Union, States, Federal District and Commons prohibited: I?Establish religious cults or churches, subsidize them, hinder their functioning, or maintain relationships of dependence or alliance with them or their representatives, unless, as required by law, collaboration of interests; (Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Brazil of 1988)
The development of the concept of the lay state as a modern fact depends fundamentally on Christianity, which has its roots in the reformed movement of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: the reformer Joo Calvino, for example, affirmed the distinction between the spiritual and the spiritual. political sphere as follows: “We must consider each of these things in oneself, according to what we distinguish them: independently of each other. “[1] For Calvin, there are specific laws governing each of these areas; each of these kingdoms is formed by God to govern different aspects of life.
- At that time.
- Papal power maintained a dual.
- Political and religious mandate; It was the reformers who did question this union.
- They understood that God is sovereign in both terms.
- But the two are different in treating different aspects of society.
Moreover, the reformist movement played a decisive role in the future formation of modern republican democracies, such as England and the United States, as a totalitarian government seeks to unite the two spheres of power (spiritual and political), transforming the state into religion, separating these powers is one of the great obstacles to totalitarianism, so Christianity will always be a great enemy of dictatorships and totalitarian governments.
Brazil is a country with a strong Christian majority, our constitution recognizes it by declaring that it was enacted “under the protection of God”. This expression has a great historical basis, but it must be recognized that there is a theological-philosophical explanation. Behind that.
It was precisely the worshipers of the Christian God who ensured the freedoms enumerated in the constitution. Only in a society influenced by a worldview that believes in a personal, trinitarian and distinct God of nature is it possible to glimpse the absolute moral aspects. who govern this society, regardless of direct relationship with that God.
That is, the concepts of dignity of life, democracy and secularism as we know them are based on the notion of a humanity created with an inherent dignity, morally free and plural, there is no need to believe in the Christian God to profit. of this society, but once its foundations are removed, the consequence will be its ruin.
For this reason, the illustrious jurist Dr. Ives Gandra Martins precisely defined: “A lay state is a state in which religious and political institutions are separated, but it is not a state in which only those without religion have the right to manifest themselves It is not a state in which every religious manifestation must be fought, so as not to hurt the sensitivity of those who do not believe in God [2].
In his book The Totalitarian Imagination, the philosopher Francisco Razzo considers that totalitarian imagination culminates in the ultimate desire to glorify the power of the state as a monopoly not on the legitimate use of violence, but on the symbolic monopoly of absolute truth and immortality, therefore, the ultimate experience of the final order and, therefore, of the decision of life and death?[3].
The origin of this lies in the belief in the autonomy of reason, which presupposes that it is capable of facing reality with neutrality and independence from religious beliefs [4]. This so-called reason will have the State as its maximum manifestation and, therefore, the State will be the maximum expression of society, it will be the only one capable of granting the individual their freedoms, so they must intervene in the family, business relationships, education and other institutions, such as the (supposedly) rational criterion that gives meaning and coherence to the whole of society [5].
This is exactly what happens in so-called secularism, when religion is re-eded to privacy and the state is not only non-religious, but must also restrict public religious manifestations. , for the state, is treated negatively, so it has no public space. This secularism, inherited from the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, parents of all the totalitarian governments of modernity, applies in France.
In Brazil, on the other hand, the value of religion is recognized for the individual and for the very foundation of the State; not for nothing can Christian symbols be found in public office, in recognition that the Brazilian state is indebted to the Christian religion. None of this affects the secularism adopted by Brazil, because religious manifestation is not only a citizen right, but also an aspect of humanity.
This is attested by article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to worship, even if it specifies that worship should never belong to the State; otherwise, the State may, where it deems appropriate, establish an alliance of collaboration with the religious. public interest groups. This means that churches can be heard to help the state manage certain areas.
Is? The government of humility is fundamental to the distinction between state and church, in fact, the state would not overlap with ecclesiastical institutions, families, commercial relations, etc. , on the contrary, the state is a different sphere of sovereignty (to use the concept of the Dutch Shepherd Abraham Kuyper), administered by its own laws, like other institutions.
The recent discussion on prayer included in President-elect Jair Messias Bolsonaro’s First Speech Act [6] should take into account religious freedom and freedom of expression, even for a public figure. Prayer does not affect the secularism of the State; On the contrary, he guarantees this by proving that he, the president-elect, is subject to God and attached to the truth of his Word, Bolsonaro alludes to his commitment to democracy, justice and the well-being of the citizen. In prayer, the President-elect defines the state as one of the institutions of society, but not the most important.
?
[1] CALVINO, Joo, Institutes. 3. XIX. 15. [2] Available at: https://www. conjur. com. br/2012-nov-26/ives-gandra-estado-laico-nao-estado-ateu [3] RAZZO, Francisco. Totalitarian imagination: the dangers of politics as hope. Sao Paulo: Record, 2016, p. 241. [4] For a rebuttal of this belief, see DOOYEWEERD, Herman, Twilight of Western Thought. Brasilia: Monergismo, 2018. [5] For more information, see DOOYEWEERD, Herman, State and Sovereignty: Essays on Christianity and Politics, Sao Paulo: Vida Nova, 2014, p. 39-96. [6] Available in: https://www. revistaforum. com. br/cria-um-pouco-de-preocupacao-diz-miriam-leitao-sobre-oracao-de-bolsonaro/