Qualche riflessione selettiva sul caso U.A.A.R.

the element of religious creed can’t be defined through legislative channels; it can be distinguished by the concept of religion and cult; it, can, what’s more, be inferred by criteria of technical administrative c.d. mixed discernment; with this system the analogous sciences can offer to the administrative powers and to the interpreter at least a list of possible solutions proposed by the literature of this field, to identify a religious creed; the interpreter is free to get an acceptable definition from this list, provided there is logical coherence, objectiveness and reasonableness in determining the choice; being conscious that you cannot give shared definitions about religion and religious, not even inside of the same doctrines that investigate about the phenomenon; the approach to terms and relative negotiation will form part of the administrative activity with power of regulation; at present the non-confessional philosophical circles will not form part of the number of the religious institutions; the homology between atheism and religion can involve the approach to the negotiation-table for an agreement, in a changed social climate; the philosophical circles, bearers of a message almost religious, in case thought of organizing themselves in organizations of confessional type (accepted by the inside regulation or by the statute), could approach to the terms; a possible refusal of the government would lead the problem again to the political field in a broad sense, being persistent in III c. od the art. 8 of Constitution, in logical and topographical antecedence to the art. 138, the constituent power given to the legislative organs; the “quadro” law and/or frame on freedom of religion can be useful, but not necessary. Key word Confession, religion, cult, atheism, phlilosophical circle