More on Liberation Theology

Samuel:

Some of what I wrote about Liberation Theology is probably ambiguous. I intended to speak just about a nation’s right to revolt against tyranny. Liberation Theology on the surface seems to have been created to deal with the tyrannies, but I find I don’t agree with its theologians. But I find their theology interesting – and at least Gustavo Gutierrez has done his homework. I disagree with what many in Latin America have done with their revolutions, but that is another issue. They believe in the Utopian schemes of Socialism. Some of us think these schemes have had enough opportunity to play themselves out and it should be obvious that they result in new tyrannies. Far from eliminating all problems, they create new ones. Nevertheless, the Latin and South Americans have the right to revolt against tyranny (imo).

I see some different ironies from the ones you have seen. I think it ironic that an administration that is mildly attempting to export Liberal Democracy is feared as more threatening than earlier American administrations which accepted and dealt with tyrannous states throughout the world (as part of an American realpolitik). And it is ironic that the left, that used to be idealistic, would have preferred leaving a tyrannical dictator in place in Iraq than to have him removed and replaced by a Liberal-Democracy. Many of us have progressed in our political thinking through several administrations, both Democratic and Republican. We no longer believe it acceptable to accept tyrannical regimes. For the most part we show disapproval by sanctions, but this administration, given the boost from 9/11, has taken more positive steps in dealing with two tyrannies. While this administration has handled PR poorly and hasn’t couched the problem properly, it has nevertheless taken appropriate action. Its praxis is correct, regardless of whether its theology or political theory is.

Lawrence Helm