1) fought against independence
2) betrayed Mexico by favoring French intervention in the 19th century
3) virulently fought against the revolution
4) sponsored a religious uprising in the 1920s
5) has often failed to respect loyalty to the state and its insitutions
Etc, etc.
Now the church openly calls for Mexicans to vote in favor of parties that oppose gay marriage and women's reproductive rights.
Norberto Rivera Carrera, Mexico's cardinal - a man who should be locked up in prison not only for his failure to act against child raping priests, but specifically for his active sabotage of the investigations of these hideous crimes and his cover-up and protection of those responsible - has the following to declare:
it is not possible to make a political option those who are supporters or promoters of false rights and freedoms which threaten the teachings of the scripture, tradition and doctrine of the Church.In one way, it is at least an improvement: At least they didn't declare, "God free us from a fascist party like the PRD" as they did last time.
Every institution, religious or political, has conflicts in the political arena with other institutions. While the major differences between social liberals and social conservatives indeed exist, in politics it is also normal to make unlikely alliances. The territorial boundaries are clear, the major metropolis of Mexico City is "the capital" of social liberal policies. For the Presidential elections, I don't see the "religious-freedom" PAN's actual policies generally threatening the PRD as much as the PRI. The PAN Presidents have generally ruled in moderation with respect for the capital's social freedoms, despite being part of the huge "pro-life" and traditionalist votes outside the capital. The PRI however never allowed either social or religious freedoms under its authoritarian government and they are in a position of great strength once more. The church
ReplyDeletemay disagree with social liberalism, but it does not govern. The PAN governs and it does so with respect and freedom. If anything, the social liberal laws of Mexico City have pushed so far so fast in a few years that instead of consolidating their gains as the young in society grow up open to social inclusion, they risk provoking further
backlashes. It doesn't sound politically smart. For freedom to survive, a stronger "religious freedom" front on the right and a strong "social freedom" front on the left will be needed. This is probably best done if both sides are allowed to proclaim their values freely, but wisely make them in a way that does not weaken them during an election year. It's not common sense... it's strategic sense perhaps. If the Cristeros and Zapatistas had hung together, who knows if they may not have hung seperately.