7. The Relationship Between Religion and State in Brazilian Law

There is no language uniformity in the international debate over the relations between State and religion. In English speaking countries is usual the use of the words secularism and secularity to express the separation of government and society from religious institutions and dogmas, or, more broadly speaking, the progressive loss of social influence by religions (HUACO 2008, 46). The terms laicism and laicity are more commonly used in Europe, Africa and Latin America to define the institutional and legal dimension of the secularization phenomena. In Latin American scholarship, the expression laicism (laicismo), is used to refer to a militant kind of laicitè: hostile or indifference towards religion in the public sphere. Laicity, on the other hand, expresses state institutional neutrality towards complex and heterogeneous social structures, open to the growing demands related to religious liberty and pluralism (HUACO 2008, 47). In this report, I will use the expression secularism to refer to the regulative ideal of state neutrality, institutional separation, secular justification of law and prohibition of state confessionalism. The expression laicism is used only in reference to the constitutional text of the first Republican Constitution (1891), to stress its singularity.

As Machado (1996) points out, the concept of religion must be reasonably open and dense, so it can answer the demands for state neutrality in a pluralist and democratic society.

As coined by Walter Ceneviva, see Martel 2007; also, Leite 2008, for whom Brazil is more of an agnostic country.

The struggle for legal recognition of Afro-Brazilian religious groups has a long story of persecutions and discrimination. These groups face innumerous difficulties to be qualified as religions. For example, most of the Umbanda and Candomblé temples (called terreiros) do not obtain tax exemptions due to the difficulty of proving their religious status by their ministers. Recently, a federal judge delivered a very criticized decision in which it was argued that “Afro-Brazilian cults do not constitute religions”. A few days later, under strong public disapproval and great media attention, the judge modified the content of the decision (Ação Civil Pública 2014.51.01.004747-2 – JFRJ). Spiritism, differently, faced less hostility in the public sphere. Scholars pointed out that this group has been less vulnerable to state repression in the past. Moreover, they were entitled to benefits legally conceded to ordinary religious associations (Giumbelli 2008). Nevertheless, some spiritist centers prefer not to register themselves as religious associations.