The origin of judicial activism may be in Protestantism

I tend to believe that, when things are well analyzed and interpreted, the blame for the abuses of the Supreme goes back to Luther. I know well that we are used to pointing out remote culprits for present evils and, from there, inferring that historical problems are impossible to solve. “It’s all the fault of the Portuguese!”, said PT members, as they looted the country. But the expedient is always this: it is the fault of the Portuguese exploiters, the obscurantist Church, the black party-goers, the indolent Indians, the cordiality, the backward rural world, the degenerating miscegenation, the oppressive patriarchy and everything that can be said traditionally Brazilian. Yankee Imperialism appears on the rogue list, of course. But only his actions are criticized; its cultural influence, no. Our country is treated with slaps and kicks when it comes to indigenous and black issues just by the countries that committed to exterminating their indigenous people and practiced racial segregation. Our country was practically founded by the Counter-Reformation. For my part, I give myself the right to consider the Best Country in the World the one that has always considered black slaves and cannibalistic Indians as individual souls and children of God, forbidding the idea of ​​extermination as an end in itself. As this was not the case of the Protestant nations, and these, due to their mere wealth, became a model of culture, it is necessary to criticize their cultural vices that are forced on us by a stateless elite.

Progressive imperialism

Who rules Brazil today is who is able to interpret the most sacred text of our late democracy: the Federal Constitution. According to Montesquieu’s ideal, the Judiciary would be the power responsible for judging according to the laws formulated by the Legislative. Being such an unfree activity, it is natural that judges are not elected by the people. The representation of our will takes place through the election of legislators and chief executives.

The United States is the most enduring example of a large-scale democracy. Thus, it was one of the examples available to Brazil when we decided to stop being a monarchy and become a Republic. Our Supreme Court was born along with the Republic, in the image and likeness of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a constitutional court; that is, it served to limit the legislative power by the Constitution. If a legislative house, whether at the national, state or municipal level, decided to create a law in breach of the Constitution, it would be up to the Supreme Court to correct it. For ten years, however, the function of the STF has been to decide against the Federal Constitution in order to implement the progressive ideology (in 2012 the STF decided , against the DEM, that racial quotas are constitutional).

The method emerged in the USA and is imposed, via NGOs and international entities, on all Western countries that have preferred to side with the US to flank the USSR during the Cold War. It is difficult to trace its origins completely, but it is certain that its history is intertwined with that of progressivism. As we have seen, in 1927 the US Supreme Court, in the case of Buck v. Bell, had ruled that it was constitutional for the state of Virginia to sterilize Carrie Buck against her will on the grounds that she was an inferior-race weakling. The decision was made by the celebrated judge Oliver Wendell Holmes. Creative, he based his decision on a mandatory vaccination law in Massachusetts schools and on a humanitarian practicality, since it was better to prevent the birth of degenerates than to execute them for the crimes they will surely commit. The most notorious case, however, is Roe v. Wade, in which the constitutional right to privacy became the constitutional right to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

The truth is that the US is home to a totalitarian and imperialist ideology that returns and half takes power and imposes its guidelines by force, whether on its own people or abroad. Its method is the corruption of the State through the hijacking of Human Rights and the action of transactional NGOs. Its main purpose is to reduce the world population. They are enemies of life in the deepest sense imaginable. Saying they defend death is what Anglophones call understatement. Death as we know it is not defended by them. They want, if possible, to euthanize them; if possible, better than euthanizing the born is aborting the conceived; if possible, better than aborting the conceived is not to conceive; if possible, better than not conceiving is to sterilize; if possible, even better than sterilizing perfect bodies is to neuter in childhood before the reproductive system is ready. Apart from euthanasia, Planned Parenthood takes care of it all: from contraception to child castration.

Protestant culture

No At the beginning of the 16th century, a German monk decided that each man should use his own intellect to interpret the Bible: a set of texts selected, edited, interpreted and translated from different languages ​​over a mountain of centuries. While the Church had an authority with a face – the Pope – Protestants decided that the only authority is the Bible. It would be enough to read the Bible, and each man, with his Reason, would understand nothing less than the Divine Word. But it turns out that each one read and understood in a different way, so it didn’t take long for the Protestants to grapple with multiple sects, each with its special chief who had, indeed, read the Bible and understood it correctly.

The Vatican recognized and recognizes the different interpretive possibilities and the variety of theological currents. He therefore had a better understanding of human nature than the Protestants: he knew that we are all limited; that knowledge and morals are collective works of slow construction, bequeathed from generation to generation. According to this view, man must also trust authority, and it would be madness to be guided only by his own judgment.

Now, the most important thing is that no one can say he is better than than others for following the Pope. The Pope is the established authority, the Catholic of any intellectual stature follows him. But what can the Protestant say of another who follows, say, Calvin, because he believes that he was the only mortal to read the Scriptures correctly? If we remove authority and tradition, Reason remains. Finally, the idea remains that every believer who makes good use of Reason thinks like me (Grace plays an important theological role, it’s true. But the lack of Grace serves to easily explain the lack of faith, and not faith. in a Christian religion based on a wrong interpreter of the Bible). If I try to convert an Indian and he doesn’t learn at all, the conclusion becomes legitimate that he is not rational, and therefore not a man.

It is hard not to see the progressive legislators as secular versions of Protestant heretics. They take the same written law as we do and get an interpretation out of their head. By usurpation, they become authority. But they don’t admit it, nor show their face. They swear that it’s all sola scriptura, that they interpreted everything correctly from the constitutional text, etc. They are more rational than you and me. There are more men than you and me. Either we are subraces, or they are Übermenschen.

Breaking taboos

To say that not every man was equally made in the image and likeness of God was to break a taboo of the Catholic Church. Throwing mud at millennial authority, Protestant countries broke all taboos. Thus, when progressivism descended on the United States, it found in that country with a Protestant majority a wide field on which to grow. At first, only the Catholic minority offered organized resistance to Planned Parenthood. As shown by Guilherme de Carvalho, the adherence of evangelicals to the anti-abortion cause is the work of Pastor Francis Schaeffer (1912 – 1912). I mean, it’s a very recent thing. As for anti-racism, it is also a work of the 20th century. Mr. Martin Luther King Jr. he was most responsible for confronting progressivism in the racial field.

Fortunately, such reactions arose. However, it is necessary to register the enormous human cost necessary for this culture to be provoked to the point of reacting. To use a sanitary metaphor (since health seems to be the only value one can appeal to today), it is as if Protestantism had zeroed in on the immune system of a cultural body, and only after serious infections did it create new values ​​to defend itself. We, of Catholic culture, have inherited these values ​​from our cradle.

Rationalist tabula rasa

The idea that Reason is the highest authority leads to its vandalization by those who want to seize power. It is possible for someone to lie by saying that their statements are the voice of reason; but you can’t do the same thing with a flesh-and-blood authority like the Pope or the King. So, after the mystification of Reason, came that of its most prestigious daughter, Science. Now, the voice of Science is what the lacrador journalist says it is. They are not able to point to a flesh and blood authority, and if you disagree with “Science” it is a Untermensch.

It is curious that , in the US, the defense against progressivism comes almost exclusively from religion. There, things became a clash between religion and science: the latter is the monopoly of progressives, the former is based only on Scripture and has no penetration in the intellectual elite. It is a very peculiar situation; in Brazil, irreligiosity only reached the elites with Marxism over the years 70. The AEA colonized import this very peculiar split from the USA and pretend that Newton was an atheist, or that the Big Bang was not proposed by a priest.

At the beginning of the Protestant revolution, abandoning Catholicism implied that all their ancestors were abominable Papists. And so we saw São João, a festival of evident pagan origin, being abolished in part of Protestant Europe, whose converts aimed to purge the traditions cultivated by their more remote ancestors. The Protestant who condemned São João for being pagan is the spiritual father of the militant atheist who, every year, asks: “Did you know that Christmas is pagan??”. The thought that underlies both is that all our daily conduct must be rational and based on factual truth – and that, therefore, deciding at all times what is rational and true is within our reach. It is an eternal invitation to the tabula rasa

scientist that progressivism pushes us to.

Back to top button