First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Boff for her marvelous theological perspective. I really enjoyed it and I have learned many things from what she has said. I would to thank also Dr. Negrao for his sociological perspective. My talk will be more legal and practical in nature, I think.
I would like to concentrate on real issues, things that are happening in Latin America now in terms of religious liberty... I disagree with any statement that establishes that we have arrived at the point where tolerance is the norm. On the contrary, we are facing many threats to religious liberty in Latin America today.
I would like to give you a couple of examples. Many of us are aware of what is happening today in the state of Chiapas. You know that on January 1, 1994, the Sabbathist movement organized a church. They are searching for democracy and changes in their state. This tiny place in Southern Mexico has become the focal point of the world’s attention. Yet few people know that there are profound and terrible problems in terms of religious liberty in Chiapas. In the last thirty years more than 30,000 Evangelicals and Catholics have been evicted from their homeland because of their religious beliefs. There are regular beatings, rapes, and all kinds of human rights abuses in this part of the country and other southern Mexican states because of their beliefs.
I would like to point out also that in most Latin American countries we are still facing problems of intolerance despite the separation of church and state that has taken place since the beginning of the century. The last constitutions that were reformed are Colombia and Paraguay. Yet, despite these very important advances in religious liberty, we face serious problems, not in the theological arena but in the day-to-day practice of religious behavior.
Latin America has a tradition of religious intolerance, and this really hasn’t changed in this century. Many countries separate church and state, in some cases since the 1920s. The last countries to separate church and state are Colombia in 1991 and Paraguay in 1992. As Pedro Moreno said this morning, in Paraguay, the Catholic Church joined 14 other denominations to ask for separation of church and state. It was the perception of the Church that being so tied to the state constituted a great barrier and problem for the fulfillment of the mission of the Church instead of helping. It probably was the reasoning of the Catholic bishops in Paraguay that many dictatorial and authoritarian regimes in Paraguay have used the support of the Church or have called themselves Catholic. This unprecedented move by the Catholic Church changed the constitution of Paraguay. In Latin America, only three countries still maintain this bridge: Bolivia, Argentina, and Costa Rica.
In defending religious liberty, the Rutherford Institute has found that there is a wide range of behavior violating the basic right of religious liberty. This ranges from direct threats and persecution to popular non-evident behaviors that are also contrary to human rights, such as minor or seemingly minor abuses.
I would like to give you a couple of cases from my country Bolivia. We have been facing problems in terms of church property. Two years ago, there was a resolution in the Senate that authorized municipal authorities to create new taxes. Many municipalities started to require operating licenses for non-Catholic churches and, in some cases, for Catholic churches too. This meant that a pastor with a congregation would need to buy and exhibit on his front door a license stating that he has been allowed to work in the same way that a grocery store or a bar needs a license.
We have another case involving the right to give religious assistance to sick people in public hospitals. One day, in every major public hospital in La Paz, big signs appeared stating that any person that does not belong to the Catholic Church is forbidden from entering the hospital facilities to give religious assistance even if they are requesting it. We have now a case involving the Bolivian military. The chief of the army issued a declaration forbidding any non-official religious activity in the facilities of the army all over the country. We are still facing cases like this all over Latin America.
This is not to say that only the Catholic Church is against minority groups in Latin America. The problem is deeper. The problem lies in the tradition of intolerance that we all have in Latin America. I recently received an e-mail with very shocking news. It said that Evangelicals are persecuting or at least discriminating against Catholics in a town in which they are now a majority. They were trying to impose Evangelical education in the public schools; they were trying to force the acceptance of rituals that are tied to the Protestant tradition; and they were trying to remove public officials because they were not Evangelicals.
The problem is not belonging to a majority church. The problem in Latin America is not only legal and cultural. It is a problem in our minds. The problem is that we have a huge challenge before us to understand that religious liberty is a very fundamental right. We must understand that if the minority group—if even one person—for any reason loses their right to believe and to act according to what they believe, then all of us lose something. It is very regrettable to see small churches or minority groups that are asking for big things to lead the masses. It is sad to see people that in the past have experienced problems with the state are now are trying to use the power of the state to impose their views on other minority groups. The problem is that people who used to think that the state shouldn’t be involved in the task of regulating religion are now trying to pass laws that would certainly restrict religious liberty.
Therefore, I think that we are facing a problem that is not only legal, or circumstantial, historically circumstantial. There is a deeper problem that involves our heritage as Latin Americans. It will require a great deal of effort to change our way of thinking.
Speaking of ways of thinking, we are also concerned about the ideas that are beginning to surface on the religious landscape in Latin America concerning religious liberty. We all know that ideas have consequences. There is a whole movement to say that ideas are only theoretical, but ideas are very related to facts and reality. There has been a paradigm shift in the traditional church of our continent. We have all heard that the Second Vatican Council made a very important step toward the respect of religious liberty. Several people have quoted declaration Dignitatis Humanae concerning religious liberty. It certainly is a meaningful document, and it is very important to understand freedom of religion in the second half of our century not only in Latin America but the world. However, something is going on in Latin America. It seems that there are such sharp differences between Latin American Catholics and other Catholics of the world.
I have in my hand the Declaration of Santo Domingo issued by the General Conference of Catholic Bishops that took place in Santo Domingo in 1992. This document is very interesting. It has many interesting points concerning evangelization and the openness to dialogue with non-Christian religions, such as Afro-American and indigenous religions. This sets a base to further dialogue and understanding in our continent.
However, it is quite surprising that there is a special treatment toward fundamentalist cults, which are Christian-oriented fundamentalist cults. The declaration says that the problem of the cults has acquired dramatic proportion and has become a very serious issue especially considering the increasing need for facilities. The general direction of this is that somehow we are going to dialogue with people that practice Afro-American or indigenous religions, but we are not going to talk with fundamentalist Christian religions.
To me, this is a problematic paradigm shift that needs to be addressed and solved. The solution, of course, requires the participation of all of us. There are some reasons why these kinds of declarations, not only from the Catholic Church but from Protestants and other religious groups in Latin America, state the belief that steps must be taken to prevent new groups from proselytizing and working.
There are some things that are at once points of confusion and concern in Latin America. Certainly while we recognize the value of spirituality and the importance of spiritual belief and practice—I have been impressed by many of the remarks that I have heard in this conference, not only from these speakers but declarations and remarks and dialogues I have had here—the issue of some abuses that some people or some groups in some circumstances may exert upon the population are points of contention and points of concern. It seems that our states are more interested in controlling religion because of some excesses that are taking place—excesses such as groups that exert unnecessary stress upon their followers.
There is a problem concerning the way the Catholic Church is gathering funds and how they are using them. There is a wide range of accusations against religious groups. We must be smart enough to separate truth from fiction. While some accusations may be fabricated or exaggerated just to hurt people or to falsely discredit religions, we should admit that some things that are said of both minority and majority groups in Latin America might be true. For example, excessive zeal for our church, or excessive zeal to defend our liturgy or to defend our way of celebrating the religious ceremonies and other things like that.
There are problems concerning the use of the media. If the media says that certain religious groups are dangerous "cults," or if people are told that a leader is the Anti-Christ, no matter if he is the leader of millions of followers; if we start saying that—then this group has to be controlled by the state. If we work as people of faith against other people of faith, then we are losing control. We are losing self-government, and we are losing the capacity for dialogue and mutual understanding. When this self-control is lost, the government becomes not only the government of the state; it becomes the government of the self, the family, the community, and the church. If, in this basic self-government, we lose control, then we lose the possibility of dialogue and consensus. Then the state’s role interrupts. More often than not, government officials are ready to step in and say what is bad and what is good about certain religious groups.
In Bolivia, we have a case involving the Methodist church. The Methodists had a dispute over who was the real bishop of the church. Of course, this also involves property and possessions. In addition to spiritual issues, there are economic consequences and implications. The Supreme Court was ready to appoint the real bishop. We thought that was wrong and argued that the state has no business choosing the real bishop.
If we lose control, we don’t find ways to arrange our disputes that have legitimacy. A person’s beliefs have to mean something to that person. If the truth is nothing, if the truth is not the whole truth, then somehow we are diluting the essence of religion. The idea is how to make compatible this idea of truth and the way I think things should be. All people of faith from all walks of life in a democratic state need to be respected and need to be able to express their religious beliefs.
Finally there is a famous parable. It was written by Martin Niemüeller, a Lutheran pastor in Nazi Germany.
He wrote that when the Nazis came for the trade union leaders, I wasn’t a trade union leader so I stayed quiet.
When the Nazis came for the Communists, I wasn’t a Communist, so I said nothing. When they came for the Catholics,
I wasn’t Catholic, so I didn’t say anything. But when they came for me, there wasn’t anyone to speak on behalf
of me.
ICRF Brazil Conference Index
International Coalition for Religious Freedom