In peculiar way its essence, as Been, the State if emancipates of the religion when emancipating itself of the religion of the State, that is, when the State as such does not profess no religion, when the State if recognizes much as well as such. The emancipation politics of the religion is not the emancipation of the religion in radical and exempt way of contradictions, because the emancipation politics is not the radical and exempt way of contradictions of the emancipation human being. (they idem). Thus we can perceive that the emancipation politics possesss an evident limit, therefore ' ' the State can really gets rid of a limit without the man of it if Liberte, in the fact of that the State can be a free State without the man is a man livre' ' (they idem, p.21). In virtue of these last explicitadas challenges and its appropriate discernment, we arrive at a conclusion in which, it becomes explicit as the desvinculao of the State of the religion does not contribute for a dissociao of the last one, the civil society, or exaurir of its presence.
In way that: He concludes yourself, finally, still when if atheist for mediation of the State proclaims, that is, proclaiming the atheistic State, the man continues subject to religious chains, necessarily because it exactly by means of a subterfuge is only recognized, through a way. The religion is, cabalmente, the recognition of the man through a mediator. The State is the mediator between the man and its freedom. (they idem). The religion, therefore is a mediation between the men, in a similar way that the State is the mediation between the humanity and its freedom, this is exactly the reason for which the State must banish the religion of its sphere, therefore this is the only form of being able to support, to assure the rights of all the individuals of the community, of if becoming a mediating cash, equaling the individuals its way.