The Council of State denied a lawsuit that sought the annulment of the rules for teaching religion in the country’s schools, said lawsuit was filed by Luis Bernardo Díaz, who assured on 10AM that he considers that this decree is a transgression of the principle of secular state In colombia.
The lawyer said that Decree 4500 of 2006 transgressed the constitutional framework of secular state imposed since 1991, by allowing religion classes to be taught for all preschool students, and basic and secondary education of the country’s official and private institutions.
“It took 15 years to decree the ruling which has been in place since 2006. That decree demands nullity and the Council of State considered that they did not violate any of the constitutional articles and it seems to me that it transgressed the constitutional framework because children cannot decide whether or not they want to receive religion class” .
The plaintiff clarified that the Cut allows conscientious objection to students who do not want to take the class and institutions can decide freely whether or not they include the teaching of religion in their institutional educational project (PEI).
there is a decree from the ministry that allows religion classes to be taught, that decree demanded nullity and the council of state said that none of the constitutional articles are violated
They will offer within the curriculum the area of religion as mandatory and fundamental. It seems to me that this provision violates the secular state in Colombia, which has been established in the constitution since 1991.
there is a transgression of that principle of secular state, the council of state said that there is no violation of the freedom of worship, it states that there is no violation of protecting the property of conscience and conscience all the freedom of not receiving freedom
It took 15 years for the decree to fail, since 2006 the request for annulment was decided to strengthen the judicial apparatus,
decree 4500 of the year 2006 establishes this area as mandatory and fundamental and it seems to me that it transgressed the constitutional framework
There are 4,600 religionists in the world, the phenomenon of indigenous communities
it is good to know the history of the religions to make a constitutional educational protection the problem is that if a student does not want to take the class he will have difficulties
I sued two weeks ago what is mandatory
the court allows a conscientious objection students who do not want to receive the class
Council of State denied the demand to remove the religion class from schools