Kramer 2

Van Helde's actions as the first Protestant attack on an icon of Aparecida to be seen on national television¹

1997 SVH found guilty of "vilipending religious symbols and of inciting religious prejudice and discrimination²

SVH's actions revealed the contradiction between the separation of church and State in Brazil, and the fact that many symbols exist identifying the country as Catholic³ (36-37)

narratives of religious tolerance in Brazil "elide both the history of opposition to and persecution of Protestants and practicioners of Afro-Brazilian religions"⁴ (38)

event expresses the conflict between freedom of expression and freedom of religion in Brazil⁵ (38)

in colonial times power of the King involved the right to appoint bishops. Although approved of by the Vatican, the separation of church and state in 1891 was lamented by Brazilian bishops who lost political influence⁶ (39)

close link RCC and Vargas; legitimate authoritarian rule.⁷ (39-40)

"Catholicism's status as a majority faith, no matter how tenuous or nominal for many individuals , has a taken-for-granted legitimacy that constitutes a /de facto/ establishment (40) NSA official holiday; religious education in schools; action of courts⁸ (40)

profound affective identification between poor and NSA, whose devotion was promoted to counter anticlerical republicanism⁹ (41)

rejects the post SVH incident identification between NSA and Afro-Brazilians affirming that there is no record of a tradition of black devotion to NSA which was normally directed at Nossa Senhora do Rosario and Sao Beneditio¹⁰ (42-43)

male homosexuality common in Candomble, less in Umbanda¹¹ (44)

critiques Lehmann for affirming that SVH attacked NSA icon with an ax, claims that the intensity was exagerrated and refers to "light kicks and taps"¹² (45)

SVH criticises Catholic church for NSA industry, this mirrors the Catholic critique of the IURD¹³ (46)

role of TV in intensifying passions as Folha Universal has actually published far more intolerant materials¹⁴ (48)

prosecution claims: SVH 1) offended the nation 2) offended Afro-Brazilians and the fight against slavery 3) showed no respect for poverty 4) showed no respect for the Brazilian cultural heritage 5) showed no respect for the armed forces ¹⁵(48)

claims that rather than religious tolerance in Brazil, "the state has concerned itself with categorizing and regulating religion according to its effect on the public order ¹⁶(50)

notes how in newspaper reports of the case the title of "bishop" in SVH case is put in quotation marks to question his legitimacy and that of the church in "an order of value in which the Catholic church is the apex of legitimacy."¹⁷ (50-51)

places the condemnation of SVH within a Brazilian tradition of not upholding the freedom of expression; sees link with Plant Hemp case and notes how the prosecution case used phrases such as "bons costumes" taken from the 1967 constitution rather than the 1988¹⁸

1E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 36.

2E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 36.

3E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 36–37.

4E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 38.

5E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 38.

6E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 39.

7E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 39–40.

8E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 40.

9E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 41.

10E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 42–43.

11E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 44.

12E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 45.

13E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 46.

14E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 48.

15E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 48.

16E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 50.

17E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 50–51.

18E Kramer, “Law and the Image of a Nation: Religious Conflict and Religious Freedom in a Brazilian Criminal Case,” Law & Social Inquiry 26:1 (2001) 35–62, 52–57.