O, tries to explain the in Brazilian politics. There are strong scenes of cults, public prayers and leaders as in inflamed discourses. The image impresses, but the analysis stumbles. Religious language appears, but its effects on real political game are not examined with method. The script goes from the pulpit to as if everything was directly due to domain theology. Since the movie ignores that businessmen and ruralists may be even more numerous among the supporters of one.
The main fragility is to affirm more than prove. The film suggests that domain theology directly fueled radicalization that led to January 8, but does not clarify how these ideas connect to networks of power or concrete mobilization. Nor does it delimit who would be the real operators of this doctrine. Terms as they are vaguely used, leaving the impression that faith in itself would be the cause of complex processes that the documentary does not investigate.
This absence of method reinforces. The data used to support this idea is also inflated: the film speaks of over 30% of evangelicals in Brazil, but records it 26.9%. There are legitimate questions about the political participation of religious and how faith is used strategically. But treat them as a direct result of a specific doctrine, poorly delimited and without solid evidence, converts a real problem into caricature.
The film points to the public presence of faith, but ignores the central question: What exactly is done with this language in political space? It is not enough to point out beliefs; It is necessary to understand how religious discourse is used to gain legitimacy and influence. This perspective is explored by Lucas Nascimento in the book “The Poison of Language” by the Christian Mundo Publishing House.
Analyzing speeches of pastors, viralized sermons and live cults, it presents a typology about the political use of faith. There are strategic enunciators, who adapt the message to the taste of the audience; the consequent, which control the discourse for fear of the legal consequences; And the virtuous, for whom talking is ethical and Christian responsibility.
This distinction matters because it clarifies that the problem is not the evangelical presence itself, but what kind of voice dominates the debate. In many cases, a speech prevailed by resentment, spectacle and electoral calculation. It is not enough to display evangelical expansion or worship scenes: it is necessary to show how political elites instrumentalize faith to accumulate symbolic capital.
In this sense, interviews with Malafaia Silas are revealing: he is proud of privileged access to power. But this phenomenon is not exclusive to evangelicals. It also appears in professional categories, fans and social movements. What changes is the vocabulary; What remains is the strategic use of collective identities as political currency.
Thus, the greater risk is not to become a theocracy, but something more discreet: the political debate to be replaced by moral disputes. Diverge is seen as an offense, and who speaks in the name of God is imposed on who presents concrete solutions.
Portraying evangelicals as a threat to democracy is a strategic error, as it strengthens precisely the leaders who should be contested. In treating religious discourse as uniform and dangerous by nature, Petra Costa no longer differentiates those who manipulate the faith from those who only profess it. With this, it ends up reinforcing what it intended to fight.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
