The Secular State: A Condition for Freedom and Democracy in Peru

The relationship between religion and political power has accompanied much of Peru's history. From the Spanish conquest, when evangelization was part of the colonial domination project, to contemporary parliamentary debates on education, sexual and reproductive rights, or equality policies, religious convictions have had a considerable presence in decisions affecting all of society.

This influence raises a question that remains fully relevant: who should decide the rules under which we live? The authorities elected by citizens through democratic processes and with respect for human rights, or the religious institutions that seek to turn their moral principles into binding norms for everyone?

The defense of the secular state begins with a simple answer: laws must respond to the needs, rights, and freedoms of the people who make up society. Their legitimacy comes from the citizenry and the constitutional order, not from a religious authority or the particular interpretation of a doctrine.

This idea has direct consequences for believers, atheists, agnostics, and people who profess different religions. In a society where so many ways of understanding life coexist, the state must guarantee that each person can develop their convictions without any one of them acquiring political privileges over the others.

The secular state is, in that sense, a condition for freedom of conscience to have real substance.

A Republican History Marked by Religious Influence

To understand the Peruvian situation, one must go back to the early years of the Republic. Political independence from Spain did not mean an equivalent break with the religious structures inherited from the colonial period. The Catholic Church retained a privileged position in the country's social organization and institutional life.

During the colonial period, the Church had participated in education, hospital administration, social assistance, and the organization of daily life. It had also exercised a decisive influence on culture, customs, and the norms governing the behavior of the population. The Catholic religion was part of the political and legal order of the Spanish monarchy.

The Republic inherited much of that structure. The first Peruvian constitutions recognized Catholicism as the state religion and restricted the public exercise of other faiths. The construction of a republican order thus coexisted with a confessional conception of the nation.

During the nineteenth century, liberal debates and reforms gradually delineated the respective domains of the Church and the State. The establishment of civil registries, discussions on marriage, and the administration of cemeteries were part of a broader process: progressively transferring to civil institutions responsibilities that for centuries had been under ecclesiastical authority. The process was accompanied by political and religious tensions and advanced unevenly.

The Constitution of 1979 represented an important turning point in this trajectory. It recognized the independence and autonomy of the State vis-à-vis the Catholic Church and opened a framework for cooperation that also included other denominations. The constitutional model that had reserved the status of official religion for Catholicism was thereby abandoned.

However, institutional separation did not amount to full equality among the various religious and philosophical convictions.

A particularly significant episode occurred on July 19, 1980, when the Peruvian State and the Holy See signed the Agreement regulating their relations. The document, ratified through Decree Law 23211, established a specific legal framework for the Catholic Church and recognized various conditions for the development of its activities in the country. The agreement remains in force.

The Constitution of 1993 maintained this arrangement in Article 50. Its text recognizes the Catholic Church as an important element in Peru's historical, cultural, and moral formation and establishes that the State shall lend it cooperation. It also provides that the State respects other denominations and may establish forms of cooperation with them.

This provision merits attention. Recognizing the historical importance of an institution is perfectly legitimate. The Catholic Church has had an undeniable influence on Peruvian history, just as other cultural traditions have contributed to shaping our society. The problem arises when that historical recognition becomes a permanent justification for maintaining differences in treatment among religious organizations and among citizens.

History explains the position an institution occupies. By itself, it does not determine what privileges it should retain in a contemporary democracy.

Is Peru a Secular State?

The answer requires some clarifications.

Peru does not have an official religion in its current Constitution. Article 50 recognizes the independence and autonomy of the State vis-à-vis religious denominations—a principle compatible with secularism. However, the same article establishes a special cooperative relationship with the Catholic Church, further supported by the 1980 Agreement.

For this reason, the Peruvian model is usually described as a regime of secularism with cooperation. The Constitutional Court has stated that state autonomy requires neutrality in religious matters and that the State cannot identify itself with a denomination or impose a particular belief. Cooperation, therefore, must respect fundamental rights and equality.

In practice, a legitimate discussion remains about the scope of that cooperation and the need to review historical asymmetries. The question is especially pertinent when examining institutional benefits, public funding, the presence of religious authorities in official ceremonies, and the place of confessional teaching in the education system.

Secularism demands that state decisions be justifiable through public reasons: rights, social needs, available evidence, and constitutional principles. A religious argument can be part of civic deliberation, like any other personal conviction. What it cannot do is become, by virtue of its religious origin, a sufficient reason to impose an obligation on the entire population.

A Catholic citizen can defend a political position inspired by their faith. An evangelical citizen can do the same. An atheist can ground their proposals in a humanist philosophy. All have the same right to participate in the debate. The responsibility of public institutions is to evaluate proposals on the basis of their arguments, their consequences, and their compatibility with everyone's rights.

This distinction avoids a common confusion: defending the secular state does not mean demanding that believers conceal their convictions or preventing religious organizations from participating in society. It means that none of them can use state power to turn their particular beliefs into obligations binding on all.

When Religious Convictions Reach Congress

The defense of the secular state takes on particular importance when examining legislative activity.

In Peru, debates on sex education, reproductive rights, marriage equality, gender identity, and LGBTIQ+ rights show the extent to which religious convictions can influence the political agenda. Various faith-based organizations actively participate in these matters and have every right to express their positions. The problem arises when political representatives use their authority to translate those positions into law without sufficient justification grounded in rights and the public interest.

A democracy allows for deep moral disagreements. The role of Congress is to process them through constitutional procedures and decisions that are justifiable to the entire citizenry. A belief about marriage, sexuality, or the origin of life may guide the conduct of those who share it. To become a legal restriction on the freedoms of others, it requires additional arguments.

Consider education. A family has the right to pass on its religious values to its children and to seek education consistent with its convictions, within the legal framework. However, public education has responsibilities that extend to the entire population: providing scientific knowledge, developing critical thinking, teaching people to live with differences, and offering tools for informed decision-making.

When public education presents a religious doctrine as institutional truth, the State abandons its position of impartiality. Students who belong to other religions, who hold different convictions, or who have none may feel alienated from an institution that should represent them equally.

Something similar occurs with sexual and reproductive rights. People have the right to guide their lives according to their religious or philosophical principles. Someone who considers that certain contraceptive methods or reproductive decisions contradict their faith may choose not to use them. However, that individual decision should not deprive others of information, healthcare services, and rights recognized by law.

The case of Ana Estrada offers another perspective on this debate. In 2022, Peruvian courts recognized, through a judicial decision, her right to access a dignified death procedure under certain conditions. Her case sparked discussion about personal autonomy, dignity, and the scope of individual decisions against moral conceptions that hold that life must be prolonged under any circumstances.

The fundamental question is who has authority over decisions affecting one's own existence. In a plural society, the State must protect people's freedom to make decisions about their lives within the framework of fundamental rights. A religious conception may guide its followers, but it should not become a legal obligation for those who do not share it.

The Defense of the Secular State Around the World

The discussion about the separation of religion and state is far from being an exclusively Peruvian issue. In different regions of the world, political movements linked to religious traditions seek to give certain interpretations of faith a decisive role in legislation and in defining national identity.

In India, Hindu nationalism has promoted a conception of the nation closely tied to the majority religion. In Israel, alliances between religious parties and other political forces influence debates on legislation, citizenship, and rights. In the United States, Christian nationalism has gained prominence in political sectors that advocate a greater presence of certain interpretations of Christianity in institutions and laws.

These phenomena have their own characteristics and stem from different histories. However, they share a political question: the claim that a particular religious tradition should have special authority to define the values and norms of a society.

The Pew Research Center has documented this relationship between religion and national identity in an international study published in 2025. Its research examines, among other aspects, citizen support for the idea that the historically predominant religion should guide public policy and determine the beliefs of those who govern.

In this context, the defense of the secular state is part of an international discussion about the quality of democracies and the protection of human rights.

The United Nations recognizes freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as a right that encompasses both the possibility of professing a religion and of changing it, abandoning it, or having none. This protection also extends to those who express their convictions publicly and to those who choose not to identify with any religious tradition.

This last point deserves special attention. Sometimes, religious freedom is interpreted as if it were a right exclusive to believers. Its scope is much broader: it protects the autonomy of conscience of all individuals, including atheists, agnostics, and those who hold philosophical positions outside organized religions.

A state that protects freedom of worship but discriminates against those who do not profess a religion does not fully guarantee freedom of conscience. Similarly, a state that favors a majority religion may end up restricting the freedom of its own believers, especially when authorities adopt a particular religious interpretation and turn it into a standard of conduct for the entire population.

International experience shows that democratic coexistence requires institutions capable of maintaining their independence from religious organizations and of protecting people from any form of discrimination based on their convictions.

Freedom of Conscience Also Belongs to Those Who Do Not Believe

In the debate on secularism, little attention is usually paid to a segment of the citizenry: people who do not profess any religion.

In societies where Catholicism has had a historically dominant presence, such as Peru, religion tends to appear integrated into customs, institutional language, and public celebrations. This reality can make the absence of religious beliefs go unnoticed or be seen as an exception that requires explanation.

However, being an atheist, agnostic, or having no religious affiliation is a legitimate position within a democratic society. It does not imply lacking ethical principles, rejecting social coexistence, or maintaining a hostile stance toward those who believe.

People can build their moral principles from reason, experience, empathy, scientific knowledge, and reflection on the consequences of their actions. Secular humanism, for example, proposes that human beings can find foundations for an ethical and supportive life without resorting to supernatural explanations.

The defense of the secular state recognizes that plurality of convictions. It also protects those who practice minority religions, those who change religions, and those who prefer to keep their beliefs in the personal sphere.

This has a concrete consequence: no person should receive unfavorable treatment for not participating in a religious ceremony, for not belonging to a church, or for publicly expressing an atheist position. Nor should anyone feel compelled to participate in confessional activities to access a public service, an educational opportunity, or institutional recognition.

In Peru, this discussion is especially relevant in public education, official ceremonies, and administrative procedures. State neutrality must be reflected in the everyday experience of citizens, not remain merely a constitutional declaration.

A Separation That Also Benefits Religions

There is an additional reason to defend the independence between religious institutions and political power: that separation also protects the religions themselves.

When a denomination obtains a privileged position before the State, its relationship with power can end up compromising its autonomy. Its leaders can become permanent political interlocutors, its doctrinal positions can acquire legal consequences, and its institutional interests can become confused with those of the government.

Independence allows religious communities to carry out their activities, express their opinions, criticize authorities, and participate in social initiatives without depending on the protection or support of political power.

It also protects believers against the imposition of an official interpretation of their own religion. Within the same tradition, there are theological, cultural, and moral differences. No government should decide which of those interpretations deserves recognition or institutional influence.

For this reason, secularism should be understood as a guarantee of freedom for all of society. Religious organizations can participate in public debate, develop educational activities, carry out social work, and defend their positions. What must be avoided is that their religious status grants them a political authority that other civic organizations do not have.

Cooperation between the State and religious organizations can be legitimate when it serves public objectives, respects general norms, and is conducted without discrimination. For this to work, there must be transparency in the use of public resources and access criteria that can also apply to humanist, philosophical, and other organizations of diverse convictions.

An Unfinished Task for the Peruvian Republic

The defense of the secular state in Peru requires progress on several fronts.

First, it is necessary to review the framework of relations between the State and the Catholic Church to ensure that the cooperation envisioned in Article 50 of the Constitution does not produce privileges incompatible with civic equality. This includes examining the scope of the 1980 Agreement and its suitability for a society that has changed considerably since its signing.

Second, the public education system must preserve its scientific, pluralistic character and its respect for freedom of conscience. Teaching about religions as historical, cultural, and social phenomena can contribute to understanding our society. Confessional education, on the other hand, is the responsibility of families and religious communities. The State has the responsibility to provide an education that does not presuppose adherence to a particular faith.

Third, legislative decisions must be grounded in arguments that can be examined by the entire citizenry. Members of Congress have the right to their religious convictions, but their public responsibilities require them to justify laws through reasons related to rights, evidence, and the general interest. The authority of a sacred text or a religious hierarchy does not, in itself, constitute sufficient justification for restricting the freedoms of others.

Finally, a greater culture of respect for the diversity of convictions is needed. Discrimination against non-believers, the assumption that morality necessarily depends on religion, and the automatic association between national identity and religious affiliation are expressions of a limited conception of citizenship.

These changes require social participation, public discussion, and political will. They also demand that civil society organizations, including humanist and atheist associations, actively participate in the defense of rights and in the oversight of institutions.

The State Belongs to Everyone

Peru is a society with a history deeply linked to Catholicism, but also with indigenous traditions, diverse religious communities, and a growing population that does not identify with any religion. That diversity is part of our reality and must find recognition in the institutions of the Republic.

The defense of the secular state does not seek to erase the country's religious history or to limit the freedom of those who find guidance for their lives in faith. It seeks to ensure that this freedom has the same guarantees as any other conviction and that no institution can turn its religious authority into political power over the citizenry as a whole.

A democracy needs its laws to be debatable and justifiable before people who hold different ideas about existence, morality, and the meaning of life. When a law affects the rights of all, its foundation must be found in public reasons, constitutional principles, and considerations that can be examined independently of each person's faith.

The Peruvian Association of Atheists defends this conception from a humanist perspective: people have the capacity to build a society based on dignity, freedom, responsibility, and mutual respect. Coexistence does not need a mandatory religious doctrine, but rather institutions that protect everyone's rights and citizens willing to recognize the autonomy of others.

The Peruvian Republic has an opportunity to move toward a more balanced relationship between personal convictions and public power. To do so, it needs to complete a task that its history left unfinished: consolidating a state whose legitimacy comes from its citizens and whose actions do not depend on any religious authority.

The secular state is a guarantee that each person can believe, change their beliefs, or not believe, and still be, on equal terms, part of the same political community.

References for Further Reading

These are some institutional and academic sources that support the main historical and legal aspects of this article:

1. Political Constitution of Peru, Article 50. Congress of the Republic.
2. Agreement between the Holy See and the Republic of Peru (1980). Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. Iberico Ruiz, Rolando (2024). Politics and Catholicism in Nineteenth-Century Peru: Between State Patronage and the Desired Concordat. Historia Constitucional.
4. Abad Yupanqui, Samuel. Religious Freedom and the Constitutional State. Derecho PUCP.
5. Revilla Izquierdo, Milagros Aurora (2013). The Peruvian Church–State Relations System. Pensamiento Constitucional, PUCP.
6. Pew Research Center (2025). Comparing Levels of Religious Nationalism Around the World. Pew Research Center.
7. United Nations (2024). Resolution on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Human Rights Council.