as it was less hypocritical.kb
"But like many, he has taken the appearance of taking religion more seriously in his old age."
Yes, he may be taking it serious because he knows that it may have not been a good idea to not believe in God when he goes to Heaven, instead of where the right mistakenly thinks he will go. You know, where Reagan is.kb
"Catholics were allowed to join the Cuban Communist Party in 1992; described the country as "secular"Â? instead of "atheist."Â?"
Yes, this would be correct.kb
"Pope John Paul II visited Cuba in 1998, the first visit by a reigning pontiff to the island. Castro and the Pope appeared side by side in public on several occasions during the visit, in which Castro wore a dark blue business suit instead of his usual garb of fatigues. Christmas was formally reinstated in 1998 (after being formerly abolished in 1969)."
Santa still doesn't exist. I'd probably be in favor of abolishing Christmas as it now stands. I mean, as far as I can tell, for the most part it's only good for the economy, and that's not a good enough reason to keep perpetuating nonsense. Why don't we ask the Iraqis how they'll spend Christmas this year?kb
Rommel
October 28, 2006
12:11 am
I won't even bother responding to most of your comment (mainly because I've heard it all before from Castro-sympathesizers, most of whom are Carribeans I attend university with) and just don't care.
However, I will NOT let you denegrate Christmas! I'm half-joking, but your bitterness toward the holiday seems to have no basis in anything other than general negativity or anti-Christian/religious sentiment. You mention that it's good for the economy which is an excellent reason alone. More importantly, Christmas is something like the West's version of Diwali - an important cultural event that brings family together and at least in my part of the world is a time when people renew relationships. It is an integral part of the American (and some European) society. For us faithful Christians it is often trumped only by Easter in religious signifigance.
And your comment about Iraq - what in the world is that even supposed to mean? Ach, what's the point. I hope you have a happy holiday regardless, brother (comrade?) !
ElamBend
October 28, 2006
12:31 am
subadei
October 28, 2006
12:48 am
Rommel
October 28, 2006
12:50 am
Indeed, in fact I meant to bring up the fact that many Jews and some Hindus I know celebrate it and will vigorously defend it. Generally, the only people who oppose Christmas are atheists (and likely a small fraction) and likely radical Islamists.
In fact, its an interesting point that such celebrations of family/giving are kind of universal in religions/cultures. Christians/Westerners have Christmas (and Thanksgiving for Americans), Hindus/Jains/Sikhs have Diwali and Muslims Eid.
Does anybody know of any other similar celebrations in the world?
BTW, sorry Lord Curzon for taking this so far off-topic!
Curzon
October 28, 2006
1:45 am
But please note that most atheists -- Chirol and Younghusband included! -- are content to ignore God and the existence of it in society. Those who want to get rid of it are driven by different motives. In the book _Soviet Civilization,_ Paris-based Russian disident Andrei Sinyavsky wrote about the unusual vehemence of the atheist Bolshevik regime to religion. Would not an atheist care less about the church? Why the drive to "disprove"Â? it or loathe it? Sinyavsky said that the regime in Moscow was peculiar in that it seemed like it wanted to "get back" at God.
Churches are a way for communities and families to operate independently from the state. Since the advent of the modern state and totalitarianism in the 20th century, it's not surprising that many authoritarian regimes saw religion as a challenge to their authority. Indeed, religion is one of many checks on state power anywhere in the world. Or as Goebbels said, "My party is my church."
It's worth noting that the only states that have tried to replace religion with atheism"”?the USSR, Communist China, Cuba"”?replaced it with unchallenged state power.
Kenneth
October 28, 2006
2:53 am
The atheists who want to get rid of it are mainly bothered by its irrationality and endless proselytization, not to mention its detrimental effects on the intellect. To wit, I fall somewhere between the two extremes. The Bolsheviks, incidentally, permitted some degree of religious freedom; Lenin himself wrote that religion was a "purely personal matter" but insisted that the religious should not be allowed to join the Communist Party and hence dilute the "scientific" doctrines of Marxism-Leninism.
_Churches are a way for communities and families to operate independently from the state. Since the advent of the modern state and totalitarianism in the 20th century, it's not surprising that many authoritarian regimes saw religion as a challenge to their authority. Indeed, religion is one of many checks on state power anywhere in the world. Or as Goebbels said, "My party is my church."Â?_
They are also a powerful tool of any regime. Franco's dictatorship included state support for Catholicism, and Hitler mandated school praryer- not to mention the assorted European monarchies and modern day Islamic states.
_It's worth noting that the only states that have tried to replace religion with atheism"”?the USSR, Communist China, Cuba"”?replaced it with unchallenged state power._
That's because the only states that attempted to eliminate religion were Leninist ones- and nigh-untrammelled state power is an integral aspect of Leninism, not to mention the notion of remaking society anew.
subadei
October 28, 2006
3:00 am
That statement is based much in the same principle as dogmatic belief... Faith.
Kenneth
October 28, 2006
3:04 am
How so? It's an assertion, to be sure, but how is it based in faith?
subadei
October 28, 2006
4:14 am
Kenneth
October 28, 2006
4:37 am
Perhaps I should have been more specific: it inhibits intellectual progress. I think it suffices to compare the scientifically and culturally dynamic secular countries of the West to the stagnant Islamic states as well as Medieval Europe.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
October 28, 2006
8:03 am
alec
October 28, 2006
3:03 pm
Bleh... ewwww.... ehhhhhh.... crab juice.
Seriously, National Review is not a legitimate publication. It is an upgraded 'intellectual' version of the NYPost that's proficient at smear jobs and not much else.
alec
October 28, 2006
3:13 pm
Also, the movement against faith is not merely a Marxist one. The French Revolution saw a LOT of removal of not just the Catholic Church, but religion in general.
Curzon
October 28, 2006
3:17 pm
Alec, exactly. I never said it was a Marxist view (notice the Goebbels quote), but a totalitarian one. Revolutionary France was the first totalitarian, or at least authoritarian, state.
alec
October 28, 2006
5:49 pm
Anyway, I am adamately opposed to religion (I would be called an antitheist I suppose) on a macro level but not so much on a personal level. I am a free speech absolutist but what is to be done with speech that is intentionally backwards and exploitive? Under this spectrum, I have a difficulty discerning between what is a violation of free speech and what should be done for progress and development.
Lexington Green
October 28, 2006
5:52 pm
alec
October 28, 2006
5:54 pm
subadei
October 28, 2006
5:58 pm
In this context I agree. Initially I took the quote to be directed at individual belief rather than the pretense of religious governance. Thanks for the clarification.
Curzon
October 28, 2006
6:17 pm
Alec: The French Revolution began as revolution for freedom and fraternity, but quickly degenerated to anarchy followed by military dictatorship. "The first line from this Wikipedia article on Dechristianization during the French Revolution":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#Dechristianisation is telling: "The revolution brought about a massive shifting of powers from the Roman Catholic Church to the state." What followed with this shift of power to the state? Not surprisingly, "the first great terror.":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror You say you are opposed to religion on a macro level, but please appreciate that organized religion is a real institutional barrier to state tyranny.
You say you're a free speech absolutist, but you sound like you would entertain notions of limiting so-called "backwards" speech. The only speech that is effectively controlled in the modern world is obscenity and that speech otherwise protected by intellectual property laws (plus perjury, defamation, classified information, etc). Any limitation on... er... "backwards" speech would never work. Appreciate also viewpoint, and how such a plan could quickly backfire; I find most of your views backwards, but I welcome your contributions at CA!
Human beings are irrational and emotional. Many trust faith more than reason. That's just part of free speech.
alec
October 28, 2006
7:39 pm
I agree with your last two paragraphs, but I think I would revise 'that's just part of free speech' with 'that's just part of the human condition', which is the crux of the dilemma. This is obviously getting a little too abstract, but I refer to the ideas presented in A Clockwork Orange -- is it right to modify people to do the 'right' thing without them having a choice in the matter? It's difficult to feel people are empowered by free speech, democracy, and capitalism if it has greatly increased the lot of the few and only marginally increased the lot of the many.
Anyway, this is the quote I was referring to from Clockwork:
Prison Chaplain: Choice! The boy has not a real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. The insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.
Minister: Padre, there are subtleties! We are not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime and with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the heart at the thought of killing a fly. Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works.
kb
October 28, 2006
11:29 pm
Good. There's no need to respond if you have nothing to offer. And those "Carribeans" probably have a little more insight not having benefitted from U.S. propaganda. You want to hear a Castro-sympathizer, I recommend watching the DVD entitled 'Castro: The Untold Story', or something to that affect. You can see how and what Nelson Mandela has to say about Castro. But then again, Mandela was considered a terrorist by the U.S., too, don't forget.kb
"However, I will NOT let you denegrate Christmas! I'm half-joking"
Yes, yes, I know.kb
"but your bitterness toward the holiday seems to have no basis in anything other than general negativity or anti-Christian/religious sentiment."
It doesn't. How would you know? I haven't really given any reasons for my comment. If you want reasons I can give you a few. How about the commercialism? This has nothing to do with the spirit of Christmas, at least to the spirit of my understanding. It has about as much to do with spirit as capitalism has to do with Christianity, nothing at all. And i feel that my statement was based primarily not on "anti-Christian sentiment", but rather directly Christian sentiment, though I may hesitate to call myself a Christian.kb
"You mention that it's good for the economy which is an excellent reason alone."
No, this is NOT an excellent reason alone. The notion that whatever is good for the economy is good for everything else is utter nonsense. Look at the simply-minded arguments made all the time against environmentalists, and other such moral groups. Assertions that doing x,y, or z is impossible because it would hurt the economy, too many people would lose jobs, and all the rest. Well, doesn't really matter if there are people working there if there is no air to breathe. It hardly takes an Einstein to make observations this elementary. What it does show, however, is a flaw in the economic system. The economic system should be changed, not the environment. If you can't accomodate then you've failed.kb
"More importantly, Christmas is something like the West's version of Diwali "“ an important cultural event that brings family together and at least in my part of the world is a time when people renew relationships."
Yes, I have nothing against this aspect. Should be done much more often as far as I'm concerned. I mean, without the pretentions. Personally, Christmas would make me much happier were the money collected from all the folks going to the mall and sent to the hungry somewhere. And I don't think the trickledown from Toy's R Us to Namibia is the most effective method. There! Spoken like an almost true Christian.kb
"It is an integral part of the American (and some European) society."
Okay, okay, okay...Relax. School shootings seem to be an intergral part of American society, too, but......kb
"For us faithful Christians it is often trumped only by Easter in religious signifigance."
I hardly need a sermon from some guy on a blog who doesn't even understand what a great "Christmas present" it probably was for the Cubans when Batista finally had his butt carried away by Rudolph.kb
"And your comment about Iraq "“ what in the world is that even supposed to mean? Ach, what's the point."
Use your imagination, or ask someone if you can borrow theirs.kb
"I hope you have a happy holiday regardless, brother (comrade?) !"
You, too. Just out of curiosity though, was this "comrade" supposed to imply some communist something?kb
moorethanthis
October 29, 2006
5:02 pm
kb
October 30, 2006
10:04 am
I heard Lenin was about to die. I think it was at Americansfora RegressiveCentury.com I was doing reasearch of right wing blogs and found this when looking at a post which it was posited that Elvis would be the neo-con candidate for the next Cuban president. (okay, Arcane, this was a lie...sort of.)
But honestly, I'd say that most anyone who is slightly to the left of the extremist right in the U.S. may be on the brink of death without knowing it, no matter their age.kb
subadei
October 30, 2006
9:16 pm
From what I've been seeing and reading the extremist right is about to not let the door hit it in the ass here in the US.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » CA Post Updates
December 3, 2006
7:19 am