Unfortunately, the positivist mark translated in the statement “Lay State is synonymous with atheist state?it’s still strong in our country. Even the holders of a Christian denomination of faith believe in the misconception that denominationalism cannot interfere with education. It is important to know the developments of the secular state and how our legal system deals with the issue of religious education.
In fact, our legislator understands the importance of religious education in setting up human thought; we go further: the legislator not only understands, but recognizes the primary function of religious education, which is linked to religious sentiment, and which recalls all the acts that the Christian religion has occurred in the construction of Western civilization. In short, we have three important reasons to defend the validity and legality of religious education: because it is an expression of faith, because freedom of belief is a fundamental right, and for all the intellectual and moral contributions that religion has offered and continues to offer to men and women.
- It is never too important to remember that the Brazilian lay State is based on the dignity of the human person.
- Legality and legal certainty.
- Seeking the common good of its jurisdictions.
- Meeting its basic needs.
- Such as security and justice.
- Another fundamental human need is the search for spirituality and transcendence.
- Which is not provided by the secular state.
- But recognized by it as fundamental to the fullness of the dignity of the human person of his subjects.
And the Brazilian Constitution expresses the need for the curriculum presence of religious education, recognizing the importance of the spiritual order of the individual. The constitutional text reads:
210. Se a minimum content of primary education will be established to ensure common basic training and respect for cultural and artistic, national and regional values. Religious education, with optional enrollment, will be the discipline of normal public elementary school schedules.
Religious education is encompassed in what the doctrine calls rex mixtae [1], which are the subjects in which ecclesiastical authority and civil power have interest and competence. In this aspect of the human person, both the Church and the State have the right to intervene, both in search of the common good, the first in transcendent order, the second in the immanent.
Marcos Soler concludes
When it established the possibility of religious education in public schools, the state did not seek to interfere with individual freedom of belief, but as Anna Candida da Cunha Ferraz said, “sought to attribute affirmative action to the state to provide students in public schools with the effective realization of freedom of religion in all its forms of expression?[2]
Religious education in public schools is not at odds with the principle of secularism, as both authorities (public and ecclesiastical) have a legitimate interest in the formation of the human person, so religious education is fundamental in public schools, never forgetting the possibility of excuse. conscience, as the constitutional text itself establishes when using the term “optional registration”.
It should be noted that the confessional choice of each person is strictly intimate and private, constitutionally guaranteed by religious freedom, preventing, in any sphere, both governmental and private, the imposition of a certain belief or point of view contrary to it. In these cases, the person will raise a conscientious objection, arising from the teaching or the point of view that confronts his faith, in any case, or even the absence of it, being that, as far as possible and necessary, fulfilling an alternative provision.
The famous professor Jorge Miranda taught at a conference held in the Brazilian federal capital [3], which was later converted into an article in the Revista do Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público, which there is no contradiction between the teaching of religion and morality in public. schools and the rule of non-confessionality of public education, is because the non-confessionality of public education refers to non-identification with any religion, that is, that the state cannot and should not impose any religion, but must allow everything, in freedom and equality.
It should be noted that religious education in public elementary schools is governed by federal law establishing the Guidelines and Fundamentals of National Education, Law No. 9. 394 / 96:
Article 33. – Religious education, with optional registration, is an integral part of the basic education of the citizen and constitutes a discipline in the usual hours of public primary schools, guaranteeing respect for Brazilian religious cultural diversity, prohibiting any form of proselytism.
Indeed, the Brazilian State, in adopting collaborative secularism (art. 19, I, of CRFB / 88), acts with benevolent neutrality in the face of the religious phenomenon, since its constitutional state, of Judeo-Christian formation, is founded if and above all, it is based on the dignity of the human person. Thus, it ensures and guarantees the free manifestation of faith, intimately linked to the dignity of the human being and his secular action together with the religious phenomenon.
The relevance of this issue is enormous, so much so that clauses 18 and 12, respectively, of the International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant of San José de Costa Rica, guarantee religious education and guarantee parents the right to teach their beliefs. moral and religious beliefs of their children [4].
Article 18 [?] 4. Do States Parties to this Covenant undertake to respect the freedom of parents and, if necessary, legal guardians?To provide children with a religious and moral education according to their own beliefs [5].
Article 12 [?] 4. Parents, and where appropriate guardians, have the right to provide their children or students with a religious and moral education according to their own beliefs [6].
It should be recalled the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 4,439 DF, decided by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in 2017, that in plenary, by a majority (6 x 5), ministers understood that religious education in Brazilian public schools could be confessional.
The interdependence and complementarity of the notions of lay state and freedom of belief and worship are basic premises for the interpretation of the religious teaching of optional inscription provided for by the Federal Constitution, since the subject attains his own freedom of expression of thought in the light of tolerance. and diversity of opinions. ? [7]
This set of information highlights two important points: should the construction of the law not be proclaimed in the democratic rule of law, an achievement for all Brazilians, only when appropriate?And that is the great problem of those who insist on spreading an atheus teaching for all children: the law is remembered only when it is appropriate.
Secondly, the need to abandon this atheal heritage athes that has been silently pushed to us and which can affect the education of our children. The Christian Tradition has brought us a collection of contributions, and the legislator recognizes the legality of the parents’ desire that their children receive such an education, not the State being the figure of interference, on the contrary, its function is to make it viable.
This article contains parts extracted with permission from the book: Religious Law: Practical and Theoretical Issues / Thiago Rafael Vieira and Jean Marques Regina. 2nd ed. Rev. ampl. ? Porto Alegre: Concerdia, 2019.
[1] DALLA TORRE, Giuseppe. Question scolastica nei reporti fra stato e chiesa. Bologna: Patron, 1989, p. 34-37 [2] SOLER, Mark. The Church and Brazilian law?An analysis of the laws and their application in the life of the churches. Sao Paulo: LTr, 2010. Op. Cit. , P. 124 [3] Conference given in Brasilia on June 18, 2011, at the Seminar on “Lay State and Religious Freedom”, promoted by the National Council of Justice. [4] Article 5 of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief provides for the same protection [5]. Available at: [6] Available at: [7] SUPREMO COURT FEDERAL. Direct action of unconstitutionality 4,439 Federal District. Available in: