We are witnessing a boom regarding religious ideas in the service of politicians. Given the unfathomable abyss of the problems that plague society, nothing seems "more natural" than to ask for sacred intervention. And it's about securing it. The cities are consecrated to the Creator in acts of massive fervor. Mayors and governors weave alliances that purify and strengthen them.
If it weren't because I see it on the screen in full color, it would be hard for me to believe that the prayers of Monterrey's Mayor Arellanes, just like the lavish ceremony celebrated by Chihuahua's Governor Duarte several weeks ago, aren't the current replica of an old medieval sacramental act, something like a desperate attempt to ward off the Biblical plagues by means of complete surrender to the Divine.
The years of intrigue against the secular State, the absolute indifference of the authorities, especially the Secretariat of Government Affairs [SEGOB], which translates into impunity for those who act by bending the law; the unconcealed crisis of the school for transmitting civic values of tolerance and freedom of belief; the intention to install religion in public life without questioning the secularization of institutions [according to the Constitution], [but instead] in accordance with the interpretation in vogue today--all this has made possible the ferment of these forms of religiosity clearly aligned with the defense of political interests.
It doesn't matter whether the leaders are Catholics or evangelicals, members of the PAN [National Action Party], or of the PRI [Party of the Institutional Revolution] (or strays from other political parishes), what is certain is that we are faced with new forms of symbiosis between politics and religion that no one would question if it weren't about clear violations of the constitutional order; that is, because it affects the functioning of the State.
In Monterrey, the city of intense, proud founders, the Mayor exorcises the tragedy of the casino fire, of people strung up on bridges, of the terror of the Zetas,
"recognizing that human participation is necessary, (but) we know that by ourselves we certainly do not have the capacity to reverse the darkness that only the light of faith in God can dispel."
She makes no distinction between public and private, she doesn't see the necessary dividing line between her personal beliefs and her representation of all those who conferred the office of Mayor upon her.
To justify herself, she appeals to a single line of the National Anthem and to Monterrey's founding act [its original, full name was the City of Our Lady of Monterrey], but she avoids any reference to the national history capable of questioning this hodgepodge. In a certain sense, it is rejection of this past that is the root of attitudes like hers. It is no longer about, as in the past, a live clash between two clearly defined concepts.
The formal law is no longer the only expression of such ideas, and it competes--as we saw during the painful discussion in local congresses of the so-called abortion laws--with the PRI's renovated legal concepts that now have very little to do with respect for the secular State. The indifference of the President, confronted by expressions of numerous local leaders, is notable, as he has made some of the most excessive shows of affinity with the Catholic hierarchy, including, of course, the one who governs in Rome.
However, the "offenders", let us say, enjoy perfect health and will not shrink from the critics. In fact, they don't even listen to them. More than abuse, what surprises one is the arrogance with which the unique truth is brandished about in the name of all. In this sense, we have become Americanized, so that religion is everywhere, whether or not it comes to mind, although it is also common to give a spiritual sheen to the worst superstitions existing in the market.
Most worrying is that this sort of religiosity administered by the politicians goes along without setbacks, without their concerning themselves too much about the complaints of all those who are contemptuously classified as Jacobins, that is, as un-redeemed freethinkers of other eras. They feel very secure with their own common sense rather than obliging themselves to think. They do not listen and, yes, in exchange, they use their relationship with the churches to strengthen their candidacies and to reap silence or complicity; in short, in order to prosper from the power of appealing to religion. The secular State is in trouble, and it better be acknowledged. Spanish original