Trending topics from last week: The humor group?Porta dos Fundos? Wrapped in another piece of contempt for the Christian faith. Come on, what’s new? None, they are in the business since 2013. Because of the great impact, opinions swarm on social networks and are of the most varied, usually very well-founded, then why would we give ours?We’re gauchos and they say that every gaucho is involved, so here it is, starting with the infamous production:
The central objective of the production of the “Porta dos Fundos”, according to the producers, is to convey the message that “God is in all of us [1]”. From a deist humanist philosophical current, where man is believed to be God upon himself.
- The film.
- In a context of humor / sarcasm.
- States that the first temptation of Jesus (Jesus Christ.
- The second person of the Trinity.
- God the Son.
- For all Christians) would be an “exit from the closet”.
- In which he finds himself homosexual in addition to mentioning the existence of sexual relations between the sovereign God (the first person of the Trinity.
- God the Father.
- For all Christians) and Mary (Blessed Virgin.
- Our Lady or simply Mary).
- Will you also find some Old Testament stories as a result of one?that God wanted to preach to men.
- Does the Christmas special also feature the figures of Buddha.
- Jah.
- And Maa Durga [2]?Everyone complains about the mission of divinity they received.
Yes, we had the ungrateful need to see this terrible film work for the purposes of this article, and yes, the feeling was offensive, it was not good to see the continuous mockery of the most sacred to us: Jesus Christ, the son of the supreme God; the immaculate lamb who carried all our sins in this wood and paid our note, scraping every note of condemnation that existed against us. The first question that comes to mind: can you do this?What can we face in a conflict between our faith and in a film that mocks at least 4 (four) different religions, and above all what is more sacred to us Does freedom of expression guarantee the right to blasphemy and crime?
As we have explained on other occasions, what will resolve the conflict between two fundamental freedoms is the dignity of the human person, from which all fundamental rights and freedoms emanate. The content produced by the actors undermines the dignity of thousands of faithful, through scenes that have the sole intention of offending [our] faith, desecrating everything we believe.
They forget that faith and all the elements that constitute it, such as the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus, the dual nature of Christ (Man and God) and the sacrament (Eucharist for Catholics), are sacred in essence and for that reason. Are they the object of worship, of course with variations depending on the theological purpose?and the goal of faith for billions of people around the world. It is in the sacred that human beings place their maximum hope, and it is also through faith that they find meaning in life, most of the time. It is, by belief, that human beings get answers to humanity’s most difficult questions, from the days of caves: who we are, where we come from, why we are here and where we are going
Trust in Jesus Christ and hope in eternal life are born and installed in the innermost part of each of us, generating meaning and dignity in our lives, merges with our hope, overcoming every human measure, because the worshipper worships with all his being and, invariably, without limits. Offending and denigrating the sacred is an attack on man’s most intimate. Here’s the phrase: “The holiest thing for you. “To attack your faith in the sacred is to undermine your dignity as a human being. It’s the last barrier, the last wall of bestiality. Is this where we stop being human to become animals? [3].
However, ignoring any wall that separates us from bestiality, with the clear intention of “causing,” they desecrate our beliefs and offend our feelings, all under the armor of freedom of expression, as if it did not exist to serve us. freedom to hurt us in the most important and sacred. I have to remember that, for some, the film in question is simply bad content, but for others it goes much further, the proof?Give away a Google.
The mere use of art for the sole purpose of offending is already an affront to religious sentiment: to use freedom to offend the community is synonymous with countering someone’s faith with an irritating action, which is equivalent to what is prohibited by Decree 119-A, Article 2:?Do all religious denominations also have the right to worship, to govern themselves according to their faith and not to be contradicted in private or public acts, which are of interest to the exercise of this decree?What is sacred to the believer? he is protected from attacks or rebukes; the faithful cannot and should not be mocked, let alone vilified in their beliefs; in the interest of the common good, the religious sentiment that influences our perception of dignity is protected by Decree 119A, which was received by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Brazil.
Of course, freedom of expression has its value in the pillar of the dignity of the human person, like other fundamental freedoms. The dignity of the human person is the rule that measures whether a freedom is no longer freedom to become on object. of oppression.
In the first, comedians who use freedom of expression attack the core of the faith of millions of Brazilian Christians who, in the second, protest and demonstrate that they were indeed affected in the most sacred things in their lives; in 3, it is clear that the film attacks the very heart of the Christian faith, and in 4 we have the solution: freedom of expression goes beyond religious freedom and the lay state to achieve the dignity of people. where freedom of expression has not fulfilled its main objective, which is to serve human dignity, on the contrary, it has attacked it.
The truth is that there is no freedom that, when it conflicts with human dignity, resists, because it is the dignity of the human person that has the power to transform an axiom into freedom. It is not a question of libertad. es the most important or the largest, whether expression or religion; both freedoms, like all others, exist to serve; to serve the fundamental precept of the Dignity of the Human Person, so that it may be exercised by all and in its fullness. Those who do not serve it, or worse, offend her, do not fulfill her purpose, in a clear distortion. The dignity of the human person is the basis of all rights, it is based on one’s own natural law [4]. ?
? The dignity of the human person; Understanding that dignity, as is said elsewhere, is not a mere adjective preaching of superiority, but the ontological status of the human person, talking about rights inherent in the dignity of the human person is like talking about rights based on human nature, that is, natural rights (?) Every human right is derived from the dignity of the person, entering into the person in contact with each social relationship according to the circumstances and multifaceted situations of life in society; in each of them, human dignity is presented with things that are owed to it and demands that must arise in concrete and particular human rights [5]?.
From the point of view of religious law, there is an affront to religious sentiment, so it is an act punishable by persecution, both in the civil and criminal spheres, as the Dom Bosco Center did in 2017, against producer Porta dos Fundos. Does the content of the process revolve around satirical videos?And ‘Céu Catolico’, which constitute acts of denigration of worship and violation of religious freedom [6].
Another factor to consider: how to evaluate Netflix participation?Answer: how do you rate the film “The Irish”, the series “The Crown”?Or the documentary about Johnny Cash’s story, about his visit to the White House in 1979. It is a streaming platform, ranging from children’s movies to inappropriate content for children under the age of 18, which means that there are many shelves, full of options, in these options there will be space for what we do not like, which does not mean that artistic freedom is a car without brakes: the dignity of the human person is the limit; however, the solution to the problem must be aimed at the right people, it has demonstrated the reality of last week. That we’re willing to attack the logic of the free market?And that means shooting yourself in the foot.
At a time when open television offers ideologically dominated content, the solution we find is on alternative platforms, the free market mentality is this: broad competition, less bureaucracy, more options, good products at an affordable price, this point cannot be sacrificed in favor. crusade for good manners.
What we mean is that the real boycott, in our opinion, must be directed towards the group that invests time and artistic training to mock the faith of others, not against the freedom of choice of the subscriber. for such a cinematic aberration and remains co-producer, it is Netflix itself that has given way to splendid series such as The Crown, also as co-producer, which deals with the politics, rivalries and relationships of Queen Elizabeth II, even with the participation of the late Bill Graham. It is a question of where to undertake our outrage in a coherent and effective way. We own the control, just don’t look at these programs that violate our faith. In fact, these programs only remain broadcasting if they have views, no views are deleted, that is the wonderful logic of the market.
The choice to unsubscribe is not incorrect. This is also an option if you are thinking of losing great content because of bad content, it would be as if you never re-enter Livraria Saraiva, for there are works that go against our faith, even if some of them were published by Saraiva. herself. Or you are no longer associated with a library, because there are works by Marx, published by the library itself. Ah, this library also has books about Jesus Christ, published by her.
The problem, really, is trying to get everyone to cancel their subscriptions because there’s some content on Netflix that I don’t like or, come on, even that offends me, but what about other content?Of course, the offense may have been so great (we’re talking about something personal and intimate here: faith) that leads me to cancel, but then forcing others to follow my example?It seems to us that such an imposition is an act equivalent to the communist consumption methodology, where someone will dictate what we have to buy.
So, it is worth remembering a basic lesson on the agenda of Christianity and the free market:?The Bible’s emphasis on the value of human freedom (Ex 20:2; Isaiah 61:1; Galatians 5:1) also promotes an open market system that allows people to choose where to work, what to buy, how to run a business and how to spend their money. A government-controlled economy makes these decisions for people.
Every time someone undermines the sacred, it is necessary for civil society to intervene, contradict, not accept, we are talking about human dignity, we are talking about life. Without dignity there is no full life, just a sigh, we must use all the means at our disposal to try to stop attacks on dignity: boycott, justice, etc. That’s why crimes against honor and religious feelings are criminally protected everywhere. the world.
Remembering that the target of our reviews and even judgments should be the group of comedians, producers, including Netflix, but as a specific content producer, that is, I can sue Netflix for offending my religious sentiment, recommend boycotting the show. in question and keep watching “The Crown. ” It would be like suing the Library that published a pamphlet against my faith, but keep borrowing your good books as long as they exist or, stop subscribing to a newspaper, because there are ONE or TWO columnists who have a worldview contrary to mine and FIVE favorable.
As for Porta dos Fundos, I find the statement of Mario Ferreira dos Santos: “Do blasphemy and sacrilege undermine human dignity and reveal the humility of the soul of those who practice them [8]?
[1] Scene from the Christmas special Porta dos Fundo: The First Temptation of Christ?38: 31 right now.
[2] She is a goddess of Hinduism
[3] VIEIRA, Thiago Rafael; REGINA, Jean Marques, Religious law: practical and theoretical issues. Ed. , Porto Alegre: Concerdia, 2019, p. 106-107.
[4] VIEIRA, Thiago Rafael; REGINA, Jean Marques, Religious law: practical and theoretical issues. Ed. , Porto Alegre: Concerdia, 2019, p. 107.
[5] HERVADA, Javier. Los Ecclesiasticitas before a spectator? Tempvs otii secvdvm. Spain: Navarra Grefica Ediciones, 2002, p. 113.
[6] The Catholic Center seeks compensation of R$1 for each video view of “Porta”. Available in:
[7] STICK, Wayne, Economics and Politics in the Christian World View: Contributions to an Evangelical Theology. Sao Paulo: Vida Nova, 2016. p. 51.
[8] SANTOS, M. Ferreira. La vertical invasion of the barbarians. Sao Paulo: These are achievements. 2012, p. 69