Under two minor reservations, the separatism law is validated on the points that Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox cults estimated contrary to the Constitution.
by and
How far can the public authorities go into the control of the exercise of cults in a regime of separation of the Churches and the State? A little further than before, responds, Friday, July 22, the Constitutional Council to this very delicate and flammable question.
The institution chaired by Laurent Fabius had been seized by the representatives of the three great Christian religions – Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox – who dispute the constitutionality of several measures of the law of August 24, 2021 confirming the respect of the principles of the Republic, called “separatism” law. The answer to the priority question of constitutionality they raised will disappoint them. The Constitutional Council declares “in accordance with the Constitution” the disputed provisions, under two minor reservations.
The targeted measures strengthen the constraints weighing on associations managing places of worship. The government’s objective is in particular to push Muslim associations to place themselves under the cultural association regime instituted by the 1905 law on the separation of the Churches and the State, while most of them are today Hui under the more flexible regime of the 1901 law on freedom of association. The law “separatism” thus extended to associations 1901 the obligations weighing on associations 1905. But it also increased the constraints weighing on associations 1905.
Representatives of Christian cults criticize in particular the introduction of the obligation to associations for declaring to the prefect their “cult quality” every five years if they want to benefit from the advantages (tax among others) specific to this regime. The prefect is two months old to oppose it. This obligation, supported their lawyer Guillaume Valdelièvre during the public hearing of July 5, “is in substance a regime of prior authorization of worship. What arises from the silence of the prefect is an implicit decision of acceptance of the worship quality “. In other words, the State mixes to know what is cult or is not.
On this article 19-1 of the 1905 law modified by the law of 2021, the response of the Constitutional Council is scathing. “The disputed provisions are for the sole purpose of instituting a declarative obligation in order to allow the representative of the State to ensure that associations are eligible for the advantages specific to the cultural associations. To carry the recognition of a cult by the Republic or to obstruct the free exercise of worship “, we read in the decision of July 22.
You have 37.35% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.