As Teacher and Colleague Natammy Bonissoni teaches,
Countless conflicts, clashes and controversies have been fought for one goal: freedom The term freedom, which currently has political, economic and legal connotations, has been reinforced by the emergence of the state whose focus was the individual and the enjoyment of their freedoms. that, on the basis of the idea of formal equality, sought to ensure that all men, free and equal, established their relationships through minimal state interference [1].
- We cannot forget that the freedoms of the individual have always been the engine of a healthy relationship between the State and its jurisdictions.
The pursuit of freedom necessarily implies the relationship of the individual with the State. The liberals of the centuries. The 18th and 19th centuries, for example, normally believed that the state was the main threat to freedom, while many in the 20th century began to see the state as the main promoter of freedom [2].
Among the countless individual freedoms protected by the State are freedoms of belief and worship, enshrined in the constitutional title of fundamental rights and guarantees, specifically in article five, points VI and VII, and are the protection of freedom of conscience and expression of religious. Freedom.
Freedom of belief is the guarantee that every citizen, Brazilian or not, has to choose to profess the religion of his choice and, for freedom of conscience, not choose it. Freedom of worship results from the free exercise of religious worship and its liturgies, as well as religious assistance in civil and military entities of collective detention and the freedom of temples from any worship to organize. In the words of José Afonso da Silva, freedom of religion encompasses the inviolability of beliefs, the protection of freedom of religion and its liturgies, and freedom of religious organization. [
These fundamental freedoms are essential to the Brazilian democratic state, instituted by its people, as seen earlier in the constitutional preamble item. institutions, which can only be effective once in a constitutional state The great philosopher Robert Alexy teaches:
Fundamental rights and human rights are indispensable institutes for democracy, that is, they are founding norms of the democratic state and their violation de-characterizes the democratic regime itself, anyone who is also interested in democracy and, necessarily, fundamental and human rights. The true meaning and importance of this argument lies in those who primarily address human and fundamental rights as creators of the procedures and institutions of democracy, and it is clear that this discourse can only take place in a democratic constitutional state, in which fundamental rights and democracy, among all tensions, form an inseparable partnership.
The San José Pact of Costa Rica? The American Convention on Human Rights (1969) also enshrines the same guarantee in Article 12, which was in force in Brazil after its accession on 25 September 1992:
The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) concludes in Article 9:
Professor J. J. Canotilho, quoting G. Jellinek, teaches, in the same line defended above, that the struggle for religious freedom was the true origin of fundamental rights!Let’s see what the teacher says:
This defense of religious freedom postulated at least the idea of religious tolerance and the state prohibition of imposing an intimate forum of the believer on an official religion, so some authors, such as G. Jellinek, even see the struggle for freedom of religion as the true origin of fundamental rights [5].
Professor Manoel Gonoalves Ferreira Filho teaches that one of the main causes of the emergence of fundamental principles, including the dignity of the human person, is derived from the religious order and, more specifically, from Christian dogmas and the farthest biblical teachings, corroborating the above. statement on the Judeo-Christian influence of our constitutional state.
The fundamental cause of the recognition of natural and intangible rights in favor of the individual, immediately derived from human nature, is philosophical-religious; religious because it derives, without leaps, Christian dogmas; the fundamental equality of nature among all men, created in the image and likeness of God, the fundamental freedom to do good or not, is derived from the farthest biblical teachings [6].
In this sense, Natammy LA Bonissoni [7] corroborates this understanding by concluding that the historical and legal advance of the right to religious freedom, encouraged by Christian dogmas, through its values and principles put into practice through its followers, It has not only influenced rights, but, as Alexis de Tocqueville said, it has also provided moral standards for the development of democracy in the United States. , a reference for different nations.
It is clear that the religious freedom enshrined in the Republican Charter is of particular importance in the Brazilian constitutional state, especially in the establishment and maintenance of the democratic and lay state and the supreme values of a fraternal, pluralistic and non-prejudiced society that it pursues. To ensure its full and effective implementation, there are several legal provisions in the dispersed Brazilian legislation, as we can see in the following chapters of this book.
Finally, it is essential that society recognizes the inspiration of its formation and expresses it publicly, either through national, state or municipal religious festivals, or through monuments or even religious symbols in the public space, always with other religious traditions in the same audience. space It is the ultimate expression of religious freedom. Maritain concludes:
Such a society must be aware of the faith that inspired it, express it publicly. It is clear, in fact, that for every people, this public expression of a common faith would preferably take the forms of this religious denomination to which the history and traditions of that people were more closely linked, but should other institutionally recognized religious denominations also participate in this public expression, as is the case in the United States today?and would also be represented on national councils, so that they could defend their own rights and freedoms, cooperating with the common task. As for citizens who did not belong to any religious confession, they would only have to understand that the political body as a whole would have the same freedom of public expression of its own faith, because they were, as individuals, free to express their own non-religious convictions [8].
Religious freedom strengthens and protects individuality, as it guarantees the free exercise of each person’s creed, resulting in an environment in which differences are respected, thus constituting the safe of the democratic rule of law. “Professor Janauna Paschoal, with surgical precision, concludes:
Religious freedom honors, reinforces, individuality, which has nothing to do with individualism. Individuality promotes respect for difference; Individualism deals with worship of oneself, to the detriment of the other. As already said, there is nothing more individual than how to connect with the Creator. Standardization annihilates this individuality. In a lay and therefore plural state, personal, religious, agnostic, anti-religious and atheist beliefs abound. In the atheist state, where the intention is to standardize, these convictions are suffocated [9].
?
[1] BONISSONI, Natammy Luana de Aguiar. The impossibility of maintaining a secular multicultural environment. Thesis. UNIVALI and UNIPG. Available in:. Consulted on: 17 apr. 2018. [2] KOYZIS, David T. Political Visions and Illusions: A Christian Analysis and Critique of Contemporary Ideologies. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 2014, p. 51. [3] SILVA, José Afonso da. Positive constitutional law course. 19. ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2001, p. 251. [4] ALEXY, Robert. Law, reason, speech, studies of philosophy of law. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2009, p. 130-131. [5] CANOTILHO, J. J. Gomes. Constitutional right. Coimbra: Almedina, 1993, p. 503. [6] FERREIRA FILHO, Manoel Gonçalves. Constitutional law course. 22nd ed. , Current. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1995, p. 248. [7] BONISSONI, Natammy Luana de Aguiar. The impossibility of maintaining a secular multicultural environment. Thesis. UNIVALI and UNIPG. Available in:. Consulted on: 17 apr. 2018. [8] MARITAIN, Jacques. Man and State. Rio de Janeiro: Law of 1966, p. 168-169. [9] PASCHOAL, Janaína Conceição. Religion and criminal law? Interfaces on seemingly distant topics. Sao Paulo: LiberArs, 2018, p. 69.