Evo and Missionary Espionage in Bolivia

Espionage espionage comes in all forms, there probably many amen corners in the bolivian government which raises the question between democracy and the separation of religion from democracy.

Oh brother. Now the missionaries are to blame?

OK, let's make a recount of how many scapegoats Evo has blamed for his incompetence so far:

1. American Embassy
2. American Government
3. American Students
4. USAID volunteers
5. All foreign NGO's working in the country
6. Missionaries (I assume you mean just the foreign ones)
7. Anyone white
8. Anyone rich
9. Anyone more educated than he is
10. Anyone who doesn't speak Aymara
11. Anyone native to Santa Cruz
12. Anyone native to Pando
13. Anyone native to Beni
14. Anyone native to Tarija
15. Eduardo Rosza and company
16. Leopoldo Fernandez
17. Anyone who worked with, is related to, or barely knows Leopoldo Fernandez
18. Journalists
19. TV station owners (if they say anything he doesn't agree with)
20. Radio station owners (if they say anything he doesn't agree with)
21. Newspaper owners (if they say anything he doesn't agree with)
23. Website owners (if they say anything he doesn't agree with)
24. Obama
25. Anyone who doesn't agree with him
26. Anyone who criticizes his policies and actions
27. Peru

Feel free to add any others I haven't listed

The more scapegoats Evo names and blames (or others blame for him) the more paranoid and incapable he appears and the worse he makes himself look (or others make him look).

If Evo was smart and truly comparable to Mandela (so many people are comparing him to Mandela) he would work WITH his opposition and incorporate them and their ideas into his cabinet and government and policies. This would make him appear truly conciliatory.

Mandela was capable of taking his greatest opposer and naming him as his vice president.

Obama named Hilary Clinton as his Secretary of State.

That's why people like Mandela have the worldwide respect that he does and why people like Obama are awarded after just a few months in office the Peace Prize that Evo has been yearning for since 2006.

Just sayin'

Some Sociologists and philosphers of religion point out how the successful work of u.s. missionaries in the city of santa cruz Bolivia, over the years have has won great political simpathy towards u.s. policy while undermining bolivian values. The hightlight is that this "americanization of Santa Cruz" has deep roots in the protestant work ethic and it has a huge potential when it comes to geopolitics. Thou it is a slow change, over a period of time it has a powerful political doctrine which according to the sociologists was set in motion during the cold war; thus the use of religion for political purposes was implemented to pave the way towards turning Bolivia into fully complete capitalist society or at least part of it. So no offense but I doubt that all missionaries are really missionaries, there is often an agenda in everything, religion it seems has a huge potential in societies and some people will exploit it. Yet an educated society can be one of the best weapons against exploitation of ideas or of man.

Jimmy Franks wrote:

Some Sociologists and philosphers of religion point out how the successful work of u.s. missionaries in the city of santa cruz Bolivia, over the years have has won great political simpathy towards u.s. policy while undermining bolivian values. The hightlight is that this "americanization of Santa Cruz" has deep roots in the protestant work ethic and it has a huge potential when it comes to geopolitics. Thou it is a slow change, over a period of time it has a powerful political doctrine which according to the sociologists was set in motion during the cold war; thus the use of religion for political purposes was implemented to pave the way towards turning Bolivia into fully complete capitalist society or at least part of it. So no offense but I doubt that all missionaries are really missionaries, there is often an agenda in everything, religion it seems has a huge potential in societies and some people will exploit it. Yet an educated society can be one of the best weapons against exploitation of ideas or of man.

For the past 100 years, nearly ALL non-Catholic missionary organizations have been based out of, and work in, Western Andean Bolivia. Only over the past 40 or so years did they move to areas in Eastern Bolivia such as Santa Cruz (which until just 50 years ago was virtually unpopulated in comparison).

If you knew anything about cruceños, you'd know that over 90% are Catholic, do not sympathize with "protestant" demonimations, and actually consider them "un-christian". Cruceños are more influenced by materialism and capitalism than religion, although they claim to be very devout Catholics.

Could you please tell us the names of those philosophers of religion and sociologists? Or site their writings so we can read them? Because I have a hard time believing they've ever been to Bolivia. If what you are saying is true, then without a smidgen of a doubt, WESTERN ANDEAN BOLIVIA would be the most sympathetic toward U.S. policy.

Prominent harvard sociologists and philosophers of comparative religion write that protestant missionaries during the 60s, 70s and up to the 80s of the cold war were also on a mission from an outside government agencies of the western hemisphere to "change the framework of the cultural, social, economic and political outlook of the host society" et al (p, 75. Scherrens, Gould & Halperin)(JCR). Hence there is a huge issue when someone is preaching for a diffent cause rather than God. Yet apparantly the missionaries themselves may not have known they were part of a political agenda given the circumstances of the cold war in latin america.

Jimmy Franks wrote:

Prominent harvard sociologists and philosophers of comparative religion write that protestant missionaries during the 60s, 70s and up to the 80s of the cold war were also on a mission from an outside government agencies of the western hemisphere to "change the framework of the cultural, social, economic and political outlook of the host society" et al (p, 75. Scherrens, Gould & Halperin)(JCR). Hence there is a huge issue when someone is preaching for a diffent cause rather than God. Yet apparantly the missionaries themselves may not have known they were part of a political agenda given the circumstances of the cold war in latin america.

Oh OK so
this is all taken from ONE single book
written by several authors
all in the form of opinions (philosophy)
none based on actual facts
and NONE of whom have ever lived here?

Jimmy Franks wrote:

Some Sociologists and philosphers of religion point out how the successful work of u.s. missionaries in the city of santa cruz Bolivia, over the years have has won great political simpathy towards u.s. policy while undermining bolivian values.

Would you mind telling me what our "Bolivian" values are supposed to be?

Who defines which values Bolivians should have?

Who defines which values shall be considered Bolivian and which shall not?

Do the authors mean that because people from Santa Cruz have different values than people from say La Paz, that the Santa Cruz people's values are incorrect and not "Bolivian"?

People from different regions of Bolivia have different values.

There is no such thing as a single set of "Bolivian" values. Therefore cruceños could not have undermined "Bolivian" values.

To say this assumes that cruceños are not as Bolivian as other Bolivians.

Ludicrous.

"So no offense but I doubt that all missionaries are really missionaries, there is often an agenda in everything, religion it seems has a huge potential in societies and some people will exploit it."

I worked in Santa Cruz, Beni, etc... as a christian humanitarian worker with NO other motive than to help the people get medical care since their own country happens to be neglecting them. It is offensive when I went there to serve and help that you would make these ridiculous accusations. I did not only treat those who would "convert" and I had not political agenda. We would treat and help those from all walks of life without distinction. Is it so much to ask their governement to do the same ?

I think you are making the wrong assumption. What was implied in the article is the reference to the political uses of religion often involved organizations or missionary organizations ( which often received humanitarian grants from the gov't to help in humanitarian programs), that is organizations NOT individuals in the implementation of protestantism in third world countries which, during the cold war had the agenda to what you might say "export americanism". Protestantism is often identified as americaricanism or at least the values of north american protestants are different that those of say catholics or other pagan religions in latin america. What they were really saying is that the spread of protestantism by american missionaries has had an indirect political involvement, NOT because missionaries preach politics but because of the values they instill in people are often the values of capitalism, hence, a political doctrine is indirectly advanced. They assert that many missionaries may have never known that they were taking part in a political mission as well rather than a solely mission for God. Politics and religion should never mix and it can lead to people being misled into thinking that a piece of bread in the name of God is all they need for their life.

Jimmy Franks wrote:

I think you are making the wrong assumption. What was implied in the article is the reference to the political uses of religion often involved organizations or missionary organizations ( which often received humanitarian grants from the gov't to help in humanitarian programs), that is organizations NOT individuals in the implementation of protestantism in third world countries which, during the cold war had the agenda to what you might say "export americanism". Protestantism is often identified as americaricanism or at least the values of north american protestants are different that those of say catholics or other pagan religions in latin america. What they were really saying is that the spread of protestantism by american missionaries has had an indirect political involvement, NOT because missionaries preach politics but because of the values they instill in people are often the values of capitalism, hence, a political doctrine is indirectly advanced. They assert that many missionaries may have never known that they were taking part in a political mission as well rather than a solely mission for God. Politics and religion should never mix and it can lead to people being misled into thinking that a piece of bread in the name of God is all they need for their life.

If your argument were valid (and I believe it is) then it would apply NOT ONLY to protestants or missionaries but to ALL FOREIGNERS WHO EVER SET FOOT IN BOLIVIA.

Anthropology 101

Jen in Trinidad wrote:

Oh brother. Now the missionaries are to blame?
OK, let's make a recount of how many scapegoats Evo has blamed for his incompetence so far:
9. Anyone more educated than he is
10. Anyone who doesn't speak Aymara
Feel free to add any others I haven't listed
The more scapegoats Evo names and blames (or others blame for him) the more paranoid and incapable he appears and the worse he makes himself look (or others make him look).

Very nicely put. Made more funny by the fact that Evo cannot speak Aymara!

Brit guy in La Paz wrote:

<quoted text>
Very nicely put. Made more funny by the fact that Evo cannot speak Aymara!

I think it's more like Espachuamara.

Jen in Trinidad wrote:

<quoted text>
If your argument were valid (and I believe it is) then it would apply NOT ONLY to protestants or missionaries but to ALL FOREIGNERS WHO EVER SET FOOT IN BOLIVIA.
Anthropology 101

Are you the camba apologist who used to post as Live From Bolivia.