Back to home

Friday October 26, 2007

Defending the separation of Church and State defends a Christian principle, says a Baptist lawyer.

Claudia Florentín, BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, October 10, 2006

Raúl Scialabba, a Baptist lawyer and President of CALIR, lectured on the theme, “The Catholic Taxi Heathrow Airport Church, Religious Faiths and the State in Argentina at the Beginning of the Twenty First Century.” In his lecture the lawyer analyzed historically what he called, “The two antagonistic principles that struggle against each other in the world century after century: the Church and the State.”  “What derived was the predominance of the Church over the State, and also that of the latter over the former. In whichever of the two positions or in the intermediate situations, throughout history the results for the liberties of the people and the sovereignty of the civil power have been negative,” Scialabba said.

Article 2 of the national Constitution which was modified in 1994, says that the federal government “maintains” its worship. “Despite that,” Scialabba explained, “many have confused the theme and in practice each government has proceeded as if the Catholic religion were the religion of the State.” As an example of the almost daily acceptance of this concept in society, Scialabba mentioned “the Te Deum service for the celebrating of civil holidays, the building of altars dedicated to the mother country, open air masses, the exclusivity of chaplains to the armed forces, the naming as female generals of holy virgins recognized by the Catholic Church, the teaching of the Catholic religion in public schools, etc.”

Assuming a critical position with regard to Article 2 of the Magna Carta, Scialabba asked that the fact of having to economically maintain a given worship is itself such a sufficiently serious matter, more so at the beginning of the twenty first century, that doing away with it be seriously considered. He explained by saying that, “The use of public funds to maintain a church is paramount to an injustice and partiality beyond all doubt. Independently of the amount that the national budget provides for – and the amount in the present budget does not even partially cover the expenses of the Catholic Church – it is not a problem of money but rather one of principles of equality and justice.” 

"Let us imagine five Argentineans, one Catholic, another Jewish, a third Moslem, another Evangelical, and finally an agnostic or atheist. The Constitution tells them that: you may all “freely profess your worship or not do so, but the last four, after having paid for the expenses of their own worship, are then to pay for those of the Catholic worship also.” The irony of the situation in the midst of the gathering prompted a remembering that the Constitution states that “all the inhabitants are equal before the law,” even though the injustice of the maintaining of one particular worship imposes an injustice that has a constitutional standing.

Scialabba asked the audience, would it be possible to consider the Catholic Bishops as being civil servants because their salaries are paid for from public funds? Referring to the recent controversial events between the Catholic Church and the national government, he said, “The recent conflicts that have come about with the present government, even though they are of different kinds – the Basseoto case or that of Bishop Piña in Misiones, have shown that the Catholic Church has an independent criteria, but they create controversial situations and confusion for those governing, who long to be in a position of control and dominance over the positions assumed by the Catholic Church. The situation of the Catholic Church, maintained by the State, which means through the paying of taxes by citizens of other religious faiths and even by non-believers, becomes such an extremely uncomfortable one that the Catholic Church itself should be interested in doing away with it.”

In concluding his lecture, Scialabba vehemently defended the position of those who ask  for the separation of Church and State in Argentina, saying that “to draw attention to the separation of Church and State in the Argentina of the beginnings of the twenty first century, is not to go against any particular church. It is also the defending of a Christian principle.”