BETWEEN UNIFORM AND FAITH: MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN LIGHT OF JÜRGEN HABERMAS' THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
Habermas; religious freedom; conscientious objection; military hierarchy; communicative rationality; fundamental rights.
Military religious freedom can be understood as an expression of human dignity that accompanies the individual even in the military sphere, imposing on the Armed Forces a duty to reconcile hierarchy and discipline with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international treaties. In this context, the research adopts Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action as a lens to reinterpret military authority not as blind imposition, but as authority legitimized by rational procedures of institutional deliberation capable of reconciling faith and the uniform. Accordingly, the central question may be formulated as follows: how can military discipline and hierarchy be made compatible, within a Democratic Rule-of-Law State, with the exercise of religious freedom and the military’s right to conscientious objection, in light of Habermasian communicative rationality, without compromising institutional cohesion and efficiency? As to social impact and its justification, this study strengthens public trust in the Armed Forces by aligning fundamental rights with hierarchy and discipline, thereby reducing conflicts and litigation; fosters a more inclusive organizational environment with positive effects on mental health, belonging, and the prevention of internal discrimination; and offers procedural guidelines for legitimate and transparent decisions, improving public policies and the democratic legitimacy of military authority. The general objective, therefore, is to investigate the extent to which military religious freedom and conscientious objection can be recognized and treated as fundamental rights compatible with hierarchy and discipline, using the theory of communicative action as a standard of legitimation. Specifically, it aims to (i) analyze the historical, ethical, and legal foundations of hierarchy, discipline, and authority in the Armed Forces; (ii) examine religious freedom and conscientious objection as fundamental rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and international human rights norms; (iii) verify the existence of gaps and contradictions in the disciplinary regulations of the Army, Navy, and Air Force in handling conscientious objection; and (iv) propose a procedural model inspired by communicative rationality, with a view to understanding the limits and contradictions that hinder the effectiveness of rights of conscience and belief in the military environment. Regarding methodological procedures, the study adopts a qualitative, exploratory, and interpretive approach, with bibliographic and documentary review on religious freedom, conscientious objection, military law, and Habermasian theory, in addition to examining decisions of the Supreme Federal Court related to the tension between individual convictions and public duties. It concludes that the legal framework already provides relevant bases to curb abusive practices and protect religious freedom, yet there remains a need for specific regulation and a clear procedural design for conscientious objection within the military. Applying communicative action as a criterion for the public justification of disciplinary decisions makes it possible to preserve cohesion, hierarchy, and operational readiness without sacrificing fundamental rights, guiding institutional solutions that transform authority into authority legitimized by public discourse and reason.