Uruguay

Uruguay is the second smallest nation on the continent, bordering Brazil and Argentina. Its mostly urban population centres around the capital, Montevideo.[ref]https://www.britannica.com/place/Uruguay[/ref] With a long tradition of secularism, Uruguay is the most socially secular nation in Latin America.

The precise religious demography of the 3.5 million population is not measured in national censuses. Data from 2006 suggests that 47% of the population were Catholic, and a further 11% belonged to other Christian denominations. At that time, the country had one of the largest recorded proportions of non-religious people in the region, accounting for 17% of the population.[ref]https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/uruguay/#people-and-society[/ref] More recent estimates suggest that the proportions of non-religious individuals may have grown to account for some 34% of the population, overtaking the proportion of the population identifying as Catholic.[ref]https://www.latinobarometro.org/latOnline.jsp[/ref] However, recent reports indicate a rise in the influence of evangelical protestants in politics.

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
No formal discrimination in education
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Constitution and government
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Education and children’s rights
No formal discrimination in education
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
Free and Equal
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The Constitution[ref]https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Uruguay_2004.pdf?lang=en[/ref] in Uruguay and numerous laws explicitly prohibit discrimination based on religion. There is a strict separation between religion and state. The Penal Code restricts ill-treatment of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups. The Institución Nacional de Derechos Humanos (National Institute of Human Rights) an autonomous branch of Congress designed to defend, promote, and protect the human rights recognized by the Constitution and international law, and the Ministry of Education and Culture’s (MEC) Honorary Commission against Racism, Xenophobia, and All Forms of Discrimination exists to enforce government compliance with the laws. Furthermore, Representatives from numerous religious and civil society bodies are actively involved in the Honorary Commission.

Under law, secularism is commemorated on 19 March each year.[ref]https://parlamento.gub.uy/documentosyleyes/leyes?Ly_Nro=&Ly_fechaDePromulgacion%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=18-05-2017&Ly_fechaDePromulgacion%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=18-05-2021&Ltemas=&tipoBusqueda=T&Searchtext=laicidad[/ref]

Constraints on religious influence in political life

Religious groups have reported that the State’s commitment to secularism has precluded opportunities for dialogue. Religious groups have further argued that the State’s interpretation of the term ‘secularism’ is too narrow – interpreted to mean an absence of religion rather than the peaceful coexistence and equal weight afforded to religion and belief groups, and the separation of religion from State.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/uruguay/; https://www.xn--lamaana-7za.uy/opinion/la-laicidad-violada-en-uruguay-ante-la-indiferencia-de-muchos/; https://dialogopolitico.org/debates/una-laicidad-para-el-siglo-xxi/[/ref]

Further, a number of evangelical Protestant organizations, including Mision Vida para las Naciones Church (Life Mission for the Nations), filed a petition before the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for discrimination by the state based on religious grounds, in May 2019.

Some deviations from Laicidad

Despite Uruguay’s generally good record on religion-state separation, there are tax exemptions permitted to religious groups for houses of worship. In order to receive such exemptions, a religious group must first register with the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) as a non-profit entity and submit draft organising statutes.

In general terms, Uruguay has low influence from religious groups in politics. However, given the tax exemptions that religious groups enjoy, both Catholics and Protestants are establishing an influence, especially among lower income people. In 2014, a coalition of pastors put a lot of money into one branch of the Blanco Party and attained representation, with a deputy and a Senator.[ref]subrayado.com.uy/Site/noticia/38696/conozca-al-pastor-que-asumira-como-diputado-por-el-partido-nacional[/ref]

Muslims in the country are permitted to acquire an optional identity card that identifies their religious affiliation to employers and permits them to withdraw from work early on Fridays. This might be described as enabling a positive religious freedom, but it is also a privilege not permitted to other belief groups on analogous grounds.

Education and children’s rights

Uruguay prohibits religious instruction in its public schools.[ref]https://laicismo.org/la-laicidad-en-el-uruguay/160955[/ref] Public schools allow students belonging to minority religious groups to take time off school for religious holidays without being penalised. However, it remains to be seen whether secular or humanist families would be permitted similar treatment (they are not explicitly included in the law as it stands).

According to the US State Department:[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/uruguay/[/ref]

“The constitution prohibits religious instruction in public schools. Public schools close on some Christian holidays. In deference to its secular nature, the government does not refer to holidays by their Christian names; for example, Christmas is formally referred to as “Family Day” and Holy Week is widely referred to as “Tourism Week.” Students belonging to non-Christian or minority religious groups may be absent from school on their religious holidays without penalty. Private schools run by religious organizations may decide which religious holidays to observe.”

Religious groups have raised concerns that the State’s commitment to laicidad impinges on their ability to teach in accordance with their religious beliefs. In particular, they have raised concerns regarding sex education. Platforms are reportedly not given to those with positions contrary to the rights of women’, LGBTI+ rights, or abortion.[ref]https://www.xn--lamaana-7za.uy/opinion/la-laicidad-violada-en-uruguay-ante-la-indiferencia-de-muchos/; https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/uruguay/[/ref]

Family, community and society

Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights

In 2012, Uruguay introduced a law legalising abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Where the pregnancy results from rape, contingent on certain procedural requirements, abortion is permitted up to 14 weeks.

Within that framework, there are a number of factors limiting access to safe abortion. Along with a mandatory waiting period and obligatory counselling prior to accessing an abortion, and a lack of access to health centres in rural areas,[ref] https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/uruguay/report-uruguay/[/ref] there is an expanisive conscience clause that allows healthcare providers to refuse abortion-related services on the grounds of religion or belief.

The conscience clause in the law (updated and expanded in 2015) enables doctors – and private institutions – to refuse participation in any of the steps relating to the termination of pregnancy (not only the abortion procedure), hindering access to pre- and post-abortion care. [ref]“Legal barriers to access abortion services through a human rights lens: the Uruguayan experience.” Lucía Berro Pizzarossa, Reproductive Health Matters, Volume 26, 2018 – Issue 52. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09688080.2017.1422664#[/ref] It is reported that this clause is widely used as a means to deny abortions, and has a significantly negative impact on women’s rights to have safe abortions, and preventing patients from receiving accurate, scientific, and unbiased information about their options. The UN The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has noted its concern about the widespread use of Conscientious Objection amongst medical practitioners in Uruguay, “thereby limiting access to safe abortion services, which are guaranteed by law.” [ref] Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Concluding Observations on the Combined Eighth and Ninth Periodic Reports of Uruguay, CEDAW/C/URY/CO/8-9 (2016), https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW/C/URY/CO/8-9&Lang=En[/ref]

Research conducted by MYSU (Women and Health Uruguay) has shown that in some areas of the country up to 87% of medical service providers refuse to terminate pregnancies, making it virtually impossible to obtain timely access to services. [ref]“Legal barriers to access abortion services through a human rights lens: the Uruguayan experience.” Lucía Berro Pizzarossa, Reproductive Health Matters, Volume 26, 2018 – Issue 52. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09688080.2017.1422664#[/ref] One study concluded that doctors are collectively practicing official disobedience and resisting the law, thereby impeding women’s access to care.[ref] “Striking a Balance: Conscientious Objection and Reproductive Health Care from the Colombian Perspective.” Luisa Cabal, Monica Arango Olaya, Valentina Montoya Robledo, Health and Human Rights 2014, 16/2 https://www.hhrjournal.org/2014/09/striking-a-balance-conscientious-objection-and-reproductive-health-care-from-the-colombian-perspective/[/ref]

LGBTI+ rights

Uruguay has often been at the vanguard of LGBTI+ rights in the region and such rights are generally respected in the country. Same-sex sexual relationships have been legal since 1933, while same-sex marriage was legalized in 2013.[ref]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uruguay-rights-vote-idUSKCN1UV2EV[/ref] However, the country has yet to ban conversion therapy.[ref]https://www.equaldex.com/region/uruguay[/ref]

In 2018, the government passed legislation that permits trans individuals to change their gender identity and guarantees them access to healthcare. Attempts by conservative representatives in parliament to roll-back these rights failed in 2019.[ref]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uruguay-rights-vote-idUSKCN1UV2EV[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

The right to freedom of assembly and association are guaranteed by law, and the government generally respects this in practice. A broad range of community organizations are active in civic life in the country, including many groups focussed on the rights of women for which campaigning aims to raise particular awareness about issues such violence against women and societal discrimination.

The constitutional guarantees of free expression are generally respected, and violations of press freedom are relatively uncommon.[ref] https://rsf.org/en/uruguay; https://freedomhouse.org/country/uruguay/freedom-world/2020[/ref] The press in Uruguay is privately owned and there are numerous daily newspapers, many of which have affiliations with political parties.

The government of Uruguay does not restrict academic freedom, nor does it place restrictions on internet usage.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/uruguay/freedom-world/2020[/ref]

Passage of the Law of Urgent Consideration

In October 2020, the newly-elected centre-right government passed the Law of Urgent Consideration (Ley de Consideración Urguente – LUC), which – among other provisions designed to address public security concerns – grants police greater powers to use force to quell protests, presents greater obstacles to public demonstrations and the work of unions, and criminalizes criticizing the police.[ref]https://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/politica/nace-ley-urgente-consideracion-puntos-clave-proyecto-lacalle-pou.html; https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/uruguay/report-uruguay/[/ref] The law has also been criticized by the former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Edison Lanza, as creating a vehicle of censorship through the “right to be forgotten.”[ref]https://globalvoices.org/2020/12/21/uruguays-new-government-is-prioritising-security-but-is-it-at-the-cost-of-free-speech/[/ref]

The current government’s interpretation of Laicidad has been used to punish public servants carrying out protests or campaigning activities. This includes employees of a hospital who set up a table to collect signatures in protest against the LUC,[ref]https://ladiaria.com.uy/politica/articulo/2021/1/sindicato-del-hospital-de-clinicas-afirma-que-incremento-su-recoleccion-de-firmas-para-el-referendum-a-partir-de-los-cuestionamientos-del-oficialismo/[/ref] and teachers who engaged in election campaigning on the premises of the school. The teachers were suspended for six months on half pay for “proselytising.”[ref]https://radiouruguay.uy/el-partido-colorado-emitio-una-declaracion-sobre-laicidad/[/ref]