For years, photos of Cubans filling squares to listen to the long speeches of the socialist leadership were the icing on the cake of leftist propaganda. And although at the beginning of the revolution many were dazzled by Fidel Castro’s poisonous rhetoric of social justice, for decades, there have been mechanisms of pressure accompanying the masses.

These have gradually eroded the initial enthusiasm of some fanatical followers after decades of hunger and suppression of freedoms. Coercion has become the main driving force for herding people into the squares in support of Castroism, to the “marches of the fighting people.” Without these supposed displays of “unity,” the regime fears that its main weakness will be exposed: the lack of legitimacy among the ever-decreasing millions of inhabitants on the unfortunate Caribbean island.

What happens to those who don’t attend the march? The student’s “record is tarnished,” putting them at a disadvantage when competing for good positions in the ranking system that determines their job placement after graduation; the state employee (the State remains the largest employer on the island) may lose their job or not be eligible to compete for “incentives” ranging from household appliances to a little more money in their salary at the end of the month. For years, coercion has worked.

However, during the most recent call by the leadership for demonstrations in the streets, the distancing of several sectors of civil society and the willingness to communicate it publicly became more noticeable than ever. These were activities to receive the remains of the 32 Castroist military personnel who constituted Nicolás Maduro’s praetorian guard, all killed during the U.S. operation that extracted the dictator in Caracas on January 3.

Castroism then prepared several rallies under the slogan “Honor & Glory.”

But civil society opinion leaders with thousands of followers on their social media, such as the Baptist Ivan Daniel Calás, refused to participate in the officially decreed days of mourning. And the young man didn’t stop there, but took the opportunity to contrast the official propaganda slogan with that of faith: “Today, I only give ‘Honor & Glory’ to Jesus Christ. No, not all deaths mean the same thing... and not all ‘glory’ is glory. There are deaths that become useful, functional: they sustain a history, protect a symbol, guard a throne.”

He emphasized that there is a difference “between the death they ask you to applaud and a death that demands you surrender. Propaganda tells you: ‘He died for the cause. He died for the man who had to be protected. He died for what had to be defended.’ The cross responds: Christ died for sinners, the guilty, traitors, the loyal, cowards, the brave, for those who shouted ‘Crucify him!’ and for those who washed their hands. He died for me. He died for you.”

He continued by pointing out the contrast between the official discourse and the gospel with these words: “There are deaths that are used to say: ‘Look how great loyalty is. Look how great the sacrifice for our cause is.’ The cross says the opposite: You are not a hero, you are not righteous, you are not innocent, you need salvation. They tell you ‘give your blood,’ but on the cross, God says: ‘I give mine for you.’ Christ was not dragged along by a human cause: He gave himself voluntarily. Not to sustain the power of a man, but to destroy the power of sin. He didn’t die so that you would applaud him: He died because without his blood you were lost.”

And he concluded: “To Him, and only to Him, be the Honor and the Glory... not for a day, not for a headline, not for a tribute... Forever and ever!” Voices like Calás’s are unsettling to the totalitarian state, which, with greater access to social media and the internet on the island, has seen in recent years how its monopoly on the narrative about what is happening in Cuba is crumbling and alternative ideas to socialism are flourishing, with antagonistic roots such as faith in Jesus.

Despite the pressure, which led the NGO Open Doors to recently classify Cuba as the country of greatest concern in Latin America, evangelicals are growing, filling concerts, evangelistic campaigns, and massive baptisms, while the Castro regime’s power to mobilize is waning.

The idea, spread by the socialist state and its acolytes, that Christians do not get involved in politics, is becoming increasingly discredited on the island.

And not only are the discourses changing from an ever-growing segment of civil society, but the actions are as well. To the point that a Christian father with a large following on social media, David Espinosa, refused to allow his daughter to participate in activities organized by the authorities associated with the official mourning period.

“I made it very clear that my daughter will not be going to the march that day,” he posted. “I deeply regret the death of those 32 Cubans who died in a place where they should never have been, but as long as it is within my power, I will never allow my children to be used for political purposes or to legitimize any demonstration. In my family, we are Christians.”

There are cases of parents who have been separated from their children for rejecting the prevailing political system and its political calls and guidelines. However, Espinosa’s decision unleashed a flood of comments from other parents who would make the same civic decision.

Parents like Yay Arencibia, in a demonstration of how Cubans are losing their fear of publicly disagreeing, left comments like this: “Mine is not authorized to participate in any of those shows either. And the teacher knows it well. First, because we are Christians, and second, because we are very anti-communist. I will not play along with these criminals.”

Nuria Maldonado Pifferrer seconded Espinosa, saying that her children would not be used for political purposes, “nor supporting the interests, solely, of those who benefit from the misery of the people.”

Just as five years ago a group of Cuban Christian parents led an impressive campaign that collected 140,000 signatures against a state policy, now they seem to be returning to defend the freedom of conscience of their families and distance themselves from the State that has destroyed their country and stolen the future of their children.