Alright guys, recently, I read an article by the so called Council for Secular humanism on the cristeros; it alleged that the cristero war was proof that religious people can be fanatics and how religion should be abolished and removed so as to not make people fanatical. And that ticked me off for its sheer hypocrisy, lack of research and etcetera.
First, I’ll admit that war is hell and the Cristeros still did pretty questionable things. Some of the Cristeros, or the most ignorant of the lot would even rape and pillage. However, the government killed Catholics and Priests by the thousands, it even executed children like José Sánchez del Río and would torture people out of cruelty, not to mention the fact that the entire reason this war started was so that the Mexicans would get their religious freedom back (and not because the Church wanted to gain political power). It was more of a case of black and gray morality:"the Cristeros wanted religious freedom for themselves, the government was murderous and Calles was a complete monster.
Now, is the cristero war proof enough that religion should be abolished because of ‘fanatical’ Catholics waging a war? Ignoring the fact that the government still tortured people and killed them, and that the Cristeros only crossed the moral event horizon with the 300 teachers they killed in 1937, after Calles was exiled, does the author of that article have some kind of mental problem because he knows that many wars were waged in the name of secularism and atheism. No, I’m not talking about communist regimes seeing as how so many militant atheists don’t endorse these anymore; I’m talking about the French revolution and its reign of terror with 40,000 people left dead, many of them innocent, the Unification of Italy with its redshirts infamous for raping and pillaging villages, Napoleon and his wars with 2.5 million dead, the American revolution and of course the American civil war.
Let me make this clear: the fight to end slavery was good. Better than good, excellent. So my point is that war when it is just (that is, waged for self defense or for a right) is ‘good’, a ‘necessary’ evil. Yet, what was so necessary with killing 40,000 people including Priests and nuns in the French revolution? What was so necessary in dechristianizing France and Italy? One guy said that the reign of terror was OK because it was the revolutions REVENGE against the Church. And exactly what did the Church do that made its nuns and rural Priests worthy of getting murdered? Did it own land? Yes, but poor people also owned land and owning land doesn’t mean its something bad. Its true the Church was tax exempt, yet the Church is tax exempt today in the US and not many people complain about it. Why? Because since Churches have such large communities and spend so much on charity, its necessary for it to be tax exempt so that the money would be focused differently.
Now why doesn’t CFSH call the people who too up arms against slavery fanatical, or the peasants of the French revolution fanatical or rather, the freemasons, some of whom were wealthy themselves, fanatical for killing so many innocent people? It chooses to ignore all this and then it says what has to be the most hypocritical piece of **** I have ever read in my entire life:
For freethinkers, the message of the Cristero War is clear: religion is dangerous and laced with the potential for violence (as evidenced by the deadly 2006 Muslim eruptions over Danish cartoons of the Prophet). Overpowering governmental attempts to subdue it can impel believers into irrational slaughter. A wiser course is to maintain separation of church and state, patiently waiting for advances in education and science to erode public support for supernaturalism.
I’m going to nitpick this paragraph because frankly, it amazes me:
For freethinkers, the message of the Cristero War is clear: religion is dangerous and laced with the potential for violence (as evidenced by the deadly 2006 Muslim eruptions over Danish cartoons of the Prophet). And what does Islam have anything to with Catholicism? They as different from each other as night and day. Christians don’t have the mentality of Muslims and few Muslims have the mentality of the Taliban. Either way, its not like secular people didn’t commit atrocities. Anyone remember the 2011 London riots or all the wars and revolutions lsited above? What about mob lynchings of black people in the 20th century?
Overpowering governmental attempts to subdue it can impel believers into irrational slaughter. Irrational slaughter? Because the government didn’t irrationally slaughter Catholics. Few Cristeros actually went to villages and slaughtered everyone they saw; those who did were thugs and did not represent the whole movement. Government attempts to subdue religion? Are you for real? I agree that a government should forbid religious people from performing human sacrifice but look, the Catholic religion does not practice human sacrifice. The government stole land that the Church legally owned and even then, how would removing the land owned by the Church be doing any good? Isn’t forbidding Priests to criticize government a violation of freedom of speech? Supporting these practices implies that the religiously devout have lesser rights than the brand of secularists CFSH wants everyone to be which of course is utter ****.