Discurso religioso como projeto político do chefe do poder executivo: exercício à liberdade de expressão ou afronta ao estado laico?

Abstract

The scope of the present work is to verify if the religious discourses used by the heads of the executive branch as a political project fall within the fundamental right to religious freedom or in patent affront to the Secular State. In this sense, the objective pursued is to determine whether state secularity is properly fulfilled in political rhetoric, considering the vertiginous rise of Christian religious discourses in national politics. The deductive method is used, analyzing the theme based on the general rule for specific cases. The hypothesis defended consists of the notion that the candidate for an elective mandate and, consequently, the political representative is not constitutionally legitimate to carry out his campaign, as well as to exercise his mandate with a speech / argument that favors a certain religion. At first, the historical roots of the relationship between the state and religion and the consequences that reverberate around the world are analyzed. The association between State and religion in Brazil is the result of a long process that has followed the country's history since the 16th century. In many moments in history, the Church has functioned as an instrument of social, political and cultural domination. Subsequently, religious freedom is widely explored, from its concept and characteristics to national and international standards that are intended for its protection. The Secular State is then approached under the bias of John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, Chantal Mouffe and Marcelo Neves. It addresses the process of secularization arising from modernization and the understanding of the secularity theoretically enshrined in the Federal Constitution and its practical effectiveness. In the last chapter the discursive theory is thoroughly investigated under the approaches of Michel Foucault, Michel Pêcheux, Jugen Habermas, Chantal Mouffe and Laclau in order to identify whether the speeches given in the political arena when delivered by the elective mandate holders need to conform to the principle of state secularism. The legitimacy of the religious speeches made by candidates and those with an elective mandate to the head of the executive in the three federative spheres in relation to the principles of religious freedom, state secularism and the democratic regime itself is analyzed and presents the conclusions about the hypothesis raised, risks arising from linking religion and politics.