Justice prohibits reading of the Bible in City Hall

The São Paulo Court of Justice prohibited Araçatuba City Council councilors from reading the Bible at the beginning of sessions and using the phrase “under the protection of God. The decision responds to a request by the São Paulo Public Prosecutor’s Office that questioned the constitutionality of statements made at the beginning of legislative sessions such as “under the protection of God, we begin our work”.

By resolution of the City Council of Araçatuba, in addition to the initial expression, it is stated that the president of the session will designate a councilor, registered in alphabetical order, to read a text from the Bible for a time of up to three minutes at the beginning of the work.

According to the MP, the act of reading a biblical passage in the legislature “frontally contradicts the Constitution of the State of São Paulo and the principle of secularity of the Brazilian State”. The body also cites what is provided for in art. 19 of the Federal Constitution, which prohibits “establishing religious cults or churches, subsidizing them, hindering their functioning or maintaining dependency relationships with them or their representatives”.

“The expression used in the City Council of Araçatuba leaves no doubt that it is an obligation that honors Brazilians whose faith recognizes the Holy Bible as a fundamental document and that praises the Churches founded in its respect. Therefore, the attacked normative device portrays a relationship of association, of pact, of alliance with the churches and religions guided by the Holy Bible, as well as with Brazilians who profess such beliefs”, explains the MP.

The MP also points out that it is not for the public power to “create preferences for religions or churches, praising one of the many existing beliefs in the country, if it makes any mention of other creeds or philosophies that may be equally important to other citizens”.

In the request, the MP also recalled a position of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) regarding ADPF 54, of 2012, where Minister Marco Aurélio highlighted that “Brazil is a secular republic, appearing absolutely neutral in relation to religions”. The mention of secularism was used by the minister, at the time of the trial, to question the position of the church against the abortion of anencephalic children.

When judging the MP’s request, the rapporteur of the case at the TJSP, Judge Vianna Cotrim, considered the resolution of the City Council unconstitutional. According to Contrim, the CF adopts “secularity as a principle intended to maintain a rigorous separation and autonomy between politics and religion”. Therefore, he points out that “the Chamber of Araçatuba cannot manifest affiliation to a certain religion, to the detriment of the countless other existing ones”.

The decision for unconstitutionality was unanimous in the court and was handed down in May of this year, and has already become final. As the judgment is retroactive, no more recourse. Other city councils such as Piracicaba, Araras, Itapecerica da Serra and Catanduva have already received the same decision from the São Paulo court, as stated in the petition.

Repercussion and confusion about the definition of secularism

The decision of the São Paulo court was criticized by religious associations and pastors. Pastor Marcelo Toschi, leader of the Church of Love and Care, highlighted in a video on social networks that “it is precisely because of secularism that we have freedom of religious expression”. He also highlighted that the Constitution of Brazil was built on biblical precepts and values, and that “this restriction occurs in a nation where more than 80% of the population is Christian”.

When questioned about the prohibition of reading the Bible, by the justice, the Brazilian Institute of Law and Religion (IBDR) reinforced an opinion given in a similar decision, in the Chamber of Itapecerica da Serra. According to the IBDR, the court’s decision “completely disregards Collaborative Secularity, that is, that collaboration is allowed in pursuit of the common good within what we call a collaborative secular State”.

“Our Constitution protects the free expression of beliefs precisely because it recognizes the high value of the transcendent and spiritual element intrinsic to the human being and necessary for the formation of the individual and society, which is why, for example, its Constitution was enacted under the protection of God, religious education is optional in elementary school, and can even be denominational (ADI 4439)”, emphasizes the IBDR.

In the opinion, the IBDR also highlighted the difference between secularism and secularism, in order to show that they are words that should not be confused. According to the institute, “Brazilian constitutional secularity places the State not only in the position of observer of religious freedom, but as a true guarantor and collaborator of the most varied expressions of faith”. While “state secularism has the explicit objective of removing religiosity from any public space”.

Chamber of Araçatuba tried to argue

When contesting the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, the Chamber of Araçatuba reinforced that a Secular State does not mean a “State without religion” and argued that the rite of invoking the protection of God reproduces a text quoted in the preamble of the Federal Constitution.

In the defense, the Chamber also highlighted judicial decisions that considered the request for the removal of crucifixes in courts to be unfounded. “The National Council of Justice itself understood that the tradition of society guarantees that there is a permanent exhibition of symbols representing ideas inserted in the culture of the population”, explained the legislative attorney in the action.

The Chamber attorney also reinforced that the same understanding of religious symbols should apply to the reading of a biblical passage at the beginning of the session. “There are people who can be touched at that moment, for others the reading will not make the slightest difference, but we will continue to live under the cloak of religious freedom, what we cannot accept is that hearing people are forced to accept the content of the words read! Then we would invade your sphere of freedoms!”, He adds.

The arguments presented by the City Council were overturned by the case’s rapporteur. With the declaration of unconstitutionality and after receiving the judgment, the Chamber of Araçatuba informed that it will no longer use the phrase “under the protection of God” and will no longer do biblical readings in the opening rite of legislative sessions. The legislative house is in parliamentary recess and returns to ordinary meetings on August 7th.