Trending

Newsletter

Former Argentina President Kirchner Ditches Peronist Party for Senator Bid

By: Marcelo Duclos - Jun 9, 2017, 3:28 pm
Kirchner seems willing to take the risk of losing the spot by not running with party support, and thus disappearing from the political arena altogether. (Twitter)
The former president will run with Front for Victory (Frente para la Victoria) with minority parties, but without support from the official Peronist party. (Twitter)

EspañolFormer President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has announced she will be running for senator in the upcoming 2017 elections.

Similar to the US, which holds caucuses and primaries for various elections, Argentina has pre-elections within each party or movement to decide who will run for congressional seats. In this case, Kirchner’s announcement has made for an interesting race because she and her potential competition are planning to run within newly created factions.

Jorge Ferraresi, the Mayor of the municipality Avellaneda just outside the province of Buenos Aires, has announced his candidacy as well, saying he will run without the support of the Partido Justicialista, (or Justicialist Party). Instead, he will run within a new faction. Therefore, he and Kirchner will not be running against one another.

Kirchner seems willing to take the risk of losing the spot by not running with party support, and thus disappearing from the political arena altogether. She will reportedly be running under a new faction that still doesn’t have a name,  but which will integrate parties from Front for Victory, but not the Justicialist Party.

 

 

According to Ferraresi, giving Florencio Randazzo, who will be running with the Justicialist Party, the opportunity to compete against her would be like making “a world boxing champion fight against a kid.”

This new scenario is good news for the ruling party, who may find itself facing an opposition divided into three pieces —  Cristina’s, Randazzo’s and that of former presidential candidate Massa.

Source: Perfil.

Marcelo Duclos Marcelo Duclos

Marcelo Duclos is a reporter for the PanAm Post from Buenos Aires. He studied journalism at Taller Escuela Agencia (TEA) and went on to pursue a master's degree in Political Science and Economics at Eseade. Follow him on Twitter: @MarceloDuclos

Why Bernie Sanders Has Religious Liberty All Wrong

By: Guest Contributor - Jun 9, 2017, 1:09 pm
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Jan. 16, 2015, to discuss Republican efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare and other programs that have an impact on working families. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, became the ranking minority member on the Senate Budget Committee when the new GOP-controlled Congress began. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

By Sarah Skwire When I went to graduate school to study the 16th and 17th centuries, I was often asked how that ancient history could possibly be relevant to life in the 21st century. As I’ve had more than one occasion to note, the early modern era seems more relevant all the time. This week provided another stellar example of how up to date my 400-year-old grasp of the world has turned out to be. It is possible that religion is now as much a matter of public debate and discussion as it was in the early modern era. I suspect, at least, it has never been more central to American political thought than it is now. But approaching early modern levels of interest in religious questions does not mean that we should resuscitate early modern methods for handling these questions. The Interrogation During confirmation hearings for Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders grilled Vought about an article Vought wrote about a faculty firing at Wheaton College. In the article, Vought discussed a range of doctrinal issues, including the theological status of non-Christians. Sanders used the article and the hearing as a way of publically inquiring into Vought’s religious beliefs and claiming that those beliefs make him unfit for office. Read More: Cuba’s “Humanist” Revolution is as Inhuman as They Come I want to avoid getting into the weeds of the theology behind Vought’s article. There’s a good discussion of it over at The Atlantic for those who are interested. What interests me here, instead, is the way that Sanders’s public questioning of the religious beliefs of candidate for office serve as a reminder of some of the worst aspects of 17th-century religious politics. The early modern era was famously marked by violence among religious groups. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims were all exiled, tortured, imprisoned, and killed at various times and in various countries, depending who was on the throne. After the end of the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, much of the bloodshed ceased. But while religious conflicts became less bloody, they did not disappear. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1459522593195-0'); }); Beginning in the mid 17th century and lasting until 1829, a series of Acts passed by the English Parliament required the swearing of oaths of religious orthodoxy and attendance at and performance of orthodox religious rituals if one wanted to hold public office or graduate from Oxford or Cambridge. What Is Toleration?  We should all be familiar with Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration, which argues against these Acts and against similar laws constraining religious belief. Many of these Acts were specifically written in order to keep Catholics from holding public office, as there were fears about the potentially “divided loyalties” of those who served both the English King and the Pope. These Acts effectively kept out members of non-orthodox Protestant sects as well. And these Acts kept Jews from holding public office. So while it was of course distressing this week to see it suggested that someone’s religious beliefs could and should render him unfit for office, it was particularly disturbing to see Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish, making that suggestion after Jews had been kept from office for so long by similar methods. Vought’s beliefs about whether Muslims are saved or not have no bearing on his ability to serve in the office of Management and Budget, and creating a 21st century “Test Act” that requires inquiry into such beliefs is a very bad idea. It would be a similarly bad idea for Vought, or Pence, or any other believing Christian to suggest that a Jewish nominee should be kept from office because he believes that Christians are wrong and that the Messiah has not yet arrived. Read More: Colombia Military, Police Officers Launch Party with Eyes on 2018 Election Nearly any religion contains within it doctrines and beliefs that exclude or set apart those who do not accept those doctrines and beliefs. Because I live in the complex religious environment of America I work, every day, with people who believe I am unsaved and possibly unsavable. They work with me, and I probably find some of their doctrines wrong-headed or worse. But we can still do our jobs. And we can do that because our work community does not have to replicate our faith community. I care, at the office, about how well our mutual work gets done. I care, at my house of worship, about how well our mutual prayers are said. There is a division there that allows our work to get done well and our prayers to be said properly, without requiring any of us to commit what we consider to be sins. What Bernie Sanders asked Mr. Vought was a theological question. It amounted to asking, “Do you think that non-Christians are saved?” What Bernie Sanders should have asked Mr. Vought was a civil society question. He should have asked, “Do your religious beliefs require that you treat non-Christians as lesser people, with fewer rights than Christians?” I’m fairly certain that most Christians couldn’t give an unqualified “yes” in response to that first question. But I’m completely certain that it’s the answer to the second question that actually matters. Sarah Skwire is the Literary Editor of FEE.org and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network. Email This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Weekly E-Newsletter

Get the latest from PanAm Post direct to your inbox!

We will never share your email with anyone.