Jesus Christ Sworn in as Monterrey's Ultimate Authority

During a public speech last Saturday, Mayor Margarita Arellanes of Monterrey (Mexico) has granted the Keys to the City to no other than Jesus Christ. Yes, you read it right, and no, I’m not joking.

Monterrey is not your average Mexican town; it is the main municipality of Mexico’s third largest metropolis, and at 4 million inhabitants, it boasts an impressive industrial and financial might. Firms of multinational caliber such as ALFA, CEMEX and FEMSA are based in the city, which is also home to ITESM, one of Mexico’s finest universities. Regios, as locals proudly refer to themselves, are arguably the hardest working people in the country. Their forthright approach to life and business is the stuff of legend. Regios and Regias are amazing people, and I should know it, I married one.

 

 

Monterrey is the capital of Nuevo León, a state that has unfortunately had a very rough time during Mexico’s so-called war against organized crime. Once a safe haven with very low crime rates, Monterrey has endured more than a lustrum of unprecedented carnage: kidnapping, gang-related murder, terrorism, you name it.

In the midst of this appalling situation and in an act of colossal cowardness, Mrs. Arellanes decided to throw in the towel in favor of celestial guidance:

“I, Margarita Alicia Arellanes Cervantes, give away the City of Monterrey, Nuevo León, and open the doors of this municipality to God as its ultimate authority. I recognize that without his presence and help we cannot aspire to real success.”

 

 

God as the ultimate political authority in a city. If this doesn’t scare the shit out of you, I don’t know what will.

Article 40 of the Mexican Constitution is crystal clear and categorical on the matter: “It is the will of the Mexican People to constitute a laic republic”. Surprisingly, Mrs. Arellanes is not alone in her unconstitutionality. Last year, the heads of three municipalities (Juárez and Guadalupe in Nuevo León, as well as Ensenada in Baja California) pulled similar stunts.

Mrs. Arellanes and the other three clowns certainly have a right to profess their creed privately, but what is not permitted and should not be tolerated, is that someone under the authority granted by a laic state turns a public event into and act of religious proselytism.

I haven’t made up my mind as to what these people’s motivations may be, but I have a gut feeling it has to do with a mix of superstition, irresponsibility and political opportunism. Any combination of the above and at any dosage should be worrisome enough. Basing public policy on personal hallucinations, avoiding responsibility by granting it to the unaccountable or using faith to increase political popularity are all acts at the lowest level of moral disloyalty. Shame on them!

We Mexicans are widely considered to be a fervently religious people (which is only partially true), but we are also known for our patriotic enthusiasm (which is spot on true). I think that Mrs. Arellanes and friends have underestimated the rapport de force between the two passions.

President Benito Juárez (1806-1872) promoted what is known as Ley Juárez in 1855 to seriously curtail clerical power in the country. A string of laws known as Leyes de Reforma quickly followed, thus cementing the reality of Mexico as a secular state. Juárez, also known as El Benemérito de las Américas (The Meritorious of the Americas), is probably the most popular historical figure in the country. His liberal ideas regarding equality and respect are unquestioned. Every town in Mexico has a street named in honor of the Emancipator. If you fly into Mexico City, you’ll land at Benito Juárez Intl.

 

 

As angry and frustrated as Mayor Arellanes’ actions make me feel, the general reaction to her stupidity -as can be gauged through social and electronic media- gives me much to be hopeful about. I would have been solidly disappointed to see a majority of religious fruitcakes cheering along her pathetic lines. Although there are some tightly blindfolded puppets clapping like retarded seals, this time around they are not the majority. It’s so refreshing to see outspoken believers defending the separation of State and Church. I’m so profoundly glad to read bona fide believers who understand that this kind of circus acts don’t do anybody any favors.

Mayor Arellanes has been under intense fire since her inopportune intervention and is now asking that her faith be respected. She’s confusing the outcry of an intelligent people for aggression towards her faith. She played with fire and got severely burnt. Too bad.

Juárez's ideals seem to withstand the passage of time and the power of supernatural delusion, and for that, secularism in this country deserves a modicum of celebration.

¡Viva México!

 

The Humanist Worldview

 

The Manifesti

“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

[…]

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.”

Humanism and its Aspirations, 2003.

 

 

 

In 1933, a group of signatories led by Raymond B. Bragg, drafted and published the original Humanist Manifesto. In 1976, a revised version was published acknowledging both the shortcomings and the strengths of its predecessor. Another forty years on the clock, and out came Humanism and its Aspirations (known as The Humanist Manifesto III).

Many things have changed since the first version of 1933.
 

Although it never adhered to any kind of dogma, the Humanist movement dropped its previous self-concept of “new religion” and learnt a great deal from the atrocities of Nazism, WWII and other major conflicts of the 20^th century, thus realigning its concerns and priorities: “recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook”. (The Humanist Manifesto II, 1973).

The Third Manifesto of 2003 -the introduction and conclusion of which are cited at the beginning of this post- was signed by more than a hundred humanists and Nobel laureates like Richard Dawkins, James Randi and Mexican scientist Mario J. Molina (Chemistry, 1995).

This Manifesto provides the blueprints for applying the humanist philosophy and ideals. The six tenets in Humanism and its Aspirations represent the building blocks for a better society. It is a cool piece of work and I certainly recommend the quick read:
 

http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

The choice of “–ism”.

I personally dislike “–isms”. Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Capitalism, Marxism, Socialism, Sadomasochism; these words are nothing but restrictive labels that confine opinion and belief to a rigid mould. Moreover, those standpoints are often misunderstood, misrepresented or prejudged.
 

I adhere to the atheistic proposition in the sense I do not worship any God, but I’m also an agnostic since it is impossible for me to prove the inexistence of God. Adding to the labeling confusion, I’m equally an anti-theist. Unfortunately, in certain ultra-conservative circles (including a big chunk of the southern US), ignorance and prejudice have given any of these labels the same moral stature of pedophilia.

This labeling thing is quite tricky and affects every area of opinion.

 

I’m a fervent believer in competitive free-markets, which is certainly a distinctive capitalist trait, but that doesn’t turn me, per se, into a full breed capitalist pig. I do think that capitalism is the better -albeit imperfect- system, but I could never wish for those who cannot thrive in it to be unjustly marginalized. My belief is that an equalitarian welfare system, which is a socialist proposition, is an absolute necessity in any dignified country. But again, I could hardly be defined as a socialist.

 

I like to think of myself as scientific (at least in spirit), but since I only hold a degree in Finance, I think I’d come across as a  pretentious wannabe, or a fake, if I described myself as a scientist. I really enjoy writing and that doesn’t automatically make a writer.

It is very hard, almost impossible in fact, to define a personality via a label or a set of labels. I’m  made out of bits and pieces of “-isms” and “-ists”, but any given term only explains a very small fraction of what I actually am.
 

The one label that explains most of my being is Humanism. It is not everything I am, but I adhere to most of what it stands for.

Humanism

 

Humanism is the use of scientific inquiry and critical intelligence in order to build a consensual moral guide for Humanity. It’s actually that simple.
 

The Humanist worldview doesn’t feel ashamed of our natural origins and understands that our ethical values should have, at their core, a true common interest. Humanists embrace life to its full extent, up to its natural conclusion in definitive and nonnegotiable death. Humanists take responsibility; for their actions, for their fate, for their joys and for their woes. By doing so, humanists override the noise of dogmatic rigidity and superstition.

To me, the great appeal of Humanism springs from applying a scientific approach in building a moral framework that is as just and unbiased as possible. Reality, unpleasant as it may seem to the obtuse, is what should cement a comprehensive understanding of what is best for all of us.

As every branch of knowledge, morality ought to be a dynamic process; adapting, fine-tuning and readapting along the way. Not everything on morality should be set in stone. As our understanding of the natural world advances, so should certain boundaries of what is right and wrong, and everything in between.

 

This is so evidently true, that even the most unbending fundamentalists have seen their morality evolve through the ages. I think it is safe to say (although you never really know) that most fundies don’t look into the the book of Leviticus for parental guidance:

 

“For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.” Leviticus 20:9

Humanism acknowledges the unknown and the possibility of the unknowable. The humanist approach factors-in our propensity to err and leaves wiggle room for future generations to adjust the bearing.

Humanism is applied science in the quest for a better world for all.

Comparison with Dogma

As always, it is easy to see how the Humanist standpoint contrasts with the dogmatic rigidity and chronic disregard for reality on which the religious base their creed.

Religion has coercively established a monopoly on the rights to morality. Up until today, a recurrent argument against secularism is that religion is sine qua non to morality. I have quoted Christopher Hitchens ad nauseam on this topic, and I’ll do it again: “Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it”.

The argument regarding which approach serves humanity best does not have to remain hypothetical; a real-life experiment has already been carried out. Stubbornness is clearly more resilient than memory, and many forget that religious dogma had its try at ruling the realms of Good and Bad, unconstrained, and for a very long time.

Its domination spanned for the best part of a millennium, and historians coined a perfectly illustrative term to describe that era: The Christian Dark Ages. After much suffering, oppression, and an overly expensive opportunity cost in terms of foregone progress, the 15^th century finally welcomed the unbelievers, the philosophers, the artists, the freethinkers, the scientists, the naturalists and the revolutionary. After pitch-black darkness there was indeed light. The French named it “La Renaissance” and the Italian “Il Rinascimento”, I personally prefer the name truest to what that epoch represents: The Age of Reason.

 

 

After the huge struggle to break free (let's not forget it took a fair amount of bloodshed), some are still happy to grant the former oppressors a role of  massive consequence in matters of morality. To portray such a stance as abhorrent schizophrenia would be a massive piece of understatement.
 

In Conclusion

 

“The lifestance of Humanism -guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience- encourages us to live life well and fully.”
 

Reason, compassion and experience. Add a pinch of audacity, stir with a little love and enjoy life responsibly.