By TARSUS GENUS*
Fascists and traitors of the 1988 Charter stand side by side, strengthened by fear and haunted by a danger of which not everyone is aware.
Secular state and religions of money
Are we beginning to recover the values of democracy and the Republic, or are we on the threshold of a plebiscitary acceptance of their betrayal? I was once an optimist of the first hypothesis, but not anymore. We cannot help but remember at this moment Jorge Luis Borges, who said that “the traitor is a man of successive and opposing loyalties.” The fascist, however, is a consistent fanatic. Fascists and traitors of the 1988 Charter stand side by side, strengthened by fear and haunted by a danger of which not everyone is aware.
In order to put an end, in practice, to the secularization of the State provided for in Article 5, items VI, VII and VIII, and in Article 19, item I, of the Federal Constitution, the religious fundamentalist discourse wants to be the dominant discourse in the criticism of the secular State. To do so, it needs to quietly put on the agenda the end of “freedom of conscience” in the Rule of Law, since this can only be exercised as an individual conscience, within the limits determined by the Constitution: if this generates a subjective public right that allows individuals to be free from state oppression of religious conscience in the secular State, the State cannot support or represent a dominant religion.
If someone can “force” his religion to be dominant in the State, all people can make the State a “loci"special dispute between the faithful of each faith, and thus construct a totalitarian discourse: that of a religious faith that suppresses the freedom and legitimacy of another religious faith. The confusion between politics and religion has never been as great as it is today in our country. And this "confusion", in the sense of subsumption — of one to the other — stimulates the radicalization of irrational political disputes, in the crisis of the formal liberal-democratic system, since the subsumption of politics to religion (or vice-versa) tends to nullify the discourse of democratic reason.
If the State allows this subsumption, it will allow the substitution of argument by faith, which can thus dominate and destroy the democratic categories of politics in the rule of law, which is based on minimally rational and argumentative discourses. The lessons of history show that religion is a timeless transcendence and that, unlike politics, its content is not centered on a verifiable historical present.
Being secular, the State regulates both systems (political and religious) but does so to recognize the “right to religion” within the scope of its regulation, to leave it free from state guardianship and free not to obey the faith of rulers, who may eventually seek to determine, for religious people, “duties” of faith in relation to the State. For these two possibilities of “praxis” to coexist in society — political and religious praxis — the social space of the modern State must be dialogical, but it must also have the power, through legitimate norms, to prevent pressure from politics against religion, and from religion against the civil nature of politics.
Religions of money seek to subjugate people's private lives, not to guide them towards a transcendent idea, because they produce teachings that mainly seek to weaken them in order to extort part of their small savings. Instead of bringing them closer to the messages of generosity and solidarity contained in most religions, including evangelical ones, religions of money annihilate the democratic space in politics.
Here, special attention should be paid to the use of religious sentiment as part of a social practice that has a clearly commercial purpose, whose meaning extends to the political-partisan “being”. By prohibiting the State’s power apparatus and its resources from being monopolized by a religion, the State becomes neutral in relation to religions, but at the same time also active in defending its secularism.
To assess whether religious practices are purely political practices, in the sense of electoral partisanship of the expression, it is always necessary to respect objective criteria, which do not involve examining the doctrine or faith that any religion propagates, but rather verifying their clearly commercial links, some of which are even linked to the illegal practice of medicine.
Acting in this way, in the capitalist class system, religions that behave as mercantile institutions segregate into a “second class” other religions that accept diversity, the free civil life of humans, as well as disrespect the cultural differences of each community of the human race.
It is not for nothing that the vision of the “single path” in economics is appropriated as “their own thing” by the religions of money, because this path is also based on an intolerant fundamentalist dogma that defends the suppression of the State as the organizer of economic life and of the relations between capital and labor. It is also worth remembering that far-right parties tending towards fascism are generous in presenting themselves in the name of God, country and family, to support their totalitarian identity, which seeks to base its authority on the dominion of bodies and ideas.
With the dominance of mercantile religious fundamentalism, transformed into “faith,” any election can become a war, not because politics necessarily separates people into armed gangs, but because irrationality prevails in disputes, such as war provoked especially by fundamentalism. This fundamentalism is materialism exercised by faith, maintained by the relationship with money. Neoliberal fundamentalist discourse finds, in turn, a common path with religions, for irregular private accumulation, transforming the shepherds of faith into “shepherds” of capital accumulation.
The victory of class oppression, which comes from within the domination of ultra-liberal rentierism and “partial” world wars, is radically opposed to reason, freedom of spirit and the political freedoms of representative liberal democracy. There is no dissimulation that can prevent the State from acting — within the “contractual” political democracy currently in crisis — against the naturalization of fascism and its passage through the religions of money, to the cult of the market, as consensus, and the distortion of faith, as a weapon of hegemony.
The Merchants of Faith Against the Gospel of Christ
While looking through the archives of over half a century of university teaching, I came across the “2004 Yearbook” of the Higher School of Theology of the Evangelical Church of Lutheran Confession in Brazil (IECLB), where I taught for five years. I was moved by the images and texts from my Ecological Exposition and read the article “Music, Religion, Few Institutions,” by Professor Oneide Bobsin, an outstanding researcher on the subject of religion and politics. I then read the article by Joachim H. Fischer entitled “Lutherans, Reformed, United, Evangelicals: Who Are They?”
Explaining what Evangelical Churches are, he comments: Evangelicals “are churches of evangelical orientation” (…). The author adds the information that most directly relates to the theme of this article: “The “Evangelical bench” in the National Congress is formed by members of such churches” that are not mentioned here by name because they do not have identical practices in each region of the country. This presence is known to all of Brazilian society, and is widely documented in the press, that there is, in the Brazilian Congress, an “Evangelical Front”, disputed and distributed among several right-wing parties.
This article aims to reflect on what this presence means in terms of the Gospel of Christ. Theologian Oneide Bobsin, cited above, stated in an interview: “The participation of evangelicals in politics deprivatizes churches.” As an example of such deprivatization, we can cite a journalistic account of the inauguration of former president Jair Bolsonaro. In the newspaper Zero hour from November 3 and 4, 2018 (p. 10) there is a highlight: “Assembly of God Victory in Christ”.
Next to Jair Bolsonaro, with his right hand pathetically extended, pastor Silas Malafaia points out the words: “with the support of evangelicals,” like those of the “Assembly of God”: Victory in Christ, by pastor Silas Malafaia (photo). Jair Bolsonaro then arrives at the Planalto Palace supported by a strong religious speech that places him before the “mission of God” in command of the nation. Almost half a page below, there is an article by Itamar Melo, with the title in capital letters, in very large letters: “The gospel goes up the ramp.” In addition to Silas Malafaia, the article mentions pastors Valdemar Figueiredo and Magno Malta, who opened Bolsonaro’s inauguration session with the prayer: “Your word says that the one who anoints authority is God. And the Lord anointed Jair Bolsonaro.”
Before beginning his speech, Jair Bolsonaro told the TV reporter: “With all certainty, this is God’s mission.” Two days after his inauguration, he made his first public appearance, participating in an evangelical service presided over by pastor Silas Malafaia. In the article by Zero hour we read: “On that occasion, Jair Bolsonaro referred to himself as “chosen by the Lord”. In the middle of his article, Itamar Melo highlights, with a subtitle: “Bible caucus advances in Congress”. In the National Congress, therefore, an “Evangelical Front” was formed, disputed and distributed among several right-wing parties.
Regarding the theological-biblical question, it should be clarified that all of Jesus' preaching, from the famous Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7; Lk. 20,45:XNUMX), is the announcement or proclamation of the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven. In his incomparable pedagogy, Jesus patiently explained, little by little, what was the central message. The great expectation of the Kingdom was the promise that permeated the entire history of the People of God, and therefore all the messages of the prophets. Jesus' preaching was very clear, unmistakable: Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven. Nothing earthly.
In the interview with theologian Bobsin, I was struck by one sentence: “After all, Jesus renounced his religion in order to be faithful to God.” He knew very well that there was a lot of confusion. Even though he had already chosen his closest disciples, who would later become his twelve apostles, the confusion was evident when the mother of James and John asked Jesus to reserve the first places for her sons, one on the right and the other on the left. The others became jealous. The confusion continued. Even when Jesus was arrested, everyone disappeared. Peter had denied him three times. Judas had betrayed him. And where were the others? Only John accompanied him to Calvary. Perhaps he felt that someone needed to accompany Jesus’ mother in her deep grief, faced with the certain death of her son Jesus on the cross.
The entire journey of Jesus, from the beginning until his death on Calvary, was accompanied by the same temptation that the prophets had denounced. A temptation to which the apostles he had chosen yielded until the end. And the whole great multitude that had come to the feast of the Passover, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel.”
The temptation of Jesus, after the 40 days of fasting in the desert, reported in the Gospels, was an allegory, through which He assumed the temptation of the people of Israel, reported in the Deuteronomy, and denounced by the prophets throughout history, ever since God freed his people from slavery in Egypt. Like Israel, Jesus was also accompanied by the same temptation, both from his disciples and from the people who followed him, who thought that the promised Messiah would finally establish the Kingdom of Israel. Oneide Bobsin's statement, quoted above, is strong and challenging: "After all, Jesus renounced his religion in order to be faithful to God." He also "renounced" the official religion when he witnessed the scandalous spectacle that the temple had been transformed into.
For all his followers, including those he had chosen as his future apostles, the official religion believed that the promised Messiah would be the King who would finally free the people from the domination of other empires. To deny the official religion was also to deny the triple temptation of the desert, a temptation that accompanied him until his trial by Pilate. On the same day that the crowd acclaimed him “King of Israel,” he renounced the official religion with all authority, expelling the merchants from the temple. The four evangelists recount the courageous and solemn expulsion, justified with the cry, a radical moment in which he separates religion from prayer and faith from earthly power: “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” (1 Pet. 1:20).Mt. 21, 13).
To objectively understand certain details of the Gospels, it is convenient or even necessary to know certain historical facts. In this sense, I realized that Wikipedia has several lectures or interviews of a historical nature. Some of them meticulously recount the history of Pontius Pilate, his position as prefect of Judea, one of the many provinces of the Roman Empire. A basic detail is his responsibility in the condemnation of Jesus. Both Judea and Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas, Samaria, and other provinces, were spaces of frequent and violent revolts of peoples who tried to free themselves from cruel Roman domination.
During the ten years of his government, Pontius Pilate had had the challenge of confronting, often in a cruel manner, various Jewish revolts. Faced with a character presented to him by the Jewish leaders to be judged and condemned, Pilate, when questioning Jesus, was concerned about whether he was just another one of the revolutionary leaders who were giving him a headache. This concern of Pilate’s explains his question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” (Mt. 27,11:27). Jesus answers: “You say so.” Faced with the repeated accusations and Jesus’ silence, “…the governor was greatly astonished” (Mt. 14:XNUMX). He was, in fact, convinced that he was not one of the zealots or revolutionaries he had had to suppress in order to secure his position.
Jesus' silence is witnessed by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Only John will write that, faced with Pilate's insistence, Jesus assures: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have fought so that I would not be handed over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from here” (Jo, 18, 36). Even so, Pilate was not at ease. The crowd shouted: “If you do not condemn him, you are not Caesar’s friend.” His concern was not whether Jesus’ condemnation was just, but to rid himself of any threat that might reach Caesar’s ears. And so, after cowardly washing his hands of him, Pilate handed him over to the cruel fury of the crowd.
The sign that Pilate had ironically placed on top of the cross: “Jesus the King of the Jews”, provoked a general demand that it be removed. The same crowd that had acclaimed him at the entrance to Jerusalem shouted before Pilate: “Crucify him! Crucify him!” For three years they had followed him, listening enthusiastically to his preaching, believing that he would free them from Roman domination, finally establishing the Kingdom that Israel had been waiting for for 2000 years.
For the apostles, it was the end. Only with the coming of the Holy Spirit, on the Feast of Pentecost, did they understand the true meaning of their announcement, from the Sermon on the Mount and throughout the three years of their preaching. And the crowd that had come from various countries to the feast, hearing them speak in their own languages, understood what Kingdom Jesus had announced. And the Church of the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, was established on that day.
According to the article by Itamar Melo in the newspaper Zero Hora, cited above: “The Bible Caucus advances in Congress”, and with the almost theatrical citations of Jair Bolsonaro’s inauguration, it clearly denounces that Christ’s statement: “My Kingdom is not of this world”, does not apply to evangelical, Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal churches, since their strategy is the fight for political power, according to the “theology of prosperity”, which could, over time, transform Brazil, a democratic and secular republic, into a theocratic country permeated by sectarianism, as is the case in Iran today.
*Tarsus in law he was governor of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, mayor of Porto Alegre, Minister of Justice, Minister of Education and Minister of Institutional Relations in Brazil. Author, among other books, of possible utopia (Arts & Crafts).
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
