Secular State and Religious Education in Public Schools: The Brazilian Case

Abstract

The present work is about religion classes in the elementary schools of the Brazilian public education system, a controversial topic since the 1988 Federal Constitution first enlists it in Article 210. Even though the enrollment in the religious education class is optional, the classes are conducted on regular school hours, according to what the constitutional text determines, as an expression of the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Apart from the Constitution, there are also statutes that regulate religion teaching. That is precisely the case of the National Education Guidelines Act (federal statute n. 9394/1996), which ensures respect for religious and cultural diversity and prohibits any form of proselytism. Article 33 of such statute establishes that each State should determine the content of the religious education classes, as well as set the rules for the admission of teachers. The treaty signed by Brazil and the Holy See in 2008 also deals with religious education. Article 11 of the treaty allows for both catholic and other religions education classes. The Attorney General challenged all these statutes in the Supreme Court. In 2010, it filed an Action of Unconstitutionality, alleging that the statutes in regard to religious education classes in public schools violate Article 19 of the 1988 Federal Constitution, which defines Brazil as a secular State. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Justice, by a majority, dismissed the case, deeming the Action of Unconstitutionality devoid of legal grounds, and ruled that the government, observing the binomial State secularity (CF, Section 19,I)/acknowledgment of religious freedom (CF, Section 5th, VI), shall act in full regulation of compliance with the constitutional provision set forth in Section 210, §1st, authorizing the public school system, under equal conditions (CF, Article 5th, caput), to offer religious education of various beliefs by means of formal requirements previously set by the Brazilian Ministry of Education. The anxiety generated by the case depicts the dynamic religious pluralism that exists in Brazil, and exposes the dispute for the public arena, in a polarized environment in which fundamentalism speeches are not uncommon. The text concludes that as long as the Government is not excessively involved, neither confessional nor nonconfessional religious classes violate the Constitution.