Mayor of Monterrey, Mexico Offers Up Her City to Jesus Christ

The mayor of Monterrey, Mexico, Margarita Arellanes Cervantes, recently spoke at an event called “Monterrey Prays” (organized by a group called the Pastors Alliance) and gave quite the sermon:

Mayor Margarita Arellanes Cervantes

I, Margarita Alicia Arellanes Cervantes, deliver the city of Monterrey, Nuevo León to our Lord Jesus Christ. For his kingdom of peace and blessings to be established, I open the doors of this city to God as the maximum authority.

The mayor said that without the presence and help of Jesus Christ there cannot be real success; “If the Lord doesn’t build the house, the ones who build it work in vain; if the Lord doesn’t care for the city, the watchers stand guard in vain.”

She mentioned that some people are offended and intolerant if God is spoken of in public, but tolerate and stay silent before hatred and evil…

You can see video of Cervantes’ speech (in Spanish) below:

At the end of the speech (around the 6:40 mark), you can see the mayor giving the keys to the city to two children dressed in white (as stand-ins for Jesus).

After that video went viral in Mexico, Cervantes went on a local radio station to “explain” herself:

She said that the statements she made were “personal” and didn’t violate the Constitution.

I believe that criticism should be reserved for things that do not have a good end or a noble cause… Who doesn’t want our city to do well?”

Of course, no one is criticizing her religious beliefs, only that she used her soapbox as mayor to promote her religious views. It wouldn’t be acceptable in America and it’s not acceptable in Monterrey, either.

(Thanks to Ager for the link and to Diego for help with translation!)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • David McNerney

    Presumably if someone had said:

    “I, <insert name here>, deliver the city of Monterrey, Nuevo León to the Prince of Darkness. For his kingdom of sin and debauchery to be established, I open the doors of this city to Satan as the maximum authority.”

    She would have no problem with that, it being just a personal statement.

    • Steve

      Christians believe in the devil, anyway.

    • Noirceuil

      Have you seen the news about Monterrey? Somebody already probably made a pact with the Prince of Darkness. :(

      But yeah, this is just duuumb grandstanding.

  • Art_Vandelay

    Ah yes…another act of bravery proselytizing in what I can only assume to be a crowd of about 98% Christians.

    For his kingdom of peace and blessings to be established, I open the doors of this city to God as the maximum authority.”

    Jesus is incorporeal. He can just walk right through the doors, lady.

    • sane37

      I think the word you want is “imaginary” instead of incorporeal.

  • C Peterson

    IMO, if somebody is offered the keys to a city, and can’t be bothered to show up in person to accept them, the offer should be withdrawn. How rude!

    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

      More importantly, it would seem to be the point where the church-state separation wall seems distinctly breached, since offering the keys to the city (howsoever empty a gesture) is an act ex officio, not one done in an personal capacity as a private citizen.

      I suppose if she should also offer a set to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I might have to eat my words….

  • Keyra

    Way to go ^-^ Beauty and wisdom

    • C Peterson

      More like, how sad, a woman who is reinforcing the dumb blonde stereotype.

      • Spazticus

        How about the Dominionist stereotype? That’s the only insult I feel the need to use for her.

        • C Peterson

          I’m not really insulting her for being blonde, you know… just responding to Keyra’s inanity.

          That said, a stereotype need not be accurate to be reinforced.

          • Michael W Busch

            I’m not really insulting her for being blonde, you know..

            You didn’t need to bring up the stereotype in the first place. Mentioning “stop being stereotypical” can itself be a way of propagating a stereotype.

            And also notice the sexism in that particular stereotyping.

            • C Peterson

              Wow. Talk about missing the point…

      • Spuddie

        Its funny, most of the Google images of her at public functions show bystanders trying hide the fact they are looking at her chest or rear.

        Unfortunately Dominionism puts her behind the curve of the Stinson Crazy/Hot continuum.

        • Michael W Busch

          And how is if people find her attractive or not at all relevant here?

          • Spuddie

            Its absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.

            But its virtually impossible to ignore. I freely admit to being an unabashed big hormonal straight male pig.

            Happy now?

            • Michael W Busch

              But its virtually impossible to ignore

              Learn to do so.

              • Hat Stealer

                As long as we’re pissing off Michael, may I say that, although she is definitely an atractive lady, she’s not really my type.

                • Michael W Busch

                  Which is also entirely irrelevant here (as is your trying to piss me off or not). Again, cut out the sexism.

                • Spuddie

                  True, but its really a matter of teasing you at this point. =)

                • busterggi

                  And considering how stick-up-his-ass he’s acting you have my full support – tease away!

                • Hat Stealer

                  It is irrelevant, but it’s not sexist. Sexist would mean that I’m treating her unequally or unfairly because of her gender. I’m not, nor is anyone else here. A person can comment on someone’s looks without being sexist.

                  That first comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I’m not seriously trying to annoy you just for the sake of it, but I do disagree with you.

                • Michael W Busch

                  Sexist would mean that I’m treating her unequally or unfairly because of her gender. I’m not, nor is anyone else here.

                  Wrong. This thread is not the same as it would be if Cervantes happened to be male.

                  And even if you personally judge male politicians by their appearance, that is wrong too. The solution to sexist lookism is not to institute lookism equally for everyone.

                • bigcheeese

                  So, your position is that it is sexist because we wouldn’t have the same reaction if she were male, and if she were male and we still would have the same reaction it’d still be sexist because…. you said so I guess?

                  No you DEFINITELY don’t have a pre-concieved (one might say dogmatic) set of ideas you are trying to enforce regardless of if they make logical sense or not.

                  PLEASE stop giving those of us who are rational feminists a bad name (I’m thinking of coments like “learn to ignore her attractiveness,” among many others).

                  You harping on for pages about how someone commented on her looks (in a post about how she looks like his ex, btw) does nothing but perpetuate the stereotype of feminazis, a label I despise with all my being. But when you try and tell others what to notice or not, it’s hard to argue with the analogy.

                • Michael W Busch

                  So, your position is that it is sexist because we wouldn’t have the same reaction if she were male

                  Yes. And that is true (as you can see by looking at threads about male politicians saying similar things).

                  if she were male and we still would have the same reaction it’d still be sexist because…. you said so I guess?

                  No. As I have said already, that would be lookist and would still be wrong.

                  I do not “harp on for pages”. I merely call people on bigotry when I see it. If there were less bigotry or people would not find it necessary to try to defend bigoted words, this would be a much shorter thread.

                  Re. my “learn to do so” line: that was a snarky way of saying “learn to not judge her based on her looks”.

                • bigcheeese

                  The problem is that you seem to see bigotry the same way that theists see God: everywhere, even when there’s absolutely no reason for it (although to be fair, at least bigotry DOES exist).

                • Michael W Busch

                  Bigotry is ubiquitous in the current culture (again, compare this thread to those about male politicians saying similar things). Ignoring it doesn’t make it not exist.

                • bigcheeese

                  And calling those that aknowledge that the sexes aren’t identical bigots, doesn’t do squat to combat actual bigotry.

                  And the fact that you keep saying to compare the difference in responses in threads about male politicians after people have repeatedly pointed out that it does happen – which then you proceeded to proclaim (by fiat I guess), that in those cases it isn’t sexim, but rather lookism is Ken Ham-like special pleading / moving the goalpoasts.

                  Of course, doing the intellectually honest thing and saying that, if it happens in both sexes, it should both be called sexism, or both be called lookism, compltely takes away your main talking point, so you keep repeating that there are no transitional fossils and that the flagellum is irreduxibly complex, even though both were proven false earlier.

                • bigcheeese

                  And I’m being 100% serious. Please, enlighten me to the difference between these two lines of argument:

                  1:
                  -The fact that this behavior only happens on female politicians’ threads and not male ones’ is proof that this is sexism.
                  -It also happens in male politicians’ threads.
                  -That exact same behavior in male politicians’ threads isn’t sexism, it’s lookism.

                  2:
                  -The fact that no transitional fossils between species exist proves evolution is false. If there were transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds, that would be proof for evolution.
                  -Here, look at Archeoptyx.
                  -That species that has both dinosaur and bird features and fits chronollogically between both is not a transitional fossil. It’s a new species. The fact that there are no transitional fossils between Archeoptyx and birds proves evolutions is false.

                • Spuddie

                  N/t

                • Dreyesbo

                  That’s actually an image mocking her, not hers.

                • Spuddie

                  This is what I get for not taking Spanish in High School and being too lazy to notice the photoshopped head.

                  OK I am an idiot.
                  [I can't remove the picture, any hints?]

              • Antinomian (Shane Guilkey)

                Christ on a pogo stick Michael, your pedantic orthodoxy against what is at worst, thought crimes, is getting really tiresome and takes away from your otherwise well reasoned and intelligent response to the issues presented on Hemant’s blog. If Hemant feels that these thought crimes are that egregious, it’s his choice to moderate them, not yours.

                Yes Michael, most of us here are but puny humans with our messy feelings, anger, joy and peccadelloes. Just because they don’t conform to yours, it doesn’t make anyone else wrong. It only makes you condescending when you say “don’t….” and takes away and lessens what you have to say.

                • Michael W Busch

                  what is at worst, thought crimes

                  People can think whatever they want. Their speech is an action, and words matter because of the meanings that are assigned to them. When people write or say bigoted things, that is a problem. They are free to say them, but I am also free to call them on them.

                  Just because they don’t conform to yours, it doesn’t make anyone else wrong.

                  Sexism is wrong. Lookism is wrong. So is every other form of bigotry. And it is important to not let them pass unchallenged. I have no desire to moderate this blog – it is Hemant’s space, and he can be as permissive as he wants to be. But I have an aversion to letting bigotry go unchallenged.

                  And your tone-trolling “by saying X you lessen your saying Y” is itself offensive. You are acting as though people calling out bigotry bothers you more than the bigotry itself. Don’t do that.

            • Monika Jankun-Kelly

              No one blames you for thinking she’s attractive, that’s just a natural reaction. Posting irrelevant remarks about how hot you find her, on the other hand, is completely voluntary, entirely your choice.

    • Jasper

      Wisdom in the same sense that people who decide legislation based on what Zeus wants is “wisdom”.

    • Michael W Busch

      No, she is not wise.

      And your opinions of her appearance are irrelevant here. Ask yourself if you would have said the same thing about a politician who said what Cervantes said and happened to be male.

  • Sideshow Billybob

    …Mrs. Buddy Christ?

  • DougI

    Jesus Christ lives in Australia, but I don’t think the mayor has the authority to just hand over an entire city to him.

  • Noirceuil

    Wow, I hadn’t seen this particular brand of dumb in México in a while. Sure, Mexico is predominatly Catholic, but it’s more of a cultural Catholicism for the most part. One thing that caught my eye is that the Catholic Church is not mentioned anywhere. The event was sponsored by something called Alianza de Pastores (The Pastors’ Alliance).

    That just reeks of imported, American-style evangelicalism. American-backed denominations have gained some traction over the past 20-30 years. For all the cultural trappings of Catholicism, México has had a long story of church-state separation, starting with Juarez’s reforms in the mid-1880s (which unsurprisingly lead to war) and ending (again, unsurprisingly), with the Cristero war in the 1930s-40s.

    It’s even explicitly stated in the constitution: Freedom of religion, and my favorite in the 3rd article: “Public education until middle school shall be free, secular, and scientific.”

    Unfortunately, many of those protections are being eroded piece meal by private interest groups. Then again, it’s hard to focus on that when you have a full on war between the government and the cartels, and the economy stalling and sputtering.

    ps. Love the blog Hemant. You and Fred Clark are my favorites at Patheos.

    • Carmelita Spats

      ¡Bien dicho! Yo llevo años fuera de México pero aún recuerdo un México donde los politicones no se atrevían a mostrar la cara dentro de una iglesia o participar en una ceremonia religiosa. Mis padres me cuentan que el Presidente Echeverría jamás asistió a una boda, un entierro o un bautismo en una iglesia. Yo recuerdo que las monjas y los sacerdotes no podían votar o ser votados y no salían ensotanados a la calle. En las escuelas católicas, las boletas de calificaciones no decían “clase de religión” sino “clase de moral” para poder ser revalidadas por la SEP. Los cambios comenzaron con Salinas de Gortari. Me sorprende que la jefa esté imitando un protestantismo gringo ya que Monterrey es terreno de los Legionarios de Cristo. Para mis pulgas, hubiera preferido que la doña sacara una imagen de Valverde…¡Qué risa y gracias por el comentario!

  • The Other Weirdo

    Wow! She looks almost exactly like an ex-girlfriend of mine, also from Mexico. Only, you know, blonde and more crazy. Why are the hot ones always the crazy ones?

    • Michael W Busch

      It does not matter to this discussion if you consider Cervantes to be attractive or not.

      • Spuddie

        True, but its difficult to ignore.

        • Michael W Busch

          That also does not matter. Cut the sexism.

          • Hat Stealer

            Saying the hot ones are always the crazy ones, while somewhat silly, is not sexist as far as I can see.

            • Michael W Busch

              It is sexist because that nonsense is applied to women far more so than it is applied to men.

              • Spuddie

                In the interests of fairness we need more cute but dangerously stupid male politicians.

                • Michael W Busch

                  No. In the interests of fairness we need to stop judging all politicians (and also academics, businesspeople, lawyers, doctors, and a long list of other professions) by their appearance.

                • Spuddie

                  There are plenty of politicians who base their entire appeal on their appearance. Its just one of many tools people use to influence people. Its recognizing they are doing so which is the important part.

                  Under that attractive exterior of Mayor Cervantes lies a deeply disturbing religious fanatic. Moreso since separation of church and state is a particularly sore point in Mexico. .

                • The Other Weirdo

                  I didn’t judge her. She is hot. She is also crazy, judging by the article. Long ago I noticed a correlation between hot female politician and crazy female politician.

                  When I vote, I vote entirely on issues. I don’t care if she is lesbian, hetero, black, Jewish, Mormon, Atheist, hot or not, or all of the above. If she speaks to my issues, she has my attention.

                • Michael W Busch

                  Again: your opinions on her appearance are irrelevant. Don’t mention them. The same applies to any politician.

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Sez you. But like religion, it’s fine in some quarters, but not in others. I am not Mexican, I don’t vote for her, nor do I discuss her appearance with anyone in Mexico and urge them to vote for or against candidates based on their looks. To me she is nothing more than a hot woman making a stupid spectacle of herself. Sorry if that troubles you.

                • Michael W Busch

                  You still contribute to sexism and lookism in the broader culture. Don’t do that.

                  Edit: And listen to Feminerd.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  If she was a hot guy, would she be a hot guy making a spectacle of himself? Or just a stupid politician making a spectacle of himself?

                  Her looks are more important than her ideas; you fixate on her looks and her femaleness, not her stupidity, and correlate the two instead of recognizing that inside and outside have nothing to do with one another. Do you note why what you said is so utterly offensive, degrading, and objectifying to all women, everywhere?

                • The Other Weirdo

                  I am a straight male; I don’t comment on how hot other men are; it is a topic of indifference to me.

                  Is it the “hot woman” or “woman” that you object to? She is a politician who goes out of her way to make herself as beautiful-looking for a televised speech as possible, within certain limits. Glowing red lipstick would not be appropriate for that venue, after all. Should I not then comment on that? Especially in light of the fact that she is not the only one.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  “Hot woman”. Conflating her value with her attractiveness. Yes, she wears makeup and tries to look good on TV- so does every politician (male or female) ever. Ronald Reagan won in large part because he knew how to wear TV makeup and his opponent didn’t- would you call him inappropriate to the venue and call him out for daring to try to look good?

                  Addendum: JFK won partly due to his good looks, but it was widely recognized that focusing solely on his looks was superficial, unimportant, and silly. Can’t we make that same determination for women?

              • Hat Stealer

                Well the solution to that is to make fun of male politicians for their looks. Which I do. Whether I’m saying that Paul Ryan’s eyes are like a Smurf’s anus, or if I’m implying that a Republican male must be gay because of how nice his hair is, you can be sure that I’m being a horrible person to both sexes equally.

                • Michael W Busch

                  And now you invoke stereotyping based on sexual orientation. Don’t do that either.

                • Hat Stealer

                  I can and will invoke stereotypes when I find it amusing. That doesn’t mean that I believe the stereotypes that I’m invoking, but it does mean that I won’t confine what I’m saying to within what is deemed politically correct.

                • Michael W Busch

                  This is not about “political correctness” or “political incorrectness”. This is about not contributing to discrimination – be that sexism, lookism, or gender-role or sexual-orientation codification.

                  That you find stereotyping people amusing is irrelevant.

                • Monika Jankun-Kelly

                  How very nice for you that you can easily dismiss and ignore the real pain others feel, but you will never experience. No, being a straight white male and making fun of other straight white males is nothing even remotely like being a woman or gay and having to put up with casual cruelty. You can laugh it off, we can’t, there are consequences for us.

                • Hat Stealer

                  You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me and who I am. And yes, I do consider laughing to be a helpful response in the face of bigotry.

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Right, because there are no shows on TV where gay men help straight men dress better.

                  And then there’s Archer.

                • Michael W Busch

                  “Everybody else is discriminating” is not a defense. It is a reason to not give discrimination any sanction.

                • The Other Weirdo

                  How am I discriminating? I don’t have a soapbox from which I try to ruin the political fortunes of hot, blonde, female Mexican politicians of whatever stripe. I don’t tell people not to vote or not to vote for people based on their hotness value. I merely made an observation which, in retrospect, was badly worded.

                • Michael W Busch

                  You contribute to a sexist and lookist culture that treats people differently based on their gender and appearance. That is not helpful.

                  You may not intend to be sexist or lookist, but that’s part of the problem – subtle discrimination is hard to recognize and correct for.

                • The Other Weirdo

                  It’s instinctual. Men look. Women know this. They have always known this. This is why a multibillion dollar cosmetics industry exists. Troy wasn’t burned over an ugly woman, after all. The phrase “her face launched a 1000 ships in the opposite direction” does not exist.

                  I agree that sexism is badong, that denying women human rights granted to men is also badong. But let’s be honest here. My comment wasn’t discrimination. A show where gay men help straight men dress better is not discrimination.

                  She is a beautiful woman, a politician who happens to hold crazy ideas. You could make the case that ugly women can’t get elected(or don’t even try) which is why all crazy ones are hot, and most of the sane ones are, too, by the way. But that wouldn’t be my sexism or discrimination, it would be an acknowledgement of the truth. It would be a concept worthy of a scholarly study.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Hey, guess what? Women look too. Men ought to know this. Our culture teaches us a lot of bullshit about men and women- I look, but I don’t leer or judge based on looks. Men can do the same, I promise. They’re people too- I’m sure they could learn a bit of self-control if only they tried.*

                  *condescension added for effect; not true feelings of poster

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Nor do I leer or judge based on the looks.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  No? Then why mention them at all when talking about a person’s political positions? And when you say “the hot ones are always the crazy ones”, yeah, that’s judging at least partly based on looks. Would her positions be any less bad if she were ugly?

                • busterggi

                  Smurfs don’t have anuses. And you don’t want to know, trust me, you don’t want to know.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              No? Then you try to be an attractive woman and get taken seriously at an academic conference, in the boardroom, or as a politician. It’s immensely sexist.

              • busterggi

                Try to be a short fat guy and be taken seriously by an attractive woman ANYWHERE. Its immensely sexist too.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  1) Society v. individual

                  2) Work environment v. personal life

                  3) Stereotype v. personal problem

                  And why do you feel the need to be taken seriously only by attractive women? Are unattractive women less valuable?

                • busterggi

                  Are women not part of society?

                  Are work environment and personal life no both part of anywhere?

                  Are you saying that stereotypes don’t exist? Because I’ve been running into them my entire life and guess what, they do.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Of course fat stereotypes exist. But what I said is that the stereotypes seen here hurt women in their professional lives and for being taken seriously when they talk about anything; “oh she’s just a dumb blonde” is used in real life to dismiss real concerns.

                  Your response? I can’t get pretty women to talk to me WAAAAH! Which just feeds into a few ugly stereotypes all on its own- only pretty women are valuable arm candy, women are valuable only as arm candy, and it’s all women’s fault they don’t find you attractive and throw themselves at you. Also, women’s concerns about being taken seriously in all walks of life are of less importance than your concern of getting laid. I’m sure you didn’t mean to say all that, but it is what you said. Now perhaps you understand why my response was unsympathetic?

                  EDIT: Tiny bit for clarity.

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Considering the sorts of pairings I see when I go to the mall, your rant is a big fat fail.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  ?? I was paraphrasing all of the ugly things busterggi managed to pack into his short post. The truth of those claims is, well, that there isn’t any truth to those claims, but those are the claims his post managed to make in only 16 words.

                • busterggi

                  So I’m suppoed to sympathise with you while you get to treat me like shit? Can you see a little inbalance here?

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Do you, or do you not, see the treatment of women by society as equally or less important important to your inability to sleep with pretty women at will?

                  If the answer is yes, you clearly have larger issues than can be handled over blog comments. There’s a blog called Feminism 101 (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/purpose/ ) that can help you begin your exploration of the radical notion that women are people.

                • busterggi

                  You really are oblivious aren’t you? Society doesn’t treat men equally either, apparently you don’t think that is as important as treating women equaly.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  No, society doesn’t treat all men equally nor does it treat them all well. You, however, are entirely missing the point. Women are judged solely on looks or primarily on looks much of the time for their competence in all things, and they can neither be too ugly nor too pretty; men are able to be seen as ugly and competent or hot and competent. You complaining that attractive women won’t throw themselves at you (and again, why attractive? Why do you consider attractive women more valuable than, say, smart women?) at a time when people are talking about sexism in politics and how we see politicians is tone-deaf at best and extremely sexist at worst.

                  Are you arguing that being fat makes you inherently undateable to all women? Or are you only willing to date some women who meet some arbitrary “hotness” criteria and then get all pouty when that attitude scares women off? And what makes you think your dating life is at all comparable in seriousness and scope to how women as a group are treated in every aspect of society? Can you not see how demeaning it is when you deem “fat men can’t get laid by sufficiently pretty women” as more important than “people don’t take women seriously in politics, academia, or business if they are deemed too attractive”? Those problems are not comparable in seriousness or in impact upon people.

                • busterggi

                  You are not only oblivious you are obsessed with me getting laid – something I never even mentioned.
                  This is not a fair world, sucks to say it but its true.

          • Spuddie

            Not saying it does.

            But at this point it is like pulling a loose thread on a sweater. The more attention you pay to it, the higher likelihood you will end up with a mess.

      • The Other Weirdo

        I read somewhere that women are more likely to vote for a more attractive male candidate than an unattractive male one. Why should I then not notice that the majority of the crazy female politicians–or political figures–all tend to be rather attractive? Perhaps I worded it wrong. I should have said, “Why are the crazy ones always hot?”

  • Artor

    Does Mexico have an explicit separation of Church & State like the US? I had no idea.

    • CB

      From what I know, we are the only country in the world with an explicit separation of church and state.

      … something that surprised the crap out of me in my travels around Norland. You’d think if anyone could get it right it would be the Norlandians.

    • Michael W Busch

      It isn’t codified in the same way, but there are a number of provisions in the current Mexican Constitution that are supposed to enact separation of church and state. For historical reasons, these have been particularly designed to prevent the Catholic Church from having authority over the government.

      But the laws have been largely unenforced, and the Church has remained politically active – particularly through PAN (the Partido Acción Nacional). And now I reach the limits of my knowledge of Mexican law and politics.

      Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Mexico
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Mexico

      • bigcheeese

        Yeah, no. About every single statement in this post is false.

        It isn’t codified in the same way only in the sense that, unlike in the US constitution, spearation of church and state is explicitly and repeatedly codified in our constitution.

        From article 3 stating that the state must provide free, SECULAR and mandatory education, to the prohibition of clergymen from being able to run for candidates, it is pretty well hard-coded.

        The laws have NOT remained largely unenforced. I have no idea where anyone would get that idea. In fact, just last year, there was a very publicized repeal on a law that banned mass frombeing broadcast on TV without a special dispensation. And it certanly wasn’t a symbolic repeal of a law that wasn’t enforced.

        As for the church remaining politically active through PAN, that’s a naively missinformed statement at best. PAN is the Republican Party (but with FAR less fundamental nutjobs). So yeah, they tend to listen to what the church wants in their platform. Like being against same-sex marriage or abortion. But seeing how no clergyman can legally be a part of the party, I fail to see how this can be characterized as the church remaining politically active dspite separation of church and state laws.

        • Michael W Busch

          I apologize for any inaccuracies – I wrote that up based on when I look Intro. to Latin American history a number of years ago, and Wikipedia’s coverage. If the Wikipedia articles I linked are wrong, I encourage you to fix them.

          I do note that it is not necessary for clergy to be members of a party for the Church to remaining politically active through it. It is merely necessary that politicians give the Church’s opinions special consideration, and specifically link their policies to Christianity (and yes, this applies to the US too).

  • busterggi

    Clearly the mayor is unaware that Jesus is just a front man for Yahweh who just loves them blood sacrifices – if the whole town ends up slaughtered then we’ll know they were accepted.

    • Spuddie

      Abrahamic sacrifices are so corny and overwrought. They need to go old school. Aztecs knew how to make a show of it!

      • Noirceuil

        Well, the Aztecs resorted to the Guerras Florales (flower wars) as a source for livers and hearts to offer to Huichilopoztli; i.e., it’s always better for the administration to offer up the innards of the neighboring countries than that of it’s own voting base.

        If you think conservatives are screaming now about them’ immigrants, wait until we take your livers along with your jobs. ;)

        • Spuddie

          So can we have your liver then?

          • Spuddie

            Obscure Monty Python reference fail on my part. [Meaning of Life, Live Organ Transplants]

          • Noirceuil

            Oh, alright then.

            (But only because when it comes to intelligence, there seems to be bugger-all down here on earth)

  • http://www.facebook.com/anonomouse.fred Anonomouse Fred

    Isn’t this an admission that the city is fucked so badly nobody can fix it?

    • Noirceuil

      In so many word, yes it is.

      Monterrey and Chihuahua have been hit frakking hard by the Narco wars. We’re talking mandatory curfews, Narco-checkpoints in the highways, bodies / bodie parts hangin off of public bridges hard.

      • http://www.facebook.com/anonomouse.fred Anonomouse Fred

        Welp if things are so bad they’ve just given up, I don’t see the harm in trying to cast a magic spell.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    “If the Lord doesn’t build the house, the ones who build it work in
    vain; if the Lord doesn’t care for the city, the watchers stand guard in
    vain.”

    Derp. If the Lord built the houses, then “the one who build it” wouldn’t have to do anything! And if the Lord cared for the city, then “the watchers” wouldn’t have anything to do. She has it ass-backwards.

  • Guest

    Does Mexico practice the separation of church and state?

    • Noirceuil

      Historically, yes. We even had a rather nasty war about it (two if you count the Reforma wars). Our constitution makes it plain that public education is secular, and that religious officials need to keep it in the churches.

      As I mentioned in my post, however, Mexico is stronlgy culturally catholic. Even if you’re a non-religious person, you get a healthy dose of catholicism through cultural osmosis.

      Unfortunately, since the presidency of Salinas de Gortari (1988-1994), the secular tradition of the government has been quietly eroding. Even so, something like this goes beyond the pale for many Mexicans. While even a non-religious person takes a “God bless our country” in stride, this sort of direct religious proselityzing at public functions still sits wrong for a lot of people.

      Nobody would be critizing her if she had gone to a church service, instead of holding a public, religiously oriented event.

  • Robyman4

    That beauty’s a mayor? Her position has NOTHING AT ALL to do with her looks, right? Because, you know, speaking publicly for your entire city really doesn’t showcase a fearsome intellect…

    • Michael W Busch

      Do not judge Cervantes by her appearance. Judge her by her ideas, which are wrong.

      If you contend that people voted for her because they thought she was attractive, that is a commentary on the pervasive sexism in the culture and not on Cervantes herself.

      • Robyman4

        I did indeed address both concerns. As you noted, her ideas are wrong. To reiterate, I questioned whether her status as the city’s most prominent and powerful official was based upon the soundness of her thoughts because she has just demonstrated a willingness to make a “personal” statement a matter of public affairs – namely, her city’s well-being. All of that “we cannot have success without Jesus” talk is preposterous.

        • Michael W Busch

          Her appearance is irrelevant to the quality and lack thereof of her ideas. No one should ever link the two.

          • Robyman4

            Why not? If her actions in the public sphere give every indication that her judgment isn’t sound, there’s plenty of reason to think that other factors contributed to her success. Factors which, I assure you, she wants to be noticed.

            • Michael W Busch

              As I said before, you could argue that people voted for her because they thought she was attractive. But that is not a commentary on Cervantes specifically. It is a commentary on the sexism/lookism of the culture.

              And one way to combat those social problems is to focus on judging people only by their ideas. In Cervantes’ case, her ideas are wrong.

              • Robyman4

                Okay, so you’ve stated repeatedly that Cervantes’ ideas are wrong – a point which I also noted. Anything else you want to add or elaborate on?

  • allein

    you can see the mayor giving the keys to the city to two children dressed in white (as stand-ins for Jesus).

    So Jesus was really twins?

    • busterggi

      Yep, just like the Whately brothers.

  • David

    Article 130 of Mexico’s Constitution not only separates church and state but also slaps a bunch of bans against priests and religious ministers (not able to inherit estates, hold public office, etc).

  • MD

    So basically she’s admitting she has no frigging clue about how to tackle the incredible levels of drug violence. Sorry, Regios, you’re screwed.

  • Jennifer

    That’s one hell of a resignation speech. I mean, she is resigning, right? What with Jesus being so much better at running cities than she is…

  • Outcast Kyle

    she also said that she did this representing her, not the city, so it doesn’t violates church7state separation. which actually is just a story they tell to children because thay’ve always did things like this.

    The again, what could you xpect for a pretty woman that belong to a party commonly known as a haven for ultra-religious fanatics.

    • Michael W Busch

      As I have said to others: that you consider Cervantes to be attractive is irrelevant here. Consider if you would say the same thing if she happened to be a male politician.

      And I do not know enough about the history and current operations of PAN to say if it can actually be said to be “commonly known as a haven for ultra-religious fanatics”.

      • Outcast Kyle

        There’s Peña Nieto, the president, handsome, but stupid as hell. It’s almost like a law; attractiveness is inversely proportional to intelligence, except for a very few exceptions.

        And PAN is totally a religious nut factory. It was founded by religious fanatics, it supported the group called “Pro-Life” until the thongs scandal, the former president, Vicente Fox, went to visit the Virgin of Guadalupe when he was doing campaign, and many member are believed to be part of an ultra-catholic organization called “El Yunque” (The Anvil).

        • Michael W Busch

          attractiveness is inversely proportional to intelligence, except for a very few exceptions.

          That is wrong. What you are doing is a form of lookism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism . Don’t do that.

          Perhaps you personally escape sexism, but the content of this thread is not the same as it would have been for a male politician who said the same thing. That illustrates how lookism is very often applied in sexist ways. But it is wrong even if it is applied without sexism.

          • Outcast Kyle

            Already flashing the sexism card? How typical.

            If I’m wrong then go to an university and tel me how many PhDs could appear in the next issue of playboyt or playgirl and then go to a haute couture catwalk and tell me how many chemist, engineers and economist do you find.

            Let’s see this handsome genious http://youtu.be/uF38nF2m3Gw

            • Michael W Busch

              Saying “the culture is lookist” or “the culture is sexist” does not make lookism or sexism correct, nor is it a defense for your being lookist or sexist. Don’t be either.

              Nor is calling people on sexist behavior “flashing the sexism card”. It is simply giving bigotry no sanction.

  • Michael W Busch

    God bless this young Mayor.

    For violating the laws of Mexico? (admittedly, those laws are not uniformly enforced).

    Latin Americans are growing rapidly in the United States and they’re bringing their faith in Jesus Christ with them.

    That is half true. The second half is wrong or at least misleading. ~15% of the US Latino population is irreligious, less than non-Latino white Americans and Asian Americans but more than black Americans, and that fraction is rising with time. It is true that the religious demographics of recent immigrants are not the same as that of the overall US population.

  • Robster

    Is this the same Monterrey that Eric Burdon and the Animals sang of in 1967? Too bad if it is, when I was 9 because of that song, I thought that Monterrey would have to be the coolest place on the planet. Time is a nasty thing sometimes.

    • Tobias2772

      Relax Robster
      Eric was singing about Monterey California – as in the Monterey Pop Festival

  • Major Nav

    Think she is really blonde?

  • hi

    Let me say that cities as Chicago and Detroit have more crime than Monterrey.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X