6004 Shares

Why did Mexico want to Separate Church and state after Independence?

Why did Mexico want to Separate Church and state after Independence? Topic: How to write an amendment to your will
July 24, 2019 / By Dunn
Question: The point was never to become less religious, as the treaty of Iguala stated Roman Catholicism as the religion of Mexico. So.. this is what I don't understand.. after Independence, the Mexican government slowly began stripping the church of its power and separating it from politics.. WHY? Was there tons of corruption? Anyone have any examples/sources of this I could have a look at?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Why did Mexico want to Separate Church and state after Independence?

Bryan Bryan | 6 days ago
The treaty of Iguala was signed in a very turbulent scenario and, basically, was the final union between revolutionaries and the royal forces that could finally take Mexico City and forced the Viceroy to accept Independence. They were really thinking ideals, not how to build a government, when they signed the treaty. After Independence War (1810-1821), and as expected, the power of the catholic church didn't decrease. Mainly because more than 90% of the population (including revolutionaries) was catholic. Nevertheless, middle XIX century presented a very ideologically rich scenario for mexicans, in the sense that new ideas were boiling in Europe (France, specially, was a role model for a lot of mexican thinkers in that century) and a very strong nationalism was leading them to think that a sovereign state's mark was freedom and a proper civil administration. High elites of the military and the catholic church were a danger for independence and an obstacle to all those new ideals. The "Reform War" (1857-1861) was the consequence of the instauration of a new constitution that stripped these two groups of several privileges. Before the Reform War, the Church was the only organism that had the authority to register newborns, marriages and defuncts. Moreover, it had enough power to charge a 10% fee over income for it's services (to every person, including politicians). For the Church, independence movement was truly a gift from the lord. High priests preserved every privilege that Spaniards lost. In fact, more than often clergymen had the liberty to take over terrains and cattle as payment for that service "debt". It didn't help a lot that conservatives (Conservative Party, is you wish) were not only willing to accept this injustice, but they even went as far as to renounce to Independency in favor of a foreign emperor (who they said would come to righteously govern mexicans under the "protective" veil of Church). That didn't go quite well though, since Maximilian of Habsburg (the guy who came from Austria during the war to take the throne) was liberal and didn't reinstated privileges to the church! (in part, this is why he didn't last long in the "throne"). Basically the separation was coined in these reforms written for the new constitution: 1. Disappearance of special privileges of the Church. This includes clergymen being tried in civil courts (before, there were special Church-made tribunals for them). 2. Nationalization of Church goods. Basically, the State took over several resources of the Church that not only were stole under false pretenses of "fairness" but were highly underused: people didn't have a place to live but the Church had lots of abandoned or underused terrains on their hands. 3. Creation of a Civil Registry (run by the State and not by the Church) which would be the only righteous way to register newborns and defuncts. 4. Imposition of civil marriage over church marriage. Only civil marriage, not religious, would be valid for the law. 5. Liberty of religion. As you can see, this separation is just natural for an sovereign state. In fact most of them remain until today. Before this, the Church was more powerful than the State (it took a war and a Church promoted invasion to make these amendments effective), and that situation compromised the ideals born from Renaissance and such. In a more personal way, this didn't affect the faith of president Juarez (the promoter of these reforms), for example. It was just the right thing to do to overcome several problems of public administration. As a matter of fact, he could effectively separate his faith of his responsibility as president: until the last day of his life he remained a fervent catholic. Hope this answers your question.
👍 240 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? Why did Mexico want to Separate Church and state after Independence? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: How to write an amendment to your will


Bryan Originally Answered: Isn't there a law to separate state and religion?
The First Amendment to the Constitution has two provisions regarding religion, combined in one statement. Congress is barred from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The term "separation of church and state" comes to us from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson. He was quoting Roger Williams. Interpretation of "separation" language is tricky; Martha C. Nussbaum, in "Liberty of Conscience" (which I highly recommend), argues that it causes more problems than it's worth, and proposes a theory of equal treatment which at times makes accommodation for minority views, on the grounds that special accommodations are the only possible way to prevent the majority from oppressing others. Extreme applications of the "separation" notion could lead to nonsense like the notion that publicly supported fire departments shouldn't fight church fires. But a bigger problem is that it could be used to block accommodations, for instance by refusing to allow exceptions to a military draft for those whose conscience forbids fighting in wars. (That particular accommodation, by the way, goes all the way back to George Washington, dealing with the Quakers.) Nussbaum cites an opinion by Sandra Day O'Connor regarding religious language in public use. O'Connor lays out four criteria for it to be permissible: - history and ubiquity; - absence of worship or prayer; - absence of reference to a particular religion; and - minimal religious content. In Nussbaum's view (and mine), "In God We Trust" on money is acceptable under these criteria. The slogan has been on money a long time, and it's a quote from the national anthem, which dates to the War of 1812. I personally have no particular attachment to it, other than with respect to the standard joke: "In God we trust; all others pay cash." [We might not, on the other hand, want to encourage singing that verse--the fourth--of the anthem, under these same criteria. Part of it goes: Blessed with victory and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Power that made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: In God is our trust; And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave... This seems to me to exceed the limits described by O'Connor.] Nussbaum actually argues that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does violate these criteria. I agree, and in recent years I've made a practice of skipping those two words. They're a late addition, and they were inserted specifically to impose a particular religious view. (I'm Christian myself, and I do believe we are "under God," but I can't square putting those words in the Pledge with the claim of "liberty and justice for all." Furthermore, they were added with intent to divide us, and knowing that, it's hard to say them and not choke on the next word: "indivisible.") Presidents are, of course, entitled to free speech, and if they choose to mention God, that's their right. I therefore suggest that you not try to turn the notion of separation into a call for personal censorship, of Presidents or anyone else.
Bryan Originally Answered: Isn't there a law to separate state and religion?
Okay, I get where you're coming from, but how can you be offended by something that you don't believe exists? BTW: "In God We Trust" was added to our currency in the 50's, and "under God" was added around the same time, in an effort to change our nation's history to make it look like it is a Christian nation, which it isn't, and never has been. Personally, (as a Christian) I don't care one way or the other if it's on our money or not, since "money is the root of all evil"...I'm not even sure that God would really want it there, either.
Bryan Originally Answered: Isn't there a law to separate state and religion?
>Like a Muslim living in Russia could kill a citizen of Russia who drew a picture of Muhammad because it's within their religious law [ Sharia law ] to do so. Where do you get these ideas? Russian courts do not follow any laws except the civil legislature accepted by the parliament and approved by president. If someone chooses to follow sharia it's their choice, but they can and will be judged in a civil court if they violate one of the Federal laws. The importance of the laws in the RF is the following: Constitution > International agreements ratified by the parliament > Federal laws (law codes: criminal, administrative, family, etc) > President's legislature acts > local governments' legislature > 0 = customs, traditions, religious rites, codes and rules.

Albert Albert
replaced into no longer only Texas New Mexico besides, did no longer desire to be ruled from Mexico city lots of the southwest did no longer desire to be ruled by utilising Mexico definite Texas replaced right into a slave state and for that reason they did no longer want us interior the union The Mexicans shoot and killed people drawing near their land searching for wild horses or took them lower back as slaves labour to Mexico city can we try this right this moment? seek for ''the black beans of Santa Anna'' some individuals get away Santa Anna needed to kill each of something So everyone who %. a black bean replaced into carried out the only reason they allowed us interior the union as a results of fact the Brits have been allying themselves with us and the union did no longer want the Brits interior the southwest What maximum do no longer comprehend is there have been Mexicans who fought and died interior the Alamo You properly no longer discover any people prouder to be individuals than Texans and that i'm speaking brown and white
👍 100 | 👎 3

Albert Originally Answered: For or against separation of church and state?
Yes, it is a good thing. This amendment to the Constitution is to insure that the civil authorities do not interfere with the religious liberty of an individual. The government is not to set up a religion and compel individuals to adhere to it or to favor one religion over another, neither are they to interfere with an individual's religious beliefs and observance of those beliefs. Religion is between an individual and his God and civil rights are not to be taken away because of religious beliefs. The "wall of separation" goes back to Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury...
Albert Originally Answered: For or against separation of church and state?
A secular government is vital for a nation to positively contribute to society as a whole. A few points you could make are: 1. History shows that theocracies tend to be irrationally violent. Examples: The Salem Witch Trials, The Catholic Inquisition, The Crusades, The European Witch Trials 2. Religion tends to have a negative effect on Science and Free-thought. Examples: The Scopes Trials, The trial of Galileo, Execution of Giordano Bruno, Execution of Socrates 3. A secular government allows people of any religion to live in equality, including those who have no religion (Atheists, Agnostics)

If you have your own answer to the question how to write an amendment to your will, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.