MovieChat Forums > For Greater Glory: The True Story of Cristiada (2012) Discussion > 'Atheistic Mexican Government?'

'Atheistic Mexican Government?'

posted 13 years ago by JMDude
28 replies | jump to latest

The synopsis for this movie at my theater was pretty vague about what exactly this movie was about, but one of the vague things it mentioned was how the movie was about some rebellion against "anti-clerical laws". The IMDB synopsis was a bit less blunt, mentioning the term, "atheistic Mexican government."

I have to ask, was there ever any truth to this, or did I miss the part in history where Mexico took secularism to a despotic extreme?

All things considered, I almost want to see this movie just to see if it's as much of a religious jerk-off as it sounds.

If this movie is trying to paint like atheists want to do something ridiculous like outlaw the practice of religion, then I call *beep* right now. Atheists as a collective want religion to have no place in government, because it creates a preferential treatment to the practicers of a specific religion. We also think the world would be FAR better off without religion at all. But by no means would we EVER desire to implement some kind of thought-crime that prevents religious practices within the law, or even the right of parents to raise their children as they choose. Though I personally think it's reprehensible to ruin and indoctrinate a child by teaching them myths are true, my tool with which to stop such things from happening is education, not force. We're for the extension of personal freedoms, which includes the right to believe what you will.

[–] Pete-230 13 years ago

Yes, you missed the part in history where Mexico took secularism to a despotic extreme. The Mexican government purged all traces of it from the history books for over 40 years, until a young historian from France took up the subject. President Plutarco Calles was a staunch atheist who attempted to eradicate the Catholic church by enforcing and enacting draconian laws that prohibited the practice of the faith in public. Tens of thousands of men, women, and children, lay people and religious alike, were murdered for the crime of being Catholic.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-history-behind-for-greater-glory?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register

And let's not forget Uncle Joe Stalin, who famously said "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense..." as he set about confiscating all religious property in the Soviet Union and replacing the free exercise of religion with adherance to Marxism-Leninism as the state faith.

[–] JMDude 13 years ago

Mmm, okay.

Don't mistake my confidence in the general atheist attitude for the denial of atheist despots however. They existed, but make no mistake: such tyranny is never the result of rational and critical thinking. Being an atheist does not necessarily make you a rationalist, after all.

[–] guimbelleaux-1 13 years ago

True. It is just that there are two opposing viewpoints. One worships God, the other one has no God to worship, so they end up believing in and worshiping the government (this is done through the circuitous route of believing in Man, then believing in The Best Men, then believing in Intelligence (because the best men, are, by their definition, the most intelligent)and then believing in and worshiping The Government (because at that point, supposedly, the most intelligent men are in the government)).

Such people, and many atheists are not like this, but many reach this point eventually, hate religion. They hate it because, if it is true, then they are wrong and they hate to admit this point. Thus, many, many times in history, in fact, nearly every time an atheist has seized power, he has persecuted religion. Think Stalin. Think Mao Tse-Tung. Think Pol Pot. They killed millions upon millions of people in their own countries.

Mexico had it's period once the Socialists took over after the Mexican Revolutionary War in the very early 1900's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero

[–] JMDude 13 years ago

The examples you listed are not the result of atheism. That is as incidental as the fact that Stalin and Hitler both had mustaches.

You are correct, however, in your assessment that the corrupt regime generates a worship of the government or its leader. And rather than adopting a rational, humanist attitude, it simply supplements the tenants of any long-standing religion and creates a new one around the purposes of the regime.

You have a misunderstanding about the motivation behind the general atheist disgust when it comes to religion. We would like to see it vanish from the earth because it is the product of ignorance. It constantly contradicts what we have learned as a species and preaches all manner of bigotry and hatred under the banner of false promises and idle threats. It is overwhelmingly a negative force in the world.

In the modern secular community, we approach things on a scientific basis, and openly admit the possibility that we are wrong or the fact that there are things we honestly don't know. We don't "hate religion because it might be right". This is to miss the point entirely. There might very well be a god out there. An omnipotent cheat, hiding from science: a raging five-year-old who wants ALL the toys. But you'll never believe it, if reason says otherwise.

Any atheist who has any justification for disbelieving, apart from want, will have no fear that a religion might be true. As arrogant as this might sound, once you reach the point where you "get it," you will never see the Universe the same way. If an atheist understands WHY it is unwise to believe in gods, or has any understanding of reason and science, they will NEVER be able to go back to the way they might have been before. There are some things you cannot "unsee". There IS a reason the atheist can hear a man preaching the threats of eternal torment in hell, and only return an amused smile. There is a reason they are not afraid.

The modern secular movement has no despotic desires to its name. We spread awareness. We educate. We do NOT believe in taking away anyone's rights. We know that to do this right, it must be done in an ethical manner, and that at no point must we induce thought crimes. Religion will never in and of itself be illegal. Frowned upon one day? Perhaps. But nothing more.

[–] IfOnlyItWereTrue 12 years ago

I can see you're a staunch supporter of Catholic pedophilia and a denier of the complicity of the Catholic Church in the holocaust during WWII.

Because defending the right to believe in magical people in the sky is worth killing people over.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EJocys 12 years ago

And let's not forget Uncle Joe Stalin, who famously said "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense..."

There is no doubt, that majority of Soviet leaders, including Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khrushchev or Mikhail Gorbachev, were atheists and few of them even militant. However, the bloodiest communist regime dictator Josef Stalin (1878 – 1953) was not an ATHEIST, but RELIGIOUS COMMUNIST. More precisely he was Orthodox Christian Communist who supported Orthodox Church of Russia. It is based on real facts, Stalin's writings, video evidence given by his daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva-Stalin and his personal guard for 10 years Juri Solovjev. Stalin received religious education in Gori Church‘s School (1888-09-01 - 1894-06) and Tbilisi Priest‘s Seminary (1894-09-01 - 1899-07-29) which he didn’t accomplished, because he entered revolution movement. As strange a it sounds but in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia (Theravada Buddhist 95%, other 5%) statistically almost all people in pools were declaring themselves as BELIEVERS!

Even now, a lot of people can't understand that USSR was not an ATHEISTIC, but COMUNISTIC/SOCIALISTIC republic’s union.

Communism/Socialism is ideology about "humans(rich) vs humans(poor)".
Atheism/Theism is ideology about "humans(all) vs God".

Communism is not about believing or unbelieving in GOD, but about social equality between humans and collective/shared property ("commun" from Latin = collective/shared). This is why Jesus was first famous communist.

P.S.: This movie had a funny moment... its when priest got hit with the bullet in the head and was quite fine with it. I was thinking, damn, brain plays important role even for zombies, but it looks like in the case of hardcore believer no vital organs were hit :). Basically, if you meet Christian zombie then you are screwed :).

[–] noggerblack1911 13 years ago

The Mexican government was never "atheistic", they just wanted to keep church and state separate. It would be like saying the Founding Fathers of the United States were "atheistic"

[–] latin_buddy 13 years ago

Actually, the Mexican government went beyond "separation" of church and state, as they wanted church to be subordinated to the state. For example, parish priest appointments would be subject to approval from local government officials. To the best of my (limited) knowledge of the US constitution, the Founding Fathers never went as far as this.

[–] ContinentalOp 13 years ago

''Actually, the Mexican government went beyond "separation" of church and state, as they wanted church to be subordinated to the state. For example, parish priest appointments would be subject to approval from local government officials.''

The Mexican government wanted to create a secular, modern country which was not dominated by the wealthy Catholic church and widespread Catholic ignorance. Many (but not all) Catholics protested against this secularism and thus the Cristeros cropped up. The government RIGHTFULLY fought against the forces that were trying to stave off progression and modernization. Secularism is a virtue. No religious organization should have any say in government matters or own vast amounts of land like the Catholic Church did in Mexico, and even in some European countries like Spain. The Cristeros were the clear ''villains'' in the Cristero war.

Incidentally these are the ''excessive'' anti-Catholic laws that caused so much trouble with reactionary Catholics in Mexico:

''I. According to the religious liberties established under article 24, educational services shall be secular and, therefore, free of any religious orientation. II. The educational services shall be based on scientific progress and shall fight against ignorance, ignorance's effects, servitudes, fanaticism and prejudice.

All religious associations organized according to article 130 and its derived legislation, shall be authorized to acquire, possess or manage just the necessary assets to achieve their objectives.

The rules established at this article are guided by the historical principle according to which the State and the churches are separated entities from each other. Churches and religious congregations shall be organized under the law.

Every man shall be free to choose and profess any religious belief as long as it is lawful and it cannot be punished under criminal law. The Congress shall not be authorized to enact laws either establishing or prohibiting a particular religion. Religious ceremonies of public nature shall be ordinarily performed at the temples. Those performed outdoors shall be regulated under the law''.

Their is nothing at all wrong with any of those sentences and as the USA, the UK etc. are meant to be secularist countries you'd think that they'd not try to portray severe anti-secularism positively. But the USA in particular has a nasty habit of hypocrisy; it was formed from a rebellion yet usually aids far-right regimes against rebellions. The modern USA is a (supposedly) secular country, yet, retrospectively, condemns Mexico or Republican Spain for trying to be more secular.

Incidentally, although Archbishop Ruiz did try to distance the church against Victoriano Huerta, most Catholic priest supported the oppressive regime for the simply reason that the Catholic church was perhaps the largest landowner in Mexico and thus were also against agrarian reforms designed to improve the living conditions against the poor. The Calles laws, touted as undemocratic by undemocratic Catholics, were designed to stop clergymen holding public offices, personally endorsing public parties and inheriting property from people they are not related to. These rules didn't only apply to Catholics, but to every religion. Fines were also given out to priest wearing their uniforms outside of service, this was part of the general anti-evangelicalism endorsed by the Mexican government, and is a very fair as most military personal and are not permitted to wear their uniforms whilst on leave. Likewise policemen, when not on duty, do not wear uniforms.

Catholic terrorists kept making things worse for themselves. For instance, Mexico had 4,500 licensed priest prior to the outbreak of Cristero terrorism, after it only 334.

Here is the superstitious nonsense spouted as an anthem by the Cristeros:

"The Virgin Mary is protector and defender against that we fear
She will vanquish demons with a cry of ''Long live Christ King!'', ''Long live Christ King!''
Soldiers of Christ, let us follow this flag, for its cross points to the army of God
Let us follow the flag and declare, "Long live Christ King!"

''Soldiers of Christ''? The army of God''? ''Christ the King''? Yes, these are the people we, as secular citizens of the world, should definitely support...

If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Steve1a5 12 years ago

No there is a difference. The founding fathers were pluralists, not secularists. John Adams was the one who put in the Massachusetts constitution that the governor must be a Christian, all males must register with a church and the official state religion Episcopalianism and the state must fund the Episcopalian church. They only dumped that when Catholics became the majority in Massachusetts, though the governor thing still stands. Most of the 13 states had a state religion, most with founding fathers writing the state constitutions.

Mexico on the other hand had a shaky relationship with the Catholic church at independence. But it pretty much went down hill when Benito Juárez became president. President Plutarco Elías Calles was the most brutal though with literally murdering children and even taking 10 thousand US from the KKK(no joke!)

Every president from 1914 to 1938 was an atheist or "spiritualists" and one agnostic.

[–] travelintom 12 years ago

I wish King had left that last sentence out of his post. The rest of his post is pretty accurate. The Church in Mexico and all of the New World was, on the whole, an instrument of and was also one of the most wealthy, royalist and conservative powers.

Fifty years after the War of Reform and its attempt to curb the powers of the Church and to implement a modicum of land reform, things had grown even worse during the Porfiriato. The Church resisted the 1910 revolution and subsequent reform efforts. The subsequent Cristero War was a treasonous rebellion instigated by the Church.

I believe in freedom of religion. I do not support abuses by religion. I do not believe that church income and property should be tax exempt. I do not believe that churches and church schools should be subsidized with monies that would otherwise be taxed. Church members should (if they choose) give charitably of after-tax dollars. Churches should not, of course, be taxed on those contributions, but only on its income...but they should be taxed.

We do not, in fact, have separation of Church and State in the US.

[–] Sid-Blitzen 10 years ago

Just wanted to keep church and state separate? Then why ban religious services? Why make a captive boy renounce Jesus? That goes way beyond the remit of separatism.

[–] pulu55 13 years ago

atheism means one does not believe in God, nothing more, nothing less.

How then can there be an official atheist stance on what the states role should be. That doesn't make sense. Atheists are free to choose what they want the government to be doing.

Then you also claim that anticlerical regimes are not rational. Atheists don't believe in objective morality there can't be a rational and irrational morality. Atheists are free to choose their morality based on what they believe is best for society. Generally in the west today atheists base their morals on trying to optimize pleasure for everyone, but throughout history some atheists have chosen values where tyrannical anti clerical regimes are justified.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pulu55 12 years ago

I wasn't stating my personal beliefs. I'm not an atheist I'm Catholic, though I ask that you dismiss or accept my above analysis on its own merits.

[–] mlatapie-1 13 years ago

My mother was a novitiate in a Theresian convent when the Mexican revolution (which was socialist and atheistic ... that government was the forerunner of today's PRI: Partido Revolucionario Institucional, i.e., Institutional Revolutionary Party) and she had told me that when the revolutionaries reached her city in Mexico the first thing they did (after murdering landowners and their heirs) was to close all churches, convents, religious organizations, etc. My mother told me she, and the other novitiates and Theresian sisters, were forced out of their convent and their church, along with priests, brothers, and others of the clergy, and that the soldiers stabled their horses in the churches and allowed them to defecate on hallowed and sanctified altars. My mother told me the sisters and novitiates returned to their family homes. Within a year or so of this horrendous attack on Christianity and freedom of religion, my grandparents, with their 15 living children, their spouses, their grandchildren, boarded the SS Esperanza (this was in 1923) and sailed to Havana. My grandfather desiring to come to the U.S. because he had business associates there, took his entire family, left Havana (which was good because within 20 years or so they would have had to face another revolution: this one from Fidel Castro!) and went up to Ellis Island, New York where, after two weeks of investigations, medical examinations, proof of financial sustenance, etc., were allowed to enter the city and lived out the rest of their lives there, eventually as American citizens. My siblings and I were born in New York and this movie brought home the horrors that my mother's family saw in its infancy and the horrors that my grandparents, in their wisdom, had the foresight to leave before it got very very ugly. To this day in Mexico, Christianity, or any other faith, has restrictions, i.e., they do not own any property (not even the churches) but have the use of them compliments of the government, no clergy can perform any legal ceremony,marriages, etc. One first gets married by the civil government (that makes it legal) and then the couple goes to church to have the wedding at a church. There are other restrictions. In fact, when Pope John Paul II first visited Mexico in 1979, he was actually breaking Mexican law because he was wearing his clerical garments as he entered Mexico and kissed the ground. I'm happy to say that the Mexican government at that time had the discretion to let this law slide for Pope John Paul II!! Yes, to answer your question, the results of the Mexican revolution were indeed, "anti-clerical", and we all should have the freedom of religion to praise God as we so choose; and also, atheists should have the freedom from religion, as they choose: but they do not have the right to legally impose their atheistic views on people of faith (on the other hand, people of faith do not have the right to legally impose their faith on atheists). It doesn't work, anyway. This movie shows the strength of faith, and specifically, the faith of the majority of the Mexican people: they love God and they love La Guadalupe: laws cannot change that! Officially, to this day, Mexico is one of the most secular nations in the free world: Unofficially, it is one of the most devout! Laws cannot change the human heart and its chosen path to God.

[–] Steve1a5 12 years ago

Yes atheists and "spiritualists" associated with Continental Masonry(a form of freemasonry that is more common in the non English speaking world except in Scandanavia) that split from Anglo-Freemasonry when it allowed atheists to join. It was involved in persecuting Catholics in France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Colombia and Mexico mainly by entering the government.

Mexico technically was anti-Catholic until the early 90s when it dumped most of its anti-Catholic laws under president Carlos Salinas.

[–] torquemama2002 12 years ago

JMDude, that is exactly what happened: the atheistic and Communist parties in the Mexican government tried to outlaw Catholicism in Mexican, and any other Christian organization. These atheist and Commnunist tried and failed, and many Mexican people were Martyred for the cause and people like Blessed Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio are on their way to canonization.

The New York Rangers suck. And Sidney Crosby is a cry baby!

[–] KingSleaze 12 years ago

JMDude, it's a typical atheistic belief that religious people are ignorant and that their beliefs are dangerous. That belief in itself can lead to violence towards religious people... That belief is a belief and that belief can also be dangerous. Just like if one group of people interpret the bible, tora or the quran differently than others.

There are good religous people, like there are good atheists.... Likewise there are bad people who do bad things in the name of the bible, like there are bad people who do bad things and use their atheistic belief that religous people are ignorant and dangerous to justify them with.

Im mostly agnostic myself... But i find it funny how atheists always thinks they have found the best way at looking at the world, like you know you know the truth. Except you don't really know the truth, and you know you don't, so how can you judge religous beliefs one way or the other?

Don't get me wrong. I have a hard time listening to religous people talking about how true their religion is... But i never consider my agnostic belief to be above theirs..Like i don't consider religous belief to be more ignorant than those typical belief an atheist have... Because i know, that i don't know...I truely know it in my heart! Where i think most atheist think they KNOW that god don't exist or that all religions are false, or they are very convinced they have it right, because their belief is so neutral.... But that to me is true ignorance.

My english is not the best, so if i don't make sense, tell me :)

[–] Jane_Claire 12 years ago

If this movie is trying to paint like atheists want to do something ridiculous like outlaw the practice of religion, then I call *beep* right now.

BULLSH!T! Have you READ 20th century history? It wasn't just Mexico. Ever heard of the Spanish Civil War? Why do people not bother to read history before attempting to write about it. Damn. And I thought The Tudors' board was bad. Outlawing religion was EXACTLY was the atheistic government of Mexico was doing during this time. That's the point of the film, religious freedom. People, if you're going to discuss historical topics, READ A FREAKING BOOK!
I'm sure all the Catholics who were killed, improsoned, and tortured for being Catholic, including children, would think it's BullSh!t too, OP. There were Catholics who weren't even fighting who were killed. No one is "painting" Atheists as outlawing religion or persecuting Catholics...I hate to break this to you, but that's what they did .