|
English Language Page Some experts held that during 1997–2000 the principal threat to the freedom of religion in Russia stemmed from a revised version of Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations,” which emphasized the special role of the Russian Orthodox Church (RPTz) in Russia and called for “respecting” Buddhism, Judaism and Islam. A number of important rights (securing the status of a legal entity, obtaining tax breaks, establishing new religious schools and educational facilities) was made conditional on the fulfillment of a requirement stating that a given religious community must have been active in the Russian Federation during the last 15 years. As a result, a number of religious associations, including those whose pursuits had been banned during Soviet times, found themselves (unlike RPTz and a few other confessions) heavily discriminated against: the new law made it difficult for them to secure registration. An array of regional religious associations (Catholics, Lutherans, Jehovah’s Witnesses) were denied the legally required registration because they had not been previously registered for 15 years. In 2001, the problem of registration had been largely abolished as a result of the rulings passed by the Constitutional Court in 1999 and 2000. Because of those decisions, the 15-year requirement can no longer be applied to religious associations that had either secured registration before the updated Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience” was passed or to those affiliated with organizations registered on the federal level. Notably, nearly all of the religious confessions that had been active in Russia by the time the new version of Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience” was passed did have previous government registrations (including federal level registrations). Hence, the legal basis for discriminattion against religious associations through official registration procedures has, in fact, ceased to exist. Despite this positive turn of events, many regionally registered religious associations continue to be pressured and discriminated against (on the other hand, no federal-level violations against the freedom of conscience have been documented). Federal legislation, although not fully in compliance with international human rights standards (1), is not used to justify these discriminatory practices. Regional and local authorities either take advantage of covert administrative tools or base their actions on existing regional laws. According to the Deputy Minister of Justice, E. Sidorenko, out of nearly 50 regulatory acts governing the activities of religious associations passed by 33 subjects of the Russian Federation, as many as 35 statutes contradict the RF Constitution. Registered violations involved the following legal provisions: Article 71 (“Coming under the purview of the Russian Federation are the tasks of regulating and defending the human rights and civil liberties”); Article 14 (“Religious associations shall be separated from the State and be equal before the law”); Article 62 (“Foreign nationals and non-citizens in the Russian Federation shall enjoy the rights and honor responsibilities at par with Russian citizens”). Clearly, violations of Articles 14 and 62 infringe upon freedom of conscience. As of May 29, 2001, the relevant laws in the Arkhangelsk, Lipetsk, Oryol, Ryazan, Tula regions and Udmurt Republic had been repealed and similar statutes in Bashkortostan, North Osetia-Alania, Tyumen and Perm regions had been revised. Unfortunately, 22 subjects of the Russian Federation maintain laws whose provisions contradict those of the RF Constitution (2). Notably, unconstitutional laws continued to be passed in a number of subjects of the Russian Federation in 2001. To provide an example, on March 1, 2001, the Belgorod Regional Duma passed Regional Law “On Missionary Activities within the Belgorod Region,” initiated by Governor E. Savchenko. The law, in fact, is aimed at limiting the activity of non-Orthodox-Christian religious associations. Under the legislation, minors are required to provide written consents of both parents when exposed to new religious teachings. This provision justifies the banning of religious rallies in public places, including open-air gatherings at city squares. The official justification for such bans is that authorities would be unable to ensure that all minors, potentially targets of religious sermons or appeals, carry written consents from their parents (3). Foe instance, in April 2001, the Pentecostal Church “Word of Life” notified the Belgorod Mayor, G. Golikov, of an intended series of preaching sessions. The Mayor’s Office banned the planned activity, reasoning that, “It is not easy to find within the city limits an open-air ground where all requirements of the law on missionary pursuits could be satisfied. Such activities would inevitably attract numerous teenagers who would be unlikely to carry written consents from their parents (4).” The Russian Orthodox Church, on the other hand, did not have to submit to any legal constraints on staging a series of Easter public worship services. On February 16, 2001, pastors from nine larger Protestant denominations in the region sent a number of letters to the state authorities, including the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, and to human rights organizations. This campaign was in protest this regional law that clearly contradicted the Russian Constitution and failed to meet international standards in the area of human rights (5). Similar cases (ranging from general statements of circumstances to descriptions of specific administrative rulings) have been reported in other Russian regions. The Krasnoyarsk administration’s public relations’ office conducted a series of discussions with members of local public education, cultural and healthcare communities. The main topic was “Spiritual Aggression by Religious Sects.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses were put into spotlight as a classic example in this respect (6). In February 2001, Saransk (Mordovia Republic) hosted a conference “Mordovia at the Turn of New Millennium: Problem of Totalitarian Sects.” The local RPTz, with assistance from the Council for Cooperation with Religious Organizations (established by the Office of the President of Mordovia Republic), Mordovia State Pedagogical Institute and Saransk Theological School organized this conference. The conference focused on strategies to counter efforts of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, Evangelists and Pentecostals (7). The Nizhny Novgorod administration distributed a list of religious organizations cooperation with whom were not recommended to municipal, educational and cultural establishments. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and congregations of the “truly-orthodox” believers were included in this list (8). The Yoshkar-Ola administration (Marii El Republic) turned down an application from the Christian Center (9) to hold a religious festivity in the city center, stating that the city center had already been reserved for other activities “for many weeks ahead (10).” The Evangelic Christian Church “Word of Life” bought an unfinished building in order to turn it into a prayer house. The Kaluga Regional Committee for Management of Government Properties that had spent nearly four years trying to sell the building, suddenly (after finding out about the intended function of the now-completed building) started to work towards having the sale ruled as illegal. However, on June 26, 2001, the Kaluga district court did eventually rule in favor of the church. In 2001, the prefecture of the Southwestern administrative district in Moscow rejected a request by the Evangelic Christian Church “Emmanuel” to build a spiritual-cultural center and prayer house. The “Emmanuel” Church had acquired a plot of land in 1996 for this purpose. The local authorities had been stalling to authorize the construction project, providing varied and numerous pretexts. Finally, during a closed-door session of the district assembly, the “Emmanuel” application was rejected. It was said that many residents of the neighborhood had come out against the center. However, the religious organization’s representatives had been careful enough to conduct a survey of local public organizations (Society of Large Families, Society of the Disabled, Veterans Council) and collect the signatures of six thousand local residents stating that they had no objections to having a prayer house in their neighborhood. In addition, the prefecture officials refused to disclose either the minutes of the district assembly’s session or the official public survey findings that had allegedly motivated the session’s decision. Eventually, a prefecture official admitted that FSB was against the plan. When asked about the matter, an FSB spokesman responded by saying, “they had never addressed the question of building that church.” Following the prefecture’s refusal to authorize the building, a local newspaper published a material stating that “members of the “Emmanuel” Church attempt to apply psychological pressure on the prefecture counselors” and “resort to twisting facts and deceiving local residents as to their real intentions (11).” In March 2001, another Moscow-based Pentecostal congregation was evicted from their premises, which had been properly leased since 1999. The decision to discontinue the leasing arrangement followed a television program portraying the congregation as “a sect seeking to spread an alien culture.” Clearly, the Pentecostals have been “feeling pressures not only in Moscow but also in Perm, Nizhnii Tagil and Lipetsk (12),” according to Pastor S. Riakhovsky. For example, the Nizhnii Tagil Pentecostal congregation, evicted by the city administration from their properly leased and newly renovated building, were left with no other choice but to conduct services in the open air for a while (13). In February 2001, Yu. Semenov, head of the Penza Regional Department of Penalty Implementation (UIN), banned the distribution of religious literature from the Pentecostal Church “Living Faith” on the grounds of penal-labor colonies within the confines of the Penza region. This ban was put into effect despite an agreement of cooperation between the Chief Department of Penalty Implementation (GUIN) and the Russian Association of the Union of Evangelic Christians (ROSKhVE). In particular, Yu. Semenov stated that “he had been directed by some officials close to (Penza) Governor Bochkarev to put an end to any collaborative links with the “Living Faith” followers.” The year 2000 saw a number of efforts undertaken by the regional administration to suppress the congregation’s activities. To provide one example to that effect, V. Popkov, head of the Department for Religious Confessions, “personally undertook to counter the distribution of the Living Faith newspaper and urged the local police officers to detain those who distribute the paper.” What is more, the administration of Salute Hotel, on whose premises the congregation had been holding its worship sessions, was eventually compelled by the local authorities to terminate their lease arrangement (14). After the “Living Faith” Church had launched an effort to stand up for its interests (State Duma Deputy P. Shchelishch wrote some letters of protest in their support), their organization has been subjected to a series of inspections and audits by the Regional Department of Justice and Tax Inspection. No violations were found (15). Because of sustained pressure by the Sayanogorsk (Krasnoyarsk territory) authorities, the “Glorification” Church has been denied any opportunity to hold services in any of the town-based buildings. Notably, the police detained Pastor S. Ivashchenko four times, during worship services conducted outside. Under present circumstance, the congregation is now forced to hold its religious sessions out of doors, two kilometers outside of town limits (16). At the close of the year 2000, the Chekhov-based (Moscow region) Steering Committee of the Christian Evangelic Churches for Celebration of Christmas made agreements with local cultural organizations to lease some of the local movie-houses in order to show the feature film “Jesus.” Soon after, the managers of those cultural facilities began reimbursing the rental fees to the lessees and prematurely terminating contracts. They explained their decisions by referring to the verbal directive from the district administration head, G. Nedoseka, to cancel the contracts because “that movie about Jesus Christ propagates an alien and unorthodox belief.” When approached for an explanation on November 4, 2001, by members of the Steering Committee, the deputy head of the district administration, A. Chibeskov, produced a written order suspending all large functions due to hazardous epidemiological conditions persisting in the area. Interestingly enough, all New Year-related gatherings and festivities had been allowed to proceed as planned (17). Members of the Chekhov-based Protestant congregations became victims of local violence. There is reason to believe that the local authorities had urged the entire unsavory effort (18). On April 17, 2001, the building where the Chekhov-based “Grace of Christ” Church held its services was destroyed by fire. The local police inspector and public enquirer “found a few bottles containing flammable remains and half-burnt wicks,” according to members of the Slavic Legal Center. Despite this evidence, according to unidentified sources, “police insisted it was a spontaneous fire (19).” In spite of the fact that the evidence was all there to prove that the building had been destroyed deliberately, no legal action was initiated, pointed out the local Protestant pastors that dispatched a collective appeal to President Putin (20). On April 9, 2001, Pastor P. Barankevich received a telephone call saying, “should the Pastor fail to discontinue his activity, he would be sorry.” The congregation had also been denied the right to lease the town theater, which had been used for several years to hold assemblies of the “Grace of Christ” Church (21). On April 28, 2001, the Pastor of the Chekhov-based Pentecostals, K. Tossa, received a savage beating and had to stay in an intensive care hospital unit for several days. On October 16, 2001, he was attacked again. To add insult to injury, on the night of November 3–4, 2001, the yet-to-be-completed Chekhov-based Presbyterian Church building was set afire (22). The torching of a religious building in the town of Chekhov has in no way been an exceptional case of violence aimed at the Russian-based Protestant congregations. In March–April of 2001, a Lipetsk-based Protestant church building was shot at and a pastor in Ivanovo was killed (23). On July 22, 2001, a group of local Cossacks (headed by Ataman (chief) Koloborodov) and Orthodox Christian believers (headed by Father Alexy) numbering 300 men tore down an Evangelical vending stand put up by the Evangelical International Mission operating in the Azov and Rostov regions. When called for help and to restore order, the local police just observed the unfolding violence. The damage was valued at $10 000, according to the victims. The Cossack Ataman, appearing on local television, confirmed that he would not rule out a repeat of such actions (24). Judging from the collected monitoring materials, it seems that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been particularly hard hit across Russia. Even Rossiyskaya Gazeta (official newspaper of the Russian Federation Government) calls the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church (that has over 300 formally registered congregations and a government-acknowledged centralized structure in Russia) “one of the semi-legal confessions or sects (25).” On April 16, 2001, Chairperson of the Chelyabinsk Regional Human Rights Commission, E. Gorina, with the assistance of the local police, stopped a worship service of the Chelyabinsk-based Jehovah’s Witnesses deaf and mute congregation. Nobody was able to produce either a proper lease or a document from the All-Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses Management Center, which actually holds the lease to the premises in question since the Chelyabinsk-based congregation has not been able to acquire regional registration. E. Gorina demanded that those in attendance should produce their IDs for her to see if there were under-age worshippers in the assembly, particularly those, whose parents had come out against the Jehovah’s Witnesses. After this incident, the landlord quickly terminated the lease. Although the Jehovah’s Witnesses lodged a complaint with the local prosecutor’s office to protest against E. Gorina’s action, the judicial authorities somehow failed to see any legal infractions there. On January 25, 2001, the Chelyabinsk-based Sovetsky district court also left the given congregation’s complaint unsatisfied. The civil section of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court (June 28, 2001) upheld this ruling (26). On August 20, 2001, a “group of Cossacks” in Volgograd interrupted an assembly of worshipers conducted by the local Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation. The religious activity was stopped, and P. Bogdanov (head of the Cossack team) “addressed the assembled worshipers with words of insult and ignominy.” The other Cossacks proceeded to destroy all of the available religious literature. What is more, later in the day, P. Bogdanov physically attacked the congregation’s leader, D. Kalinin. On March 28, 2001, the Volgograd-based Krasnooktiabrsky district court found Bogdanov guilty of “obstructing an expression of the freedom of conscience” (Article 148 of the RF Criminal Code) as well as of “inflicting bodily injuries” (Article 116 of the RF Criminal Code). However, other Cossack attackers have never been brought to justice. The victimized party’s defense attorneys also maintain that the court of law “in considering Bogdanov’s testimony and the evidence provided by witnesses” should have concluded that “the defendant sought to incite to religious hostility” (Part 2, Article 282 of the RF Criminal Code). They maintain that the case should have been “additionally investigated.” However, it turned out that on June 5, 2001, the Volgograd Regional Court confirmed the original court ruling. Members of the local Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation intend to appeal against this decision (27). On May 10, 2001, the Prokhladny district court (Kabardino-Balkarian Republic) considered a case submitted by the local prosecutor’s office and ruled to outlaw the local Jehovah Witnesses congregation, which had been active since 1994. The prosecutors insisted that the congregation registered in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria would not be able to maintain links with the co-believers in the neighboring Republic of North Osetia. However, the civil section of the Kabardino-Balkarian Supreme Court then overruled the decision, with the congregation being allowed to carry on its activity. During the court hearings, a spokesman for the local prosecutor’s office stated that “demands to have the congregation outlawed had been motivated by the desire to stand up for the interests of the state.” In the past, the Prokhladny-based and two other Kabardino-Balkaria-based Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations had been reregistered following authorization from the Nalchik town court (28). The Republican Justice Department refused to renew registrations of the three Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations despite the specific ruling of the Nalchik town court that supported the appeals launched by those religious organizations against the Republican Justice Department. On February 23, 2001, Judge E. Prokhorycheva of the Moscow Golovinsky municipal court refused to uphold a claim lodged by the Moscow-based Northern administrative district prosecutor’s office attempting to outlaw the Moscow Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation. The court proceedings had been ongoing since 1998, only to be suspended in 1999 for reviews and inspections. Notwithstanding, the prosecutor’s office sent an appeal to the Moscow City Court, who passed a decision on May 30, 2001, to have the case reviewed. A new trial on the matter was opened on October 30, 2001. Muslims in Russian regions have also been discriminated against. The Kolomna-based Muslim community (Moscow region), totaling 2 000 believers, out of the town’s population of 163 000 residents, had its request for a plot of land to build a mosque denied by the local authorities. When approached by local Muslims seeking to clarify the matter, the officials just responded by saying that Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna (Poyarkov) “called for the issue to be publicly debated in the local media.” The Muslims maintain that this comment is tantamount to a rejection of the request since public opinion is known to be largely against erecting a new mosque in the area (29). In 1999, the Vologda-based Muslim community reached an agreement with local authorities on acquisition of a plot of land holding an unfinished structure, with the idea of building a mosque. However, in the months that followed, the authorities began to stall in providing authorization to erect a Muslim shrine on the site. Concurrently, a campaign was launched in the local media against the building of a mosque “in Russian Orthodox Vologda.” Despite the circumstance, a mosque was eventually built (the sponsor’s committed resources having to be appropriated as promised) in the absence of the requisite authorization (the pertinent papers are still under consideration). Just as the construction project was completed, the authorities refused to grant authorization for the mosque to be dedicated and went to court, requesting that the shrine be eliminated. However, the city court chose to support the Muslim community. But then, local prosecutors appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court, in support of the interests of the Vologda regional administration, the Vologda city administration and the State Directorate for Safety, Restoration and Utilization of Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Vologda Region. Defendants were the Spiritual Authority of Muslims in the European Part of Russia (DUMER), owner of the aforementioned plot of land and completed structure in Vologda, and the Vologda-based Muslim community acting by proxy on behalf of DUMER. Notably, the Moscow Arbitration Court also stood in support of the Vologda Muslims. Eventually, on December 19, 2001, the Federal Arbitration Court reviewed the claim from the Vologda officials and ruled to uphold the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court, turning down the appeal of the Vologda regional deputy prosecutor (30). And finally, the highest-profile case of a religious association being suppressed by the authorities in 2001 occurred in Moscow. Local authorities attempted to close the Moscow chapter of the Salvation Army. In August 1999, the Ministry of Justice Department for Moscow turned down the organization’s application for re-registration. Apart from raising a number of rather perfunctory points relating to the organization’s charter, Moscow authorities accused the Salvation Army of being a “militarized organization.” The reason for such a label comes from the fact that the organization’s members wear military-style uniforms, maintain working relationships reminiscent of a chain of command in a military unit and seem to communicate with the use of many military-sounding terms. Following the rejection of the application for re-registration, the Moscow Department for Social Services terminated the agreement that authorized the Salvation Army to conduct charity activities within Moscow (giving free meals to the homeless, etc.). As a consequence, all Salvation Army operations in Moscow were discontinued (31). Furthermore, the owner of the premises leased by the Salvation Army’s Moscow chapter refused to renew the leasing agreement through 2001 (32). The Salvation Army appealed the decision of Moscow authorities in a court of law. However, the Moscow inter-municipal and city courts issued rulings in favor of the Justice Department, as these courts have also concluded that the organization is rather “militaristic” in its ways. Those rulings were passed after the Ministry of Justice had re-registered the centralized Salvation Army organization on January 21, 2001. However, local Salvation Army chapters have been effectively registered and cleared for operations in Russian cities, including Volgograd, Saint-Petersburg and Rostov-on-Don. Interestingly enough, the Ministry’s panel of experts declined all accusations of the organization being “militarized (33).” On September 12, 2001, the Moscow-based Tagansky inter-municipal court ruled to have the Moscow Salvation Army chapter outlawed for failing to secure registration. In the meantime, before the decision to ban the Salvation Army was passed, Moscow authorities had stated that they were not against the activities of the Moscow-based Salvation Army, in principle. According to A. Muzykantsky, Moscow Minister for Information Policies and Public Relations, as soon as the organization brought its charter provisions in line with the Ministry of Justice’s requirements, it could easily have its Moscow-based chapter appropriately registered as a unit of the Army’s centralized structure (34). Many instances of religious associations effectively defending their interes, t in courts are indicative of some positive trends noted during the year 2001. Even where court proceedings are yet to be completed (because of either prosecutors or judicial authorities launching counter-suits), interim decisions have often been passed in favor of the religious organizations in question. At the same time, certainly, there have also been numerous other examples akin to those seen in the Jehovah’s Witnesses court proceedings. In May 2001, the Kostroma Regional Department of Justice declined to re-register two local Protestant congregations, because the pastors allegedly used “some elements of psychic influence during worship services.” Following a trial in court that resulted in a ruling in favor of the defendants, the religious organizations renewed their registrations just two days prior to the date of expiration of their previous registrations (35). Similarly, on July 13, 2001, the Kirov Regional Department of Justice received a court order to renew the registration of the Volga-Viatka Christian Center, of the Pentecostal congregation (36). The Baptist congregation in the township of Vanino (Khabarovsk territory) had initially been denied re-registration under a rather minor pretext (the religious organization’s mailing address coincided with that of Pastor D. Pollard, a U. S. national who had a private home). In the end, the congregation won the case. The Regional Department of Justice, however, appealed the court ruling. On July 17, 2001, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made a renewed effort to have the case of the Kazan-based “New Life” Evangelic Christians congregation sent to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan for review. This religious organization had been de-registered and, in effect, banned, following its violation of the Kazan Mayor’s directive issued to prevent all religious organizations from holding unauthorized functions and gatherings on premises owned by municipal structures and establishments. The elimination procedures, including the court proceedings, featured numerous formal irregularities (37). The cases mentioned above, which have occurred in various Russian regions, were largely the result a lack on the part of the central authorities of a set of clear-cut federal policies in the area of religious activities. Notably, the late 1990s and the year 2000 marked a pronounced trend in the loss of non-Orthodox and non-Christian religious associations of their ability to exercise their freedom of conscience. A primary reason has been the practice of dividing active religious organizations into the so-called “traditional” and “non-traditional” (with the former allegedly deserving more rights than the latter). This type of thinking has been increasingly influencing regional and local authorities inclined to believe that new foreign-origin religions tend to threaten national security interests. The year 2001 saw a series of efforts undertaken in order to formulate a state policy in the area of religious activities. In June and August 2001, the Russian Academy of Civil Service (RAGS), on the one hand, and the Ministry of Justice’s Department for Moscow (operating together with the Institute for State-Confessional Relations (IGKO)), on the other, submitted two different draft concepts for state policies in the area of relations between governmental agencies and religious associations. In general, both documents aim to provide for an active role of the state in society’s religious engagements, diminish missionary activities of foreign religious groups within the confines of the Russian Federation, and suggest that a set of special relations should be established between the state and “traditional” religions. However, the documents do differ in certain respects. The concept proposed by IGKO and the Ministry of Justice’s Department for Moscow runs counter to the relevant provisions of the RF Constitution, according to A. Sebentsov, Chairman of the Government Commission for Religious Associations. This draft directly calls both for the Russian Orthodox Church to be given a special status and for codification of the following categories of religious associations: “traditional religious organizations of the Russian Federation” (with the category apparently including Russian Orthodoxy, Islam and probably Buddhism) and “traditional religious organizations of ethnic communities in the Russian Federation” (this category obviously including Judaism and other comparable religions). Importantly, this concept rather straightforwardly provides for “priority” cooperation between state agencies and traditional religious organizations, as well as suggests areas for cooperation that may include charity activities, liberal arts engagements, and a broad range of patriotic educational programs. Clearly, all these provisions contradict the basic principles of managing a secular state and the guidelines for equality of religious associations. The draft concept offered by the Civil Service Academy (RAGS) appears to be much more moderate. Notably, it has no mention of the Russian Orthodox Church. What is more, the document criticizes religious officials trying to interfere in the affairs of the government and public schools. Overall, this draft supports the principles of a secular state and generally makes no provisions for the government to build cooperative links with the active religious associations. However, RAGS’ concept also contains the idea that the “traditional” religions should have a codified special status (38), suggesting that those religious associations should enjoy special perks and receive “government support in pursuing socially relevant activities (39).” To sum up, adopting any of the suggested concepts would surely place serious constraints on the freedom of conscience in the Russian Federation and leave a large segment (at least one third) of the active religious associations discriminated against. While the Moscow Justice Department-IGKO draft seeks to legalize the offensive and discriminatory religious policies pursued in some of the Russian provinces, the RAGS document appears to be an attempt to have the aforementioned unsavory trends brought in line with the pertinent provisions of the RF Constitution. Given that the current RF Constitution holds quite explicit provisions on freedom of conscience and equality of religious associations, even the most subtle wordings of the newly-suggested legal requirements and rules are unlikely to legitimize inequality without brazenly violating the constitutional rights and freedoms of people. As we proceed to address the suggestions to introduce a special legal status for “traditional” religions (primarily RPTz), we should look to see what role is played by RPTz in current government policies. Data gathered during 2001 (supporting trends seen in previous years) provided sufficient grounds for the aforementioned task to be effectively carried out. Drafters of a number of regional reports (Amur, Kirov, Kurgan, Lipetsk, Novosibirsk, Oryol and Chelyabinsk regions; Khabarovsk territory; Marii El Republic; Nenetsky autonomous district and some other subjects of the Russian Federation) have provided evidence directly indicative of a privileged position enjoyed by RPTz. Apart from RPTz, only Russian Muslims and, very rarely, Catholics have received any financial aid from the government. The Kurgan Governor is known to have steered the effort to have regional industries and businesses make financial contributions to support Russian Orthodox activities. The government funding effort to support RPTz parishes has been maintained as a budget line-item “assisting public organizations.” One such organization is the Church of St. George-the-Victor-for-Warriors. Government officials at any and all levels in the Russian Federation would now and again turn to RPTz for an expert opinion when confronted with a task to formulate a policy on religions. For example, the book Introduction into Sectology by A. Dvorkin (known to be heading the St. Irene of Lyon Center for Information and Consultative Services — one of the highly visible Russian Orthodox organizations seeking to place constraints on the spread of “non-traditional” religions in Russia) has been recommended by the Prosecutor General’s Office as a guidebook for regional prosecutors (40). Following a set of focused urgings from A. Dvorkin, an effort was launched to persecute the Chelyabinsk-based Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation (41). What is more, the decision to suspend construction of a shrine for the “Emmanuel” Church was also taken following the local prefecture’s office receiving a letter from the same A. Dvorkin, who requested that “the religious association’s activities should be most thoroughly investigated” (see above) (42). The May 29, 2001 Session of the Presidential Council on Religious Organizations, convened to address the problem of regional religious legislation contradicting the RF Constitution and federal laws, had none other than an RPTz hierarch appearing in support of the unconstitutional legal provisions maintained in many of the Russian regions. Metropolitan Yuvenaly (Poyarkov) of Krutitsy and Kolomna, member of the Council, explained, “Inasmuch as those laws have been passed, you ought to bear in mind that they have been passed for a purpose. One should try and see the root causes underlying those laws.” He proceeded to suggest that representatives from regional authorities should be invited to attend the next gathering of the Council to be asked to explain why the relevant subjects of the Russian Federation had passed those laws in the first place, and how they planned to carry on “with those legal provisions repealed (43).” Some high-standing RPTz members have publicly appeared against implementation of the principle of the state’s secular nature codified in the RF Constitution. As he addressed the State Duma Deputies at the hearings “The Issue of Legislative Support for the State-Church Relations in the Light of the RPTz Social Concept,” Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, Chairman of RPTz Department for External Relations, stated, “The principle of separating the State from the Church has increasingly been growing into a principle of segregation, which is nothing short of a downsized apartheid with regard to the Church (44).” To substantiate his observation, the RPTz hierarch referred to the educational sector as he looked at members of the clergy, “You just cannot appear on public school premises because public schools are separated from the Church.” However, the recent reports on the growing cooperation between governmental agencies and officials, on the one hand, and RPT, on the other, make one wary of the trend vectored in the opposite direction. In October 2000, the Commissions on Orthodox Education and Orthodox Initiation of the Young People were established with the presidential representative’s office in the Central federal district of the Russian Federation (45). In early 2001, a conference on spiritual and moral education of the younger generation was conducted by the aforementioned office. The only religious representatives invited to participate in the gathering were those of RPTz. Importantly, RPTz has an even stronger presence in the RF Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education and RPTz have established a joint council structured to include a committee for the affairs of the younger generation (46). What is more, the Ministry of Education has concluded an agreement with RPTz under which the latter shall be involved in reviewing “spiritual-educational programs, projects and training aids.” The Minister of Education, V. Filippov, explains that these reviews would be conducted in order to “have the state educational standards, training programs, textbooks and aids liberated from manifestations of militant atheism.” On February 17, 2000, the Ministry of Education confirmed the theology standards drafted by the RPTz, with theology being introduced as a training discipline in some of the higher schools of learning (47). In May 2001, the Minister of Education appeared before an RPTz-arranged congress of young Orthodox believers with the talk “Educating Younger People is the Business of State, Society and Church.” The title of the presentation, incidentally, seems to fully reflect the Minister’s point of view (48). The final goal of this rapprochement is to have the basics of Orthodox education (or “the basics of Orthodox culture” in the more “secular version”) integrated within the system of public education in the Russian Federation. This discipline has already been taught in a number of public schools across Russia. So, apart from increasingly exercising its influence on the government, RPTz obviously seeks to take advantage of the country’s educational system in order to energize its missionary efforts. However, one should be careful not to confuse the Ministry of Education’s stance with that of the Federal Government as a whole. In July 2001, the Ministry of Justice passed a negative “verdict” following a review of the draft educational standard for theology. To be specific, the knowledgeable opinion statement in one paragraph reads as follows: Introduction of the suggested standard, designed to provide for the training of theologians equipped to teach theology at state and municipal educational establishments (of all levels), runs counter to Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, under which the Russian Federation is a secular state and no religion can claim to be regarded as either a state or compulsory confession. The concluding expert opinion document also states that the proposed draft standard is out of line with the constitutional principle of religious associations being separated from the state and remaining equal before the law (49). In September 2001, M. Meyer, an official from the Presidential Administration, and A. Sebentsov, Chairman of the Commission on Religious Associations (established with the RF Government), quite independently suggested that a special agency (a committee or even a ministry) should be set up to handle the matters of cooperative links between the state and religious associations. Clearly, emergence of such a governmental agency would allow federal authorities to interfere in the affairs of religious associations. However, one could hardly rule out the possibility for that kind of agency turning either into a sort of an appellate structure for religious associations or an authority powerful enough to counter the risk of arbitrary rule on the part of regional administrations. Notwithstanding, the federal policies with regard to religious associations continue to be rather uncertain. What is more, a specialized governmental agency of the kind mentioned above is yet to be established, while violations of freedom of conscience in many Russian regions persist. The Right to Alternative Civil Service (1) In particular, according to O. Mironov, Ombudsman of the Russian Federation. (2) A. Shchipkov, “Russia: Will Local Laws on Freedom of Conscience be Repealed?” Church-Radio Infocenter (May 30, 2001). (3) A. Shchipkov, D. Feigan, “Can Russia Live under the Belgorod Law?” NG-Religii (May 30, 2001). (4) Ibid. (5) “The Belgorod Regional Duma Places Constraints on the Constitution of the Russian Federation.” Slavic Legal Center (May 18, 2001). “Critical Situation in Belgorod.” Keston News Service (February 27, 2001). (6) “The Department of Public Relations of the Krasnoyarsk Administration Holds a Sequence of Meetings with Educational, Cultural and Healthcare Specialists on “Spiritual Aggression by Religious Sects.” Church-Radio (March 23, 2001). (7) “Will the Evangelic Christians in Mordovia be Persecuted?” Keston News Service (February 27, 2001). (8) “The “Black List” of Nizhnii Novgorod-Based Religious Organizations.” NG-Religii (June 14, 2001). (9) The given religious association was established in the summer of 1993 by a US-origin Evangelic missionary. The Association (along with other 50 charismatic congregations) makes part of the Christian Association for Global Strategies. (10) “The Marii-Origin Christians Sue Yoshkar-Ola Mayor’s Office.” NG-Religii (July 11, 2001). (11) K. Mayorov, “Pentecostals Get Offended…” NG-Religii (December 11, 2001). (12) “Moscow: Pentecostals Hold Liturgies in the Open-Air.” The Charisma News Service (April 19, 2001). (13) G. Petrov, “Special Legislation Required.” Inostranets (April 17, 2001). (14) “Officials from the Penza region Continue to Obstruct Activities Pursued by the “Living Faith” Church.” Radio-Church Infocenter (February 20, 2001). (15) “Persecutions in Penza Continue.” “Living Faith” Church (February 21, 2001). (16) “ The Krasnoyarsk Territory: the “Glorification” Church in Sayanogorsk Continues to be Persecuted by the Mayor’s Office.” Radio-Church Infocenter (May 2, 2001). (17) “A Feature Film about Christ Banned in Chekhov.” NTV News Service (January 11, 2001). (18) Here is an excerpt from a statement made by the leaders of three Chekhov-based Protestant congregations addressed to the President of the Russian Federation: “A veritable war has long since been prosecuted against the Protestant Christians in Chekhov. They get terrorized by local criminal gangs with the authorities and law enforcement bodies turning a blind eye to the developments.” “Pastors Turn to the President for Protection.” Slavic Legal Center (November 12, 2001). (19) “Home of Prayer Burnt Down in Chekhov.” Slavic Legal Center (April 26, 2001). (20) “Pastors Turning to Russian President for Protection against Persecution.” Slavic Legal Center (November 12, 2001). (21) “Home of Prayer Burnt Down in Chekhov.” Slavic Legal Center (April 26, 2001). (22) “Pastors Turning to Russian President for Protection against Persecution.” Slavic Legal Center (November 12, 2001). (23) “Home of Prayer Burnt Down in Chekhov.” The Slavic Legal Center (April 26, 2001). (24) “Cossacks Seeing Red.” The Chronicles of Persecution (August 28, 2001, ¹7). (25) I. Lopatin, “Why Jehovah’s Picked Them as Witnesses.” Rossiyskaya Gazeta (February 2, 2001). (26) “Regional Court Rules to Allow for Worshiper Assemblies to be Disbanded.” Prima (January 25, 2001). “Regional Court Fails to Stand Up for Freedom of Conscience.” Prima (July 2, 2001). (27) “Regional Court Declines to Honor Appeal from “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Prima (June 6, 2001). (28) “Ruling on Banning “Jehovah’s Witnesses” Congregation Repealed.” Prima (June 19, 2001). (29) “No Mosque is Wanted by Colomna.” NG-Religii (May 16, 2001). (30) See the report on the human rights situation in Vologda region for 2001 (available in Russian only at www.hro.org). (31) An excerpt: “Over the past seven years of its operations in Moscow as many as 893 local organizations have received humanitarian aid from the Salvation Army, with three refugee camps set up in the Republic of Ingushetia for Chechen refugees.” K. Kutz, “Warriors of Christ.” Vecherniaya Moskva (January 18, 2001). (32) O. Nedoumov, “Will Salvation Army be Saved?” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (January 17, 2001). (33) V. Ivolgina, “Save Yourself.” Nezavisimaya Gazeta (August 8, 2001). (34) S. Kolosovskaya, “Missionary.” Tverskaya 13 (September 12, 2001). (35) M. Edelshtein, “Kostroma Pentecostals Re-registered at Long Last.” Keston News Service. (36) “Legal Footdragging — No Cause for Banning,” Slavic Legal Center (July 16, 2001). (37) “In particular, the congregation had not been notified either of the date of the relevant court hearing or of the court ruling passed with the given religious organization’s representatives failing to be in attendance. The Kazan-based Protestants are seeking to restore justice.” NTV Information Service. (July 20, 2001). Also, see the relevant chapter in the Collection of Reports Human Rights in Russian Regions — 2000 (38) The criteria for granting the given status are supposed to be finalized separately. For example, the requirements for securing a legal entity status are expected to be made more affordable. (39) This wording provides an example of a major disparity between the two documents. The relevant language in the concept advanced by the Ministry of Justice Department for Moscow together with the IGKO runs as follows: “…the State promotes development of socially useful activities by religious associations.” This wording is clearly reflective of the closer links between the state and religious associations (the circumstance actually working against the secular state principle). Any detailed description of the areas for cooperative efforts would be increasingly reminiscent of defining the boundaries within which the given religious associations (traditional ones, of course) could claim to exert any influence on the public. (40) N. Babasian, “Crusaders for the State.” Grani.Ru (June 19, 2001). (41) S. Ivanenko, “Liberating Chelyabinsk from Outlandish Believers.” Moscow News (February 6, 2001). (42) K. Mayorov, “Pentecostals Get Offended…” NG-Religii (December 11, 2001). (43) A. Shchipkov, “Russia: Will Local Laws on Freedom of Conscience be Repealed?” Church-Radio Infocenter (May 30, 2001). (44) N. Babasian, “Clergy on Government Service” New Times (¹29, 2001). (45) K. Veretennikova, “The Very Pristine Orthodoxy.” Vremya MN (May 15, 2001). (46) Ibid. (47) A. Adamsky, “Church Growing its Influence on Education.” Vremya MN (April 25, 2001). (48) P. Korobov, “Welcome, the Young and Orthodox Ones.” Kommersant (May 14, 2001). (49) V. Matanis, “Unlawful Standard.” NG-Religii (July 25, 2001). Back |
Íàøà êíîïêà  |
|