Skip to comments.Mexican land donation to church draws fire
Posted on 07/07/2013 9:21:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
...the Cancun donation especially angered some residents because the government-owned land was designated for public use, and some wanted to turn it into badly-needed park for a low-income neighborhood located several miles from the glitzy coastal hotels.
Bertha Grajales, the spokeswoman for the housing authority in the Caribbean coast state of Quintana Roo, where Cancun is located, confirmed Friday that the land had been donated to the church, but she could not say when or why.
But religion is an even more sensitive theme: Mexico was dominated economically, spiritually and intellectually for centuries by the Catholic church. After the 1910-1917 revolution, strict anti-clerical laws were passed that sparked a 1926-1929 uprising by militant Catholics known as the Cristero War.
While the restrictions were eased in the 1990s, many Mexicans even those who are nominally Catholic themselves are wary of any church involvement in politics or public affairs.
In early June, the mayor of Monterrey, Mexico's third-largest city, angered many when, at an outdoor religious gathering of Roman Catholics, she essentially handed over the keys of the city to Jesus Christ.
"I deliver the city of Monterrey ... to our lord Jesus Christ, so that his kingdom of peace and blessing may be established," said Mayor Margarita Arellanes. "I open the doors of this city to God, as the highest authority."
Arellanes later said she was speaking as an individual, not as mayor, and said her words weren't meant to offend people of other religions. Still, her statement upset some legislators, who called for her to be censured. Other mayors in northern Mexico made similar comments previously.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
While the restrictions were eased in the 1990s, many Mexicans even those who are nominally Catholic themselves are wary of any church involvement in politics or public affairs. In early June, the mayor of Monterrey, Mexico's third-largest city, angered many when, at an outdoor religious gathering of Roman Catholics, she essentially handed over the keys of the city to Jesus Christ.
This is a drop in the bucket toward a just restitution.
After the 1910-1917 revolution, strict anti-clerical laws were passed that sparked a 1926-1929 uprising by militant Catholics known as the Cristero War.
Who the heck writes this claptrap?
By 1934, almost 4200 priests (out of 4500 total) had been forced into hiding, expelled from the country, or shot.
Some of these laws were not lifted until he 1990's, and some are still in force today (including, I think the prohibition of clerics from holding appointed or elected public office.)
It would be wonderful if there could be some sort of reparations paid at this point for these massive aggressions against Catholic life, liberty, and property. Ya think?
Should NEVER, EVER happen again the catholic church owns nearly 50% of the land in Mexico on which they paid not one dime in taxes. NEVER again. They once did own that much of the land. As they were told, they can ONLY have the land where the church building sits. No wonder they have massive revolutions.
The law must stay in effect. NEVER again.
Or even somebody who publicly witnesses to Catholic faith and morals?
People who know exactly how to package lies and distortions to foster divisions among Christians.
Given the fact that the majority of Christians in this country have been fed leftist urban legends and revisionist history rather than the truth since they were in kindergarten, it's easy for them to do. Particularly now that dupes as well as useful idiots help them spread their propaganda.
The democrat fascist nobility mastered the art of successfully dividing Christians against one another several generations ago. As masters of propaganda and fifth column activity they've managed to neutralize Christians as opponents to their anti-Christ agenda by keeping them busy fighting one another.
It began with the democrat party promising to save people in some States from the Irish and other Catholic immigrants with eugenics and "progressive" government policies. At the same time, they were promising the Irish and other Catholic immigrants in other States they would implement "progressive" government policies to protect them from the anti-Catholic sentiment being spread by the KKK and other groups who preached birth control and eugenics.
Unfortunately, even though most Christians no longer trust the media, they never question their own acceptance of lies that instantly start them drooling and barking as soon as any media outlet rings the Christian vs. Christian bell.
Has nothing to do with bigotry. NO religious organization should EVER hold nearly 50% of the real estate of a country and certainly not without paying taxes on it. How that ever happened in the first place is immoral. No further discussion.
But, there's no bigotry involved, just a boatload of anti-Catholic propaganda filling heads full of mush who prefer to feed their bigoted preconceptions to reading the facts.
"Shut up," he explained.
The question wasn't whether a religious organization should own "more than 50% of the real estate of a country," --- a figure I wold have to see verified by documented fact and not by mere assertion --- and with due consideration for the fact that in Mexico, as elsewhere, a significant amount of the "real estate" consists of hospitals, clinics, charities, human services, and primary-secondary-and-tertiary level education. The Catholic Church was then, as it is now, the major provider of essential services, especially in the case of non-Spanish speaking indigenous people, and the education of girls.
The question, though, was whether Catholic clergy should be deprived of the right to vote, to speak on public issues, and to practice their faith openly outside of the confines of their sanctuaries, their homes, and their heads.
This is all answered affirmatively and --- so far --- protected effectively in the USA under the First Amendment.
But not in Mexico.
I admit I don't comprehend how somebody could prefer the Communist dictatorial policies of Plutarco Elias Calles to the liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
It’s not immoral. In many cases, these were donations of land by land-owners or by governments. All legal and above board and in many cases, the tenants were in a better position than those under other landlords...