Sword or Shield? The Role of Inclusive Secularism as a Means of Building Peace

Dear representatives of IF20 and PaRD, attendees, colleagues, and friends,

I would like to express my joy at participating in this important event. It is an honor for me. I am a Professor at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA) and a technical advisor at the General Coordination for the Promotion of Religious Freedom (CGLIB), within the Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship (MDHC).

In the summary of this plenary, it is rightly stated that polarization and misunderstanding are elements that contribute to violence and social conflict. Based on this diagnosis, the purpose of this plenary is to discuss the best available practices to address these challenges.

My proposal here is to discuss state secularism as a possible path to avoid worsening polarization and to promote a culture of peace. Therefore, I intend to propose the following reflection for debate: depending on the type of secularism we embrace, we can either contribute to exacerbating polarization or, on the other hand, promote cohesive and peaceful societies.

Secularism = Laïcité

To facilitate communication, especially with our friends who are not familiar with the concept of “laïcité,” when I use the expression “state secularism,” I am referring, mutatis mutandis [Ed: with necessary adjustments], to the “secular state” or secularism.

Secularism: Sword or Shield?

To address my topic, I would like to present a metaphor in the form of a question: Should secularism be a sword or a shield?

As you know, a sword was used by gladiators; it is a weapon of attack. If secularism were a “sword,” it would mean that it is used to attack, suppress, or eliminate religion and its manifestations from society. Secularism as a sword is one that attempts to exclude religion from the public sphere. On the other hand, a shield is a tool of defense, used for protection.When it is said that secularism is a “shield,” this indicates that it is not used to attack religions but to protect them, ensuring and safeguarding religious freedom and belief while defending the public space from any fundamentalist religious imposition.

Therefore, in light of this metaphor, secularism should be understood as a way to protect the freedom of religion and belief rather than being used to combat or suppress religion. Secularism should be seen as a mechanism for protecting individual freedoms, especially the freedom of religion and belief, rather than as a tool of repression against religion. Secularism as a shield aligns with human rights.

Secularism as a shield is a mechanism of functional separation between the state and religions while at the same time recognizing the importance of religion in the public sphere as long as it does not interfere with the state’s neutrality.

And What About the Brazilian Case? Is Brazilian Secularism a Sword or a Shield?

Brazilian society, like many others, is becoming increasingly plural and multicultural, which presents the challenge of coexisting with differences and promoting a culture of peace.

Brazil adopts secularism as a shield. This type of secularism is enshrined in the 1988 Federal Constitution, particularly in the following articles:

• Article 5, item VI: “Freedom of conscience and belief is inviolable, with the free exercise of religious practices being ensured, and the protection of places of worship and their liturgies guaranteed, as provided by law.”
• Article 19, item I: “The Union, the States, the Federal District, and the Municipalities are prohibited from establishing religious cults or churches, subsidizing them, obstructing their operation, or maintaining relations of dependency or alliance with them or their representatives, except in the form of collaboration for public interest, as provided by law.”

There are several principles that outline and characterize the type of Brazilian secularism. I will highlight just three:

1. Separation and autonomy between the state and religions or beliefs.
2. Collaboration: the possibility of cooperation between the state and religious organizations for the promotion of the common good.
3. Equal treatment and non-discrimination for all creeds and religious confessions.

Therefore, Brazilian secularism, as established by the Constitution, promotes an environment of plurality and respect for diverse beliefs and the absence of belief, ensuring that everyone has the right to freely practice their faith or choose not to follow any religion, without interference or repression by the state.

In summary, Brazilian secularism is characterized by a balanced relationship between the state and religions, where separation and collaboration coexist to ensure religious freedom and respect for diversity while the state maintains its neutrality and limits its intervention in religious matters.

This does not mean that we do not face significant challenges and problems:

• The effective implementation of this right;
• Addressing discrimination, prejudice, and intolerance based on religion and belief.

Final Considerations

My argument here is that the type of secularism a state embraces can either be a source of reconciliation between the state and religions or can become a polarizing element that contributes little to peacebuilding. In other words, militant secularism (as a sword), deeply anti-religious, can exacerbate social fractures, contributing more to polarization than to fraternity, harmony, and social peace.

I am convinced that, legally speaking, Brazil can be considered a good example of secularism that promotes peacebuilding, harmony, and respect. Brazil understands that religious organizations can contribute to the promotion of the common good. Therefore, a state that adopts a radical secularist (militant) conception can worsen social problems. On the other hand, if the state allows itself to be captured by certain religious groups or particular beliefs, whether religious or materialistic, it tends to worsen social fractures.

A secular state, equidistant from the extremes (of religious and non-religious groups), that respects human dignity and, based on this, respects human rights while paying special attention to vulnerable groups, is a state capable of promoting peace and social cohesion.

When the state uses the principles of secularism, respecting human dignity, in harmony with human rights, and having religious communities as partners in promoting the common good, with profound equality of treatment, we are faced with a good concept of secularism. We are faced with a state that does not use secularism as a sword, but rather as a shield.

Thank you.