Trailer: For Greater Glory

posted at 10:25 am on March 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Getting a film to make an impact often depends on timing, as well as the ability to get the word out.  For instance, no one might have expected a historical epic like Braveheart to have much cultural influence, but the combination of having a star like Mel Gibson and the political timing of a push for independence in Scotland turned it into a phenomenon — as well as just being an entertaining and gripping film.  We may see the same elements in play this June, when For Greater Glory hits the screens.  With a cast that includes Academy Award nominees Andy Garcia, Peter O’Toole, and Catalina Sandino Moreno as well as Eva Longoria and Oscar Isaac, the film about the Cristero War in Mexico in the late 1920s will be hard to ignore:

I’ve had a chance to look at a very rough cut of this film, and it’s very impressive.  For Greater Glory tells the story of the Mexican government’s attempt to stamp out the Catholic Church under President Calles (played by Ruben Blades), and the uprising that followed, a civil war that killed 90,000 people.  Calles attempted to enforce the anti-clerical laws put into Mexico’s 1917 socialist Constitution by demanding the expulsion of foreign priests, banning public demonstrations of faith (including the wearing of clerical garb), and making criticism of the government by priests punishable by five years in prison.  A boycott organized by the Catholic Church prompted Calles to get even tougher, and open war broke out.  Enrique Gorostieta (Andy Garcia), a general who had fought for the winning side in the revolution, chose to lead the Cristero rebellion, and the film focuses mainly on Gorostieta, two of his lieutenants, and a young boy named Jose Sanchez del Rio, who was later beatified by the Catholic Church.

Without knowing how the finished product turns out, I can’t offer a formal review.  I can say that the film is gripping even in its current form.  For Greater Glory definitely takes a pro-Cristero point of view, but Braveheart took a pro-Scots point of view as well, and I’d argue that For Greater Glory sticks closer to the known facts (although obviously much gets left out of a two-hour movie).  The cast is terrific; one would expect that from Garcia and Blades, but Mauricio Kuri is especially good as Jose, and Santiago Cabrera as the fighting priest Father Vega, who appears to be an amalgam of two historical figures, Jose Reyes Vega and Aristeo Pedroza.

Given the debate in this country over the nature of religious freedom, the timing of the release will be very interesting.  Braveheart showed how a good film can change the political environment, and For Greater Glory looks like a very good film indeed.  Keep an eye out on June 1st to find where it will be playing, and I hope to get a chance to talk with a few of the principals in the film between then and now.

Update: The Anchoress offers a “Viva Cristo Rey!” to the trailer.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Garcia’s voice in this film (I mean his actual voice)reminds me of Bibi.
It’s like Bibi is saying this. Chills-in a good way.
Wow.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Then Mexico became a world class economy, oh wait….

Oil Can on March 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Wow, Ed. This looks really interesting. I know nothing of the backstory except that which you have provided, but the struggle for religious freedom against a regime is certainly timely. A heckuva cast and the old school revolvers and carbines Western-y flavor seals the deal for me–its a must see. Great post.

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Gun nut nitpicker review: The casing being ejected from the bolt-action rifle near the end of the clip is a blank. I hate that.

As for the movie, I fully expect the leftist trash-hats to declare it some sort of dog whistle to Talibanize the U.S. by Christians.

Bishop on March 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Bishop on March 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I thought I saw that too, so I paused it to see if I was right, and couldn’t really tell. You’ve got better eyes than I do.

Weight of Glory on March 21, 2012 at 10:39 AM

eh, i did not know that mexico also had an anti clerical movement. this stuff is so last century.
still I found this pearl:

Battle hymn of the Cristeros

English translation
The Virgin Mary is our protector and defender when there is something to fear,
She will defeat the demons crying “Long live Christ the King!”
She will defeat the demons crying “Long live Christ the King!”

Soldiers of Christ let us follow the flag that the Cross shows the army of God!
Let us follow the flag crying, “Long live Christ the King!”

army of god?!? how islamic!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:39 AM

With a cast that includes Academy Award nominees Andy Garcia, Peter O’Toole, and Catalina Sandino Moreno…

Stop. Stop right there.

Can we please stop touting a film’s credentials by saying, “Academy Award Winner / Nominee…” Unless the actor / actress has been nominated or won for the picture in question, just stop saying it.

Anyone remember Halle Berry and “Catwoman”?

Mitoch55 on March 21, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Do NOT let your children go to Mexico on spring break. Add that to the list of freedoms you no longer have.

hanzblinx on March 21, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I can’t think of a single movie that attempts to realistically portray Mexican history, of any period. This might be the first one that seeps into the American consciousness.

Dextrous on March 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Given the debate in this country over the nature of religious freedom, the timing of the release will be very interesting. Braveheart showed how a good film can change the political environment, and For Greater Glory looks like a very good film indeed. Keep an eye out on June 1st to find where it will be playing, and I hope to get a chance to talk with a few of the principals in the film between then and now.

I hope it will not be another gore movie like The Passion of the Christ. what a torture that movie was.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

army of god?!? how islamic!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:39 AM

If any unborn babies that have been diagnosed with Downs are aborted in the flick-you’ll probably give it a standing ovation.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Mitoch55 on March 21, 2012 at 10:41 AM

My point in noting the Academy Award nominees was that it will be difficult for the media to ignore the film, not attest to its quality. And yes … I remember Halle Berry in Catwoman. [shudder]

Ed Morrissey on March 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I hope it will not be another gore movie like The Passion of the Christ. what a torture that movie was.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Is there any indication that this movie is gory? Don’t be so dense with your attempts at trolling.

philoquin on March 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I hope it will not be another gore movie like The Passion of the Christ. what a torture that movie was.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

A lot less gory than Braveheart, and much less so than Passion of the Christ.

Ed Morrissey on March 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The casing being ejected from the bolt-action rifle near the end of the clip is a blank. I hate that.

So do I.

If actors used FMJs instead of blanks it would definitely improve the ‘talent pool’.

CorporatePiggy on March 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

If any unborn babies that have been diagnosed with Downs are aborted in the flick-you’ll probably give it a standing ovation.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

it what I did in the “300″ when the spartans trew the problematic baby from the cliff! ///

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I thought I saw that too, so I paused it to see if I was right, and couldn’t really tell. You’ve got better eyes than I do.

Weight of Glory on March 21, 2012 at 10:39 AM

It’s hard to pick out and it took a few swipes at the pause button, but for some reason I glommed onto that crimp the first time watching and I just had to know.

Maybe I have too many guns. Wait…what am I saying?

Bishop on March 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Gun nut nitpicker review: The casing being ejected from the bolt-action rifle near the end of the clip is a blank. I hate that.

Next you’ll be complaining that they use computer graphics for the nuclear explosions.

Dextrous on March 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM

The casing being ejected from the bolt-action rifle near the end of the clip is a blank. I hate that.

I noticed that too.

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM

The casing being ejected from the bolt-action rifle near the end of the clip is a blank. I hate that.

-1 for style points.

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

TROLL ALERT!

Vince on March 21, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I hope it will not be another gore movie like The Passion of the Christ. what a torture that movie was.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Yeah…uh…I think that was the point.

Maybe “Little Mermaid III: The Search for Sand Dollars” is more your speed.

Bishop on March 21, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Wow, no mention of Blessed Miguel Pro:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Pro

A true Saint who willingly lived and died for Christ and His Church, martyred in Mexico in 1927.

Wow, his life story alone would make an incredibly compelling movie!

ReaganVol on March 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Can’t wait to see this, though it’s hard for me to get past a Mexican story where everyone speaks…….English. #Huh

latinchic on March 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I hope it will not be another gore movie like The Passion of the Christ. what a torture that movie was.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I think you might mean ‘convicting’…. Any person who watched that movie certainly wrestled with the distinct reality that he suffered for things that we have done, died an innocent man, and got a beating that we deserved.

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM

-1 for style points.

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Those little things aggravate me, and then my stupid habits aggravate my aggravation, such as when I find myself rewinding shootout scenes to see if the gunmen fired more rounds than their weapons actually hold.

Bishop on March 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Can’t wait to see this, though it’s hard for me to get past a Mexican story where everyone speaks…….English. #Huh

latinchic on March 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM

sanctus sanctus sanctus dominus deus sabado…..

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I can’t think of a single movie that attempts to realistically portray Mexican history, of any period. This might be the first one that seeps into the American consciousness.

Dextrous on March 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Why exactly does Mexican history need to seep into the American consciousness?

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

One tends to see things and impress their own thoughts into them like a blank sheet of paper.

Is it too much of a stretch to say this:

For Greater Glory tells the story of the Mexican United State’s government’s attempt to stamp out the Catholic Church under President Calles Obama

Calles Obama attempted to enforce the anti-clerical laws put into Mexico’s The United State’s 1917 1781 socialist (not yet anyway) Constitution.

I ask you, is that stretching things too much?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Those little things aggravate me, and then my stupid habits aggravate my aggravation, such as when I find myself rewinding shootout scenes to see if the gunmen fired more rounds than their weapons actually hold.

Bishop on March 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM

its okay bishop, you just have to look past it. Just like you have to look past the fact that there was no friggin way that Darth Maul could twirl around that double ended lightsaber without cutting his head or his leg off. There is a greater story involved…./ ;P

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I remember when DeNiro used to make these kind of movies.

Now he just makes racist comments about people’s wives.

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I ask you, is that stretching things too much?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

No, of course not. The struggle for freedom is a struggle for freedom—no matter the context.

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

A lot less gory than Braveheart, and much less so than Passion of the Christ.

Ed Morrissey on March 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM

braveheart was ok, because at least they where not explicit in the torture scenes. the rest of the gore was from battles which i actually enjoyed.

anyway, the relevance of this movie is reduced considering modern day mexico:

The 2010 census by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía gave Roman Catholicism as the main religion, with 82.7% of the population, while 9.7% (10,924,103) belong to other Christian denominations, including Evangelicals (5.2%); Pentecostals (1.6%); other Protestant or Reformed (0.7%); Jehovah’s Witnesses (1.4%); Seventh-day Adventists (0.6%); and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (0.3%).[210] 172,891 (or less than 0.2% of the total) belonged to other, non-Christian religions; 4.7% declared having no religion; 2.7% were unspecified.[210]

The 92,924,489[210] Catholics of Mexico constitute in absolute terms the second largest Catholic community in the world, after Brazil’s.[211] 47% percent of them attend church services weekly.[212] Most Mexican cities, towns and villages hold a yearly feast day to commemorate their local patron saints.[citation needed] The feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patron saint of Mexico, is celebrated on December 12 and is regarded by many Mexicans as the most important religious holiday of their country.[213]

mexicans catholics, despite everything, are very religious, maybe more than the US. I cannot see what larger historical point to retrieve from this movie.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

sabado…..

Sabaoth. Sorry ted c.

Vince on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

the film about the Cristero War in Mexico in the late 1920s will be hard to ignore:

Hey Ed. Remember that lil tiff that went up over Act of Valor and the el nombre of the main villain –Cristo– in the flick? Similar thing here, the translation of Cristero is “catholic militant” I believe. Moreover, the name Cristo (krEE-stow) is the same as how the peeps in central America say Jesus Christ—its “Jesucristo” (hay sue krEE stow).

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Sabaoth. Sorry ted c.

Vince on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I hope a Latin fail is the only fail I have today. muchas gracias amigo

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

mexicans catholics, despite everything, are very religious, maybe more than the US. I cannot see what larger historical point to retrieve from this movie.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Religion won’t die…
Religion thrives from persecution…
It’s easy for modern socialists and atheists to forcefully attack religion and the religious…
Secularism is a violent phenomenon…
People want to fight for their freedom…

philoquin on March 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I ask you, is that stretching things too much?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Only if you pretend every plot point in the story is something else that isn’t equivalent. So yes.

The US government isn’t trying to stamp out the Catholic Church.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Now Mexico just persecutes Evangelicals, so it’s all cool.

mankai on March 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Unless the line “We don’t need no stinking badges” is in it, I’ll pass.
:D
If I want to see ongoing gun battles in Mexico I’ll go down to where the fence isn’t and watch the real thing for free.

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I ask you, is that stretching things too much?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

No, of course not. The struggle for freedom is a struggle for freedom—no matter the context.

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I wonder if most Leftists truly know which side they are on in the Liberty vs. Tyranny conflict?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

army of god?!? how islamic!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Do you know the origins of the Jesuits? Oh Catholic expert?

I don’t remember Muslims having a “monopoly” on fighting in the name of God.

malleus dei

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Secularism is a violent phenomenon…

Islam agrees.

So did the Spanish Inquisition.

And the Army of God.

Etc.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I think you might mean ‘convicting’…. Any person who watched that movie certainly wrestled with the distinct reality that he suffered for things that we have done, died an innocent man, and got a beating that we deserved.

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I have seen horror movies where people suffered more than jesus in this movie. i think just in the iraq war, i have read more chilling stories of tortures and suffering(iraqi on iraqi).

this argument does not go very far. jesus suffering was hardly that extraordinary in its historical context and in a modern context.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

You know, Wikipedia ought to start charging you for the massive amounts of cut-and-pasting you do from them. Standing by for long-winded, dreary pasted-in posts on 3rd Century Popes in 5…4…3…

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Oh yeah, Ed, there is already whining about this becoming a Christian site over at the Cameron thread, this out to send them over a cliff.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

mexicans catholics, despite everything, are very religious, maybe more than the US. I cannot see what larger historical point to retrieve from this movie.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Maybe that Christians will triumph over attempted persecution?

mbs on March 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

MEXICO CITY, MEXICO (Worthy News)– At least 70 evangelical Christians in Mexico’s east-central region were homeless Saturday, September 17, after being expelled by local authorities from their village where traditional Catholics reportedly threatened to “crucify or lynch” them.

The government of Puebla state “bowed” to pressure from the traditional Catholics in San Rafael Tlanalapan village, some 96 kilometers (60 miles) from the capital Mexico City, reported Mexico’s leading La Jornada de Oriente newspaper.

Initially about 50 Protestant families were ordered to leave the village by September 12, but some were allowed to stay under condition they would worship outside the area. Additionally they are not allowed to intervene with traditional Catholics, who practice a mix of indigenous and Catholic rituals.

“There is an agreement reached with the local authority that those evangelicals have to go who are not originating from the area as the state government can not guarantee their safety,” La Jornada de Oriente quoted regional government official Roberto Solano Pineda as saying.

Witnesses earlier said they saw several evangelicals, including a pastor, arriving with suitcases to quickly pick up their belongings. Traditional Catholics told them they would be “crucified or lynched” if they dared to stay after the September 12 ultimatum, locals and reporters said.


The mayor did not stop the expulsions amid fears he could be expelled himself by Catholics, Mexican media reported.

Catholic Irma Diaz Perez told local television he was pleased as “They will never return, because we have drawn up a document wherein they have no permission to come back now or ever.”

1917

2011

mankai on March 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Oh yeah, Ed, there is already whining about this becoming a Christian site over at the Cameron thread, this out to send them over a cliff.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

If it isn’t then I better get a refund for my HotGas inquisitor outfit.

Bishop on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

The US government isn’t trying to stamp out the Catholic Church.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

You’re right, they’re just trying to suppress the Church’s freedoms under the 1st Amendment, so it’s all good right?

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

“We have separation of church and state here in Mexico. Any member of the clergy who violates this separation by publicly questioning or criticizing the actions of the Government can therefore be charged with a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.”

Sounds like a utopia for the Anonymous/Occupy crowd.

JimLennon on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Peter O’Toole is still alive?

Chickyraptor on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

If I want to see ongoing gun battles in Mexico I’ll go down to where the fence isn’t and watch the real thing for free.

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

heh. When the credits roll on that flick it should read “Thank you to the DOJ, the ATF and, especially, AG Eric Holder for supplying the props used in this film”

ps: Call BS if you happen to see a disclaimer that states “NO US Agents or Mexicans were killed in the production of this film”

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Andy Garcia has been making pretty interesting films.

unlisted on March 21, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Oh yeah, Ed, there is already whining about this becoming a Christian site over at the Cameron thread, this out to send them over a cliff.
Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Can you blame them?1!!?? How dare HA dare mention such things in a country that is overwhelmingly Christian??11!1!!!

I don’t have much interest in films of this type (but not due the religious factor). But tain’t no nevermind to me that others enjoy ‘em.

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Do you know the origins of the Jesuits? Oh Catholic expert?

I don’t remember Muslims having a “monopoly” on fighting in the name of God.

malleus dei

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM

i don’t like anyone fighting for any god or for no god. it seems to me the most nihilistic reason for warfare.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM

When the credits roll on that flick it should read “Thank you to the DOJ, the ATF and, especially, AG Eric Holder for supplying the props used in this film”
ted c on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Heh. Good un.

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM

But you are okey dokey with a country banning religion. No much into freedom are you?

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Maybe that Christians will triumph over attempted persecution?

mbs on March 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I agree, can christians now stop worrying about being persecuted then. it really seems hysteria to me!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

But you are okey dokey with a country banning religion. No much into freedom are you?

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I said that? quote me!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Bishop on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I know, we’re talking about a serious chunk of change!

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I agree, can christians now stop worrying about being persecuted then. it really seems hysteria to me!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

then what is the atheist’s excuse????/

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 11:16 AM

You’re right, they’re just trying to suppress the Church’s freedoms under the 1st Amendment, so it’s all good right?

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

The Catholic Church is not being prevented by the government from saying anything, from congregating, from praying, from expressing their faith to anyone who will listen, etc.

No Christian in this country of 85%+ Christians is a victim.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I agree, can christians now stop worrying about being persecuted then. it really seems hysteria to me!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

And the really odd thing is that you genuinely believe that anybody cares what it seems like to you.

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM

But you are okey dokey with a country banning religion. No much into freedom are you?

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I said that? quote me!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Well, are you okey dokey with a country banning religion or at Downgrading it?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You know, Wikipedia ought to start charging you for the massive amounts of cut-and-pasting you do from them. Standing by for long-winded, dreary pasted-in posts on 3rd Century Popes in 5…4…3…

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM

its too easy. anyway, wikipedia digging gave me this pearl of roman catholic history. pornocracy is such a delicious term.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Not a comment on the movie, just Hollywood.

Only in Hollywood would close-up on a rifle ejecting a fired round, and use a blank cartridge.

orabera on March 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I agree, can christians now stop worrying about being persecuted then. it really seems hysteria to me!

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

You don’t wait till the trickle of persecution is a flood. That never works.

RBMN on March 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Well, are you okey dokey with a country banning religion or at Downgrading it?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I am ok with secularism, which is very diferent of banning religion. if disliking theocracy is downgrading religion, than i am for this downgrade. that is all.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I see once again that suppression of religious freedom always has its disgusting apologists.

Thanks for the heads up on this movie. I will definitely watch it.

WannabeAnglican on March 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Of course you didn’t, that would be to blatant. Couching your disapproval for the army of God is a much better tactic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I am okay with you being secular also but you should be okay with those who chose not to be. Freedom is a tricky word.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM

The Catholic Church is not being prevented by the government from saying anything, from congregating, from praying, from expressing their faith to anyone who will listen, etc.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Interesting that you didn’t mention the “free exercise of religion”, which is what the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with. Instead, you chose to cherry-pick parts of the free exercise of religion – saying things, praying, etc. – but the free exercise of religion includes ALL aspects of the religion, not just praying. The sanctity of all human life is a fundamental tenet of the Catholic Church and yet the government is attempting to force the Church to act against its fundamental beliefs and that, my friend, is an attack on the 1st Amendment. Slice it any way you want to, but you cannot deny that.

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Well, are you okey dokey with a country banning religion or at Downgrading it?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I am ok with secularism, which is very diferent of banning religion. if disliking theocracy is downgrading religion, than i am for this downgrade. that is all.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Then by extension, you would be all for the Downgrading of Liberty?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

No Christian in this country of 85%+ Christians is a victim.

Good Lt on March 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM

God bless you dude!

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I am ok with secularism, which is very diferent of banning religion. if disliking theocracy is downgrading religion, than i am for this downgrade. that is all.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Your ignorance of Mexican history is quite obvious.

steebo77 on March 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

whatcat on March 21, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Judeo-Christian.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Of course you didn’t, that would be to blatant. Couching your disapproval for the army of God is a much better tactic.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM

cannot see movies right now…
criticizing religion excesses and not its whole its a much more reasonable thing to do, because not all aspects of religion are destructive. that said, I can only make a larger argument against dogmatic thought as which might be religious or not.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Your ignorance of Mexican history is quite obvious.

steebo77 on March 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I dont! had to read up on this cristero war right now. that battle hymn however caught my attention.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Then by extension, you would be all for the Downgrading of Liberty?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

how orwellian.
since when Downgrading theocracy= Downgrading liberty?

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I can only make a larger argument against dogmatic thought as which might be religious or not.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

oh come on….

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM

cannot see movies right now…
criticizing religion excesses and not its whole its a much more reasonable thing to do, because not all aspects of religion are destructive. that said, I can only make a larger argument against dogmatic thought as which might be religious or not.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Electro shock therapy or medication adjustment…

This fazool needs help stat.

tom daschle concerned on March 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I am okay with you being secular also but you should be okay with those who chose not to be. Freedom is a tricky word.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM

sure. agree very much.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM

And look at the magnificent progress Mexico has made.

plewis on March 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM

cannot see movies right now…
criticizing religion excesses and not its whole its a much more reasonable thing to do, because not all aspects of religion are destructive. that said, I can only make a larger argument against dogmatic thought as which might be religious or not.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I dont! had to read up on this cristero war right now. that battle hymn however caught my attention.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM

How old are you? Five? Learn to read and write.

steebo77 on March 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Well, are you okey dokey with a country banning religion or at Downgrading it?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I am ok with secularism, which is very diferent of banning religion. if disliking theocracy is downgrading religion, than i am for this downgrade. that is all.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Then by extension, you would be all for the Downgrading of Liberty?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

since when Downgrading theocracy= Downgrading liberty?

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM

It was you that threw in the Strawman of a theocracy.

I’m speaking of the Downgrade regime’s attacks on religious and other Liberties.

Are you in favor of these attacks?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Noah to start filming in July.

By the way, I just watched Braveheart for the 110th time and it is still an incredibly inspiring movie. Freedom!

Likewise I watched Gladiator (again) and it definitely has some great messaging there as well.

FLconservative on March 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM

i don’t like anyone fighting for any god or for no god. it seems to me the most nihilistic reason for warfare.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM

FYI nathor the world doesn’t revolve around you, and what you like or don’t like. What you like or don’t like, and $5 will get you an expensive cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Electro shock therapy or medication adjustment…

This fazool needs help stat.

tom daschle concerned on March 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM

oh come on….

ted c on March 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM

looking at history, dogmatic and uncriticized belief caused some of our worse tragedies. free speech, freedom to criticize anything tempers our beliefs and actions, be them religious, atheist, comunist, nazi, colonial, political or what ever.
Its my opinion, that whenever a totalitarian regime imposes thought control, the greatest abuses happen.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on March 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

You do realize that “Bibi” is not a Christian, right? He does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I don’t understand (to put it mildly) why fundies feel it is in any way proper to conflate Jews and Christians. The Jews deny Christ–the same Christ who came down especially for them. They do not worship the same God as Christians. God is of three persons, indivisible. If you only recognize two out of three–that’s not God, that’s not worship, that’s blasphemy.

exlibris on March 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM

It was you that threw in the Strawman of a theocracy.

I’m speaking of the Downgrade regime’s attacks on religious and other Liberties.

Are you in favor of these attacks?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:38 AM

if there is no secularism, then you have theocracy. can you give me an example of a state that is not secular and not theocratic?

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Its my opinion, that whenever a totalitarian regime imposes thought control, the greatest abuses happen.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Would secularism fall under the rubric of thought control?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM

It was you that threw in the Strawman of a theocracy.

I’m speaking of the Downgrade regime’s attacks on religious and other Liberties.

Are you in favor of these attacks?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:38 AM

if there is no secularism, then you have theocracy. can you give me an example of a state that is not secular and not theocratic?

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM

What do you define as a theocracy?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Would secularism fall under the rubric of thought control?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM

we live in a secular system and you are free to rail against secularism as you wish. enjoy your secular given freedom. however, if the state was islamic…

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Can. Not. Wait.

Vive Cristo el Rey.

JoseQuinones on March 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM

What do you define as a theocracy?

Chip on March 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM

my definition:its rule by god, which in practice means rule by an individual or group that interprets god’s words.
wikipedia defenition is also good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion.[1][2][3]

From the perspective of the theocratic government, “God himself is recognized as the head” of the state, [4] hence the term theocracy, from the Greek θεοκρατια “rule of God”, a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[5]

A theocracy may have an administrative hierarchy of the government identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two ‘arms,’ but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM

we live in a secular system and you are free to rail against secularism as you wish. enjoy your secular given freedom. however, if the state was islamic…

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Ah, there’s your communist tendencies rising to the top. You believe that the secular state grants us freedoms’ whereas the founding documents of our own government recognize that those freedoms are inalienable and endowed by our Creator.

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Ah, there’s your communist tendencies rising to the top. You believe that the secular state grants us freedoms’ whereas the founding documents of our own government recognize that those freedoms are inalienable and endowed by our Creator.

Trafalgar on March 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM

not this argument again, who cares, the point is, we live in a secular system, and you are not being stopped of criticizing it.
I have to go, bye all.

nathor on March 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2