Has nothing to do with bigotry. NO religious organization should EVER hold nearly 50% of the real estate of a country and certainly not without paying taxes on it. How that ever happened in the first place is immoral. No further discussion.
But, there's no bigotry involved, just a boatload of anti-Catholic propaganda filling heads full of mush who prefer to feed their bigoted preconceptions to reading the facts.
"Shut up," he explained.
The question wasn't whether a religious organization should own "more than 50% of the real estate of a country," --- a figure I wold have to see verified by documented fact and not by mere assertion --- and with due consideration for the fact that in Mexico, as elsewhere, a significant amount of the "real estate" consists of hospitals, clinics, charities, human services, and primary-secondary-and-tertiary level education. The Catholic Church was then, as it is now, the major provider of essential services, especially in the case of non-Spanish speaking indigenous people, and the education of girls.
The question, though, was whether Catholic clergy should be deprived of the right to vote, to speak on public issues, and to practice their faith openly outside of the confines of their sanctuaries, their homes, and their heads.
This is all answered affirmatively and --- so far --- protected effectively in the USA under the First Amendment.
But not in Mexico.
I admit I don't comprehend how somebody could prefer the Communist dictatorial policies of Plutarco Elias Calles to the liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
It’s not immoral. In many cases, these were donations of land by land-owners or by governments. All legal and above board and in many cases, the tenants were in a better position than those under other landlords...