RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS|
|
|
Valery Nikolsky: Do you think that pressure was exerted upon the court during the investigation of the case regarding the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook?
Evgeny Ikhlov: I would not say that there was pressure. Pressure on a court is a serious crime. There was pressure on us; there was influence upon the court. This is confirmed by the fact that Judge Akkuratova made on the basis of the very same material from the prosecutor two diametrically opposed decisions: in December 2002 she found the refusal to open the criminal case illegal, and in March 2003, legal. The only difference is that in the second time she was told that the scientific consultation of the attorney Burkovskaia was made by a specialist who studied in her doctorate the psychology of religious groups. According to the order of the prosecutor general in 1999, conclusions in cases regarding religious and national enmity are supposed to be given by specialists, historians, philologists, religious studies specialists, or psychologists. She wrote that there was nothing criminal in the textbook, but even the text of the "Methodological indicators of the Scientific Investigation Institute of problems of strengthening legality and legal order of the prosecutor general of RF" that was written by the very same Burkovskaia shows that denigrating the dignity of representatives of a religion is incitement of religious enmity.
During the course of our examining the review materials in March we discovered in the case file that was put together by the Ostankino district prosecutor's and was sent to the prosecutor general photocopies of two statements to the prosecutor general of RF from Sergei Riakovsky and Oleg Steniaev. These copies had not been registered in the proseutor's and were dated 7 January and they pertained to a completely different case. That is, the copies of these documents had been delivered to the district prosecutor in order to inform corresponding government workers, in the second place, that in becoming acquainted with the case we understood that "we all are in God's hands." And in the court Senior Prosecutor Rybalka said on 21 March the things that were written in them.
--What could you comment about the statement from Tamara Kvitkovskaia, who calls herself a rights defender, to the prosecutor general of 3 June, where she again affirms that the Harry Potter books offend religious sentiments and ignite religious discord?
--Well with regard to her statement on Harry Potter a case was opened and an expert analysis was conducted, while on a more serious issue--you know I am talking about the school textbook--we have been unable to get the same. I deny that she is a rights defender because a rights defender proceeds from the priority of personal rights over collective rights. She demands the conducting of national religious education of Russians, denying the right of the individual to choose national religious identity. And this is confirmed by her quote in her appeal of the words of the Israeli ambassador: "On 27 May 2003 at the congress of rabbis in Moscow the ambassador of Israel to Russia, Arkady Mil-Man stated that 'a Jew is inseparable from his religion; many Jews and non-Jews, organizations and non-organizations forget this,'" because for a rights defender compulsory imposition of religious identity through the system of education is impermissible.
Besides, she has slandered me by writing about "the hounding of Orthodox culture and religion by L. Ponomarev and E. Ikhlov," because I talk about a specific textbook and not about the fundamentals of Orthodox culture in general. Whereas she demands that I be put in jail for criticism of the textbook, I do not demand in court any arrests. I am talking about the order from the prosecutor general to government workers about putting an end to illegal activity. In a dozen regions of the Russian federation the constitution is being violated with regard to two articles (the secular character of education and interreligious and interethnic enmity) and it is being violated by officials of high rank and the prosecutor should put an end to this. (tr. by PDS, posted 27 June 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Esteemed Vladimir Mikhailovich
Participants of the "Common Action" initiative group express their concern over the attempts of representatives of the Ministry of Education of RF to use the introduction of the discipline of religious studies for propagating in general educational institutions an ideology that is embued with Orthodox clericalism and xenophobia.
In the first place, for more than a year now the notorious "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" ["OPK"] textbook by A.V. Borodina has been used. Despite the fact that the introduction of "OPK" has already evoked a multitude of protests on the part of the democratic news media, pedagogical and rights defense organizations, scholars, clergy, deputies and highly placed officials, and administrators of the system of education with a persistence that deserves a better reception, the policy is continuing of introducing this textual resource in which minor children are being regaled with such notions not in conformity with the text of the Gospel as "the Jews crucified Christ," and they are taught to distinguish "sectarians," "satanists," and "heretics," and explain which nationalities behave more nobly in the Russian land and which less.
A year ago Borodina's textbook received the recommendation of the Coordinating Council of Cooperation between the Ministry of Education of RF and the Moscow patriarchate of RPTs and it was approved for use in the schools of the capital by structures of the Moscow Committee for Education, and it was prepared for the press in the "Pokrov" publishing house. Organizers of the introduction of "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" were not stopped even by the fact that the Coordinating Council that was established by a decree of the Ministry of Education (No. 58, of 1 July 1999) does not have the authority to make recommendations on the use of textual literature.
Here is the evaluation that A.V. Borodina's "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture: (first edition) received on the part of experts and the public:
--The director of the Center for the Study of Religious of the Russian State Humanities University, N.V. Shaburov: "The textbook does not conform with the standards demanded of textual methodological literature inasmuch as it contains incorrect expressions used for inciting religious and ethnic discord. . . and represents not a textual resource for the fundamentals of Orthodox culture but a confessional apology for Orthodoxy . . . . The discussions [of the Jewish people] do not have anything in common with historical reality and they bear a frankly antisemitic character. . . . It contains an uncritical description of miracles . . . where the description of a miracle is supposed to demonstrate the preeminence of Orthodox persons over Armenians."
--"We'll survive til Monday" Club of Teachers: "It is not a religious studies and culture studies textual resource in terms of its content and provision of information. . . . It contains statements that could form in pupils notions about the native preeminence or defectiveness of certain ethnic, national, or religious groups and then create prejudices against them. . . ."
--Church historian Fr Yakov Krotov: "The author reveals religions and faiths which she does not separate. . . . Borodina even presents no the history of the Russian Orthodox church but a Russian modification of the theory of German romantics. . . . It contains retelling of medieval legends that have no factual basis along with some modern superstitions. . . It accustoms pupils (and teachers) to an uncritical acceptance of diverse rumors and pseudosensations from the yellow press. . . . Its view [on "guests" of the Russian people] also contradicts the bases of the Christian faith. . . . nationalism "of the market variety" . . . a classical antisemitic tirade . . . The history of Russian Christian thought is not illuminated. . . ."
--United Committee for the Protection of Jews in the Former USSR: "medieval national and religious notions based on nonacceptance of other faiths and peoples. . . . Millions of Jews were killed, tortured, or discriminated against just for such a myth [contained in the textbook] about the collective responsibility of the Jewish people for the execution of Christ and for claims about the aspirations of Jews for world domination."
--"Volunteer Corps" military history organizations: "culturological chauvinism that destroys Russia."
We think it completely impermissible that textbooks that express the views of only one of many groups of believers existing in Russian society would be adopted, even with the consent of parents, in the state schools that exist on the money of taxpayers among whom are not only representatives of the most diverse confessions but also atheists and agnostics.
Loud protests against the clericalization of the schools and the scandalous reputation of the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook should have forced the leadership of the Ministry of Education to reject its imposition. The more so, since all talk about Orthodoxy being the religion of the overwhelming majority of Russians is pure speculation. The number of persons who, according to data of sociological surveys and the assessments of serious investigators, can be considered with more or less specificity to be Orthodox believers in Russia does not exceed 4 to 9 percent (K. Kaariainin and D. Furman in the book "Old churches, new believers. Religion in mass consciousness in postsoviet Russia," 2000)
At one time it seemed that the leadership of the Ministry of Education heeded the voice of reason. At first you, mister minister, promised that the teaching of Orthodox culture would be conducted only within the framework of a single course on the history of world religions. Then, apparently, in order to keep school children from learning about Hinduism, Buddhism, and the most widespread Christian denominations in the world (protestantism and Catholicism), you began talking only about a course of "Religions of Russia." You assured us that Borodina's textbook did not have "recommended" status.
However, soon, after the public believed you, all public assurances about the teaching only of a single course on the history of basic religions were abandoned. The leadership of the Ministry of Education suddenly forgot its own arguments in favor of a multiconfessional textbook and a new stage of instilling Orthodox clericalization of the schools was begun. Instead of a "Religions of Russia" course, preparation of a "Religion of Russia" textbook was begun.
The decision of the Coordinating Council for Cooperation of the Ministry
of Education and the Moscow Patriarchate of RPTs to recommend a second
time for general education and for Sunday schools Borodina's "Fundamentals
of Orthodox Culture" was an open challenge to the public. The council acted
under the joint leadership of the deputy ministry of education, L.S. Grebnev,
and Metropolitan Sergius of Solnechnogorsk, who also signed the recommendation.
The bases for this decision were the following:
a) "the positive expert conclusion" of theologians, clergy (several
of whom, we recall, manage the "Pokrov" publishing house), and an official,
the first prorector of the Moscow Institute for Raising the Qualification
of Education Workers, S.B. Romanov (the supervisor of the preparation of
the textbook);
b) "the positive result of the introduction of this textual resource
in Moscow and in Moscow, Kursk, Belgorod, and Smolensk provinces, and other
provinces of Russia." What kind of "positive" result was in view the decision
does not report, although, as you well know, the scandalous textbook evoked
sharp criticism.
An analysis of fragments of the new textual resource shows that in the new edition also are retained elements of direct advocacy in favor of Orthodoxy that effectively transform it into a "Law of God" textbook and displays of religious nationalism, antisemitism, and xenophobia.
This means that as of 1 September thousands of new pupils will be condemned to receive grades for successfully mastering passages like those that we quoted at the beginning of the letter.
The persistence with which, despite all protests, the xenophobic assertions are being retained in Borodina's textbook shows their importance for the ideologues of "the rebirth of spirituality."
What is most dangerous is that Borodina's textbook gets children to think that national origin and religious affiliations produce the moral qualities of a person. It is such notions that are the doctrinal basis of chauvinism and racism. The "OPK" course effectively returns a medieval level of interconfessional polemics to modern times and legalizes religious nationalism. The introduction of this textbook puts an end to all programs for developing toleration.
We think it necessary to publish a special circular of the Ministry of Education of RF stating the impermissibility of the use of both editions of Borodina's "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" as a textual resource since it did not go through the Federal Expert Commission for General Education and it has evoked substantial criticism.
The constitution of the Russian federation prohibits the incitement of national and religious enmity and the advocacy of national and religious preeminence (part 2 of article 28), provides legal guarantees of the existence of a secular state in Russia, and does not permit the transformation of Orthodoxy, just like any other religion, into a governmental ideology (part 2 of article 13 and article 14). These constitutional principles are not accidental. Humanity has literally struggled for the principles of religious tolerance and pluralism and the equality of rights of both believers and nonbelieving people.
The leaders of the Ministry of Education do not have the right to cross out the basic principles of the existing constitution and to substitute their own decisions.
We think that it is required to conduct a broad discussion of the extraordinarily important question of the expediency and permissibility of the state's teaching the rising generation a certain national religious ideology that exceeds the bounds of the principles of the observation and protection of human rights, regardless of the national and religious affiliation of pupils. If society nevertheless considers it necessary and possible to do this in state schools, it will be necessary to make corresponding amendments in the constitution and legislation. However both government workers and society should be fully conscious of all the consequences of such fundamental decisions. We are talking not only about the secular character of education and the state but also about the threat of a chain reaction of diverse forms of religious nationalism.
We call the leadership of the Ministry of Education of RF to observe the constitutional principles of the secular, nonideological character of the state system of education in the Russian federation. The best outcome for the resolution of the question about acquainting Russian school children with the history of religions and religious teachings would be the creation of a single academic course in the "History of World Religions," taught within the framework of classes in history, with the necessary agreement of the heads of confessions that actually are active in the Russian federation.
With respect:
L.M. Alekseeva, Moscow Helsinki Group; S.A. Kovalev, deputy of the RF State Duma; M.G. Arutiunov, International Rights Defense Assembly; A.V. Babushkin, Public "For Civil Rights" Charity Committee; E.L. Grishina, Public "Rights Defense Information" Organization; L.S. Levinson, Institute for Human Rights; L.A. Ponomarev, All-Russian "For Human Rights" Movement; Yu.V.Samodurov, director of the Andrei Sakharov Museum and Public Center; Fr Gleb Yakunin, Copmmittee for the Defense of Freedom of Conscience.
(tr. by PDS, posted 27 June 2003)
Original Russian text at credo.ru.
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Around half of the religious organizations of Belorussia have undergone reregistration in accordance with the requirements of the new version of the law "On freedom of conscience and religious organizations." Blagovest-info was told at the State Committee for Affairs of Religions and Nationalities of the Council of Ministers of Belorussia that as of today notification of registration has already been received by the Belorussian Orthodox church and its ten dioceses and the Roman Catholic church in Belorussia and its four dioceses. In addition, reregistration has been completed for the Jewish Religious Association, the Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith of Belorussia, the Conference of Churches of Seventh-Day Adventists and the Catholic "Karitas-Miloserdie" charity mission. At the same time the Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists [EkhB] of Belorussia wrote a letter on 19 June to the chairman of the State Committee for Affairs of Religions and Nationalities, Stanislav Buko, that said that the religious societies and organizations of the EkhB union "cannot take upon themselves the obligations established by the new version of the law 'On freedom of consience and religious organizations.'" In connection with this the leadership of the EkhB union declared: "Reregistration of the charters of religious societies and organizations on the basis of the new law at the present time puts us in a difficult position, since some standards established in the law are incompatible with the religious convictions of believing citizens."
According to the new version of the law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" adopted in Belorussia in November of last year, all religious associations and societies must undergo reregistration within two years from the time the law took effect. Reregistration still must be completed for the Muslim Religious Association and the Ecclesiastical Board of Muslims of Belorussia, the Bahai Religious Association, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Association of Jewish Religious Communities and the Association of Progressive Judaism.
According to information of the State Committee for Affairs of Religious and Nationalities, at the beginning of this year in Belorussia there were around 2,000 churches and 2,825 societies of various religious confessions. Among them are 1,265 Orthodox parishes, 492 congregations of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, 432 Catholic parishes, and 268 Christians of Evangelical Faith. The Belorussian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate (BPTsMP) comprises 10 dioceses, 16 monasteries, 1,033 active Orthodox churches and 157 under construction. In BPTs have 1,119 clergy. More than 400 Orthodox Sunday schools have been opened. Eighteen religious brotherhoods and eight sisterhoods of BPTs are engaged in social service, which provides help to children's homes, homes for the elderly and invalid, hospitals, and homeless. There also is in Belorussia an Old Believers Ancient Orthodox religious association that has 37 parishes of the Pomorie branch and two parishes of other branches acting autonomously.
The Roman Catholic church has 432 registered parishes in Belorussia. It comprises four dioceses, seven convents, 342 active churches and 36 under construction. More than 330 priests work in them, including 150 foreigners. Sunday schools have been opened in the Catholic churches. In addition, there are two Catholic ecclesiastical seminaries in Belorussia, in Grodno and Pinsk.
Protestantism is represented in the republic by fifteen religious denominations in more than 1,000 societies. There also are three Jewish religious associations active in the country, including 37 communities, one mission, and two religious educational institutions. The Muslim religious association of Belarus comprises 27 societies. In addition, in Belorussia 14 parishes of the Greek Catholic church and 13 societies of eastern religions are operating. (tr. by PDS, posted 26 June 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
In 1991 the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine adopted the law "On freedom of conscience and religious organizations" that is still in effect today. In the past years this law provided radical changes in the religious life of the country which were impossible even to imagine in 1991. The country has moved along the path from almost total prohibition and restriction of the religious sphere within public life to free and open profession of faith by each person and the flowering of religious pluralism. Changes in society and the adoption of the Ukrainian constitution in 1996 have led to the need for corrections in the law "On freedom of conscience and religious organizations" (subsequently referred to as "the law"), to bring it into correspondence with the new realities of life and articles of the constitution. Among these, in 1991 it was difficult to foresee the appearance of a multitude of new religions and preachers from abroad, the massive return of property to churches (many problems arose here which must be resolved on the basis of the law), the aspirations of churches for presence in the public and political life, in the educational system of the country, in the armed forces, and much else. In addition, Ukraine became a subject of international law with its obligatory conventions relative to human rights and the persistent attention of the international community to the implementation of the standards of religious freedom in practice.
Thus it is not surprising that almost immediately after the adoption of the Ukrainian constitution, the State Committee of Ukraine for Affairs of Religions (within the Council of Ministers) and several deputy groups of the Supreme Soviet began to work out and agree upon changes in the existing law of 1991 and to present them for review to the Supreme Soviet. There have already been several such draft laws and all of them for one reason or another, most often political, were rejected and not considered.
There are quite diverse perceptions among deputies of what religious life in the country should be like. Some fractions, hoping for the support for their policies from one or another church, lobby for that church's interests and think that the law should establish some special role for that church (and this always means the infringement of the rights of all other churches). Other deputies who have participated in the consideration of a draft of changes in the law share extraordinary ignorance about the religious sphere and they indulge themselves with publishing in the news media opinions that are incompatible not only with basic human rights but also with right thinking. There also were unsuccessful drafts of changes in the current law worked out by the State Committee for Affairs of Religions. In the dust from the struggle over the draft of the law some have even insisted that the current law of Ukraine "On freedom of conscience and religious organization" should remain in effect. In doing so they forget that many of its articles have little correspondence to the new realities of religious life in Ukraine.
At present in the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine there is the next, latest draft of the Ukrainian law "On inserting amendments into the law of Ukraine 'On freedom of conscience and religious organizations,'" that was prepared by the Ukrainian State Committee for Affairs of Religions and introduced by the cabinet of ministers. The draft law awaits review on first reading.
This draft has a rather long and dramatic history. Participants in its preparation included the working commission of the All-Ukrainian Counncil of Churches (VSTs), whose mambers are leaders and representatives of the largest churches of Ukraine. The text of the draft has been frequently discussed at sessions of VSTs and at round tables, where leaders of churches, Ukrainian and western scholars, deputies of the soviet, and representatives of foreign organizations (e.g., the Adenauer Fund) were present.
But despite all efforts, the State Committee for Affairs of Religions did not manage to get the leaders of the churches of Ukraine to agree to the draft of the law, even though this draft is now awaiting consideration in the Supreme Soviet. In addition, recently an active campaign for its recall and radical reworking has been mounted. A majority of members of the Ukrainian Council of Churches, some deputies who participated in the process, and the Institute for Religious Freedom spoke out for this today. The Ukrainian Association of Religious Freedom has serious considerations. A multitude of believers criticize the draft, judging by the number of letters that the Supreme Soviet has received. (However these letters most often do not have specific considerations; besides a substantial portion of letters contains almost identical texts.)
What shortcomings do critics see in the draft of the law "On introducing amendments in the law of Ukraine 'On freedom of conscience and religious organizations'"? First, in the opinion of the director of the Institute of Religious Freedom, Alexander Zaits, the draft "includes articles that restrict the freedom of religious confession (in comparison with the existing law) and strengthen the authority of the State Committee for Affairs of Religions in the religious sphere." The committee of the soviet for questions of combating organized crime and corruption recommended rejecting the draft on the basis that "it creates additional possibilities for various form of abuse and corrupt activity on the part of responsible persons of agencies of the executive branch in the sphere of state-confessional relations."
Members of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches maintain that their comments on the draft have been virtually ignored. In addition, the Institute of Religious Freedom accused the state religion committee of manipulating the opinion of members of the council of churches. Some leaders and representatives of different churches of Ukraine have advanced the point of view (after several years of discussion of drafts of changes in the law) that it is necessary to precede the working out of the law on changes with the planning and adoption of a doctrine of the relations between the church and state in Ukraine. In particular, such a suggestion was heard at the last session of the council of church from the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, Cardinal Guzar. He said that only by having a common doctrine would it be possible to join hands in introducing changes in the existing law "On freedom of conscience and religious organizations."
But what should be the basic contents of the proposed doctrine? Almost all leaders and representatives of churches who participated in a recent round table, organized by the Institute of Religious Freedom, insisted on one single point of the future doctrine--the declaration of partnership relations between church and state. However, there were no more or less specific characterizations of such a partnership. Meanwhile, the existing law of 1991 and the changes proposed in 2002 have many declared conceptual propositions such as the declaration of freedom of religious confession, separation of state from church, and the like. In general, a doctrine can be a part of any law and be worked out along with it. It would be desirable to have its possible contents more specifically formulated.
It is interesting that in connection with the discussion of the doctrine of the relations of the state and church and in the case of the development of one or another conflict situation connected with church life, there never fails to be heard the notion that the existence of the State Committee for Affairs of Religions within the Ukrainian government entails infringement, superfluity, or even danger. Some people, churches, and politicians consider this agency to be a relic of the soviet state and a means of interference by authority structures in the internal affairs of churches, that is, a conduit of the so-called paternal policies of the government with respect to the church.
We recall, however, that in the relations of the state and church a significant role is played by purely bureaucratic subsistence without which nobody has yet been able to get along. Say, registration of religious organizations at various levels. If the state committee were abolished then its employees as a whole would probably join the Ministry of Justice and would be occupied there with the very same matters. What difference does it make to the churches where they are registered? But in the event of conflict situations, over property or among churches, the churches would have nowhere to deal with such matters. I think that today all Ukrainian churches are not ready to get along without state paternalism. And thus the function of political guardianship of churches would be transferred somewhere, for example, to the Supreme Soviet. It seems that some deputies would not oppose this at all. And in the regions all the same local bureaucrats would remain with the right "to punish or caress", to allot or not to allot a parcel of land for a church or to return or not return liturgical items. And all of this according to prejudicial principles.
It is important to note that the policy of the present State Committee for Affairs of Religions on the whole does not violate the general bases of freedom of religious confession. The committee emphatically deals properly with any churches, confessions, and movements; it does not yield to the temptation of populist condemnation or discrimination against the newest religions, and it does not support any particular church at the expense of others; it is as concerned as possible about our chronically ill Orthodoxy. It is considerably thanks to the state committee that there exists the ecumenical All-Ukrainian Council of Churches where representatives of various churches and confessions are learning to get along among themselves. It is only a pity that this council does not incorporate all Ukrainian churches. As regards paternalism, heeding or not heeding the advice of the state committee nowadays depends entirely on the will of each hierarch.
All of this does not mean, however, that the draft law we are talking about is free from flaws. The collection of the Institute of Religious Freedom, "Informational materials on the draft of the law of Ukraine 'On introducing amendments into the law of Ukraine 'On freedom of conscience and religious organizations'" contains a number of analytical documents which talk about the shortcomings and flaws of the draft. There also are several items that are inconsistent with the current constitution and an increase of the control authority of the executive branch (State Committee for Affairs of Religions and local authorities) and the like. In addition, as the critics say, the draft is too declarative, "making religious organizations dependent upon governmental workers at various levels."
We also take note of several points that strike one immediately in the draft of changes in the law. It is well known that there is a difficult public problem at present in conflicts in connection with churches--the struggle over church buildings or parishes in connection with the restitution of church property. The State Committee for Affairs of Religions has acquired considerable experience in correcting these conflicts. Unfortunately, this experience is not at all reflected in the new draft law, say in the form of one or another strategy or procedure for resolving conflicts or recommending standards. Unfortunately the draft of the law does not specify a deadline for the current state owners to return the property to the churches. Just what is this "gradual return"? Not to mention that "transfer to ownership" and "transfer to use" are not clearly circumscribed with specific indicators (reasons, precedents, conditions). There is also no mention of the factor that most often is involved in the failure to return property to churches, the financial aspect of restitution. After all, one essential condition is the move of the present owner to other premises which must be provided for in the budget. We recall that the state is supposed to return their property to the churches not only in accordance with decrees of the president or legislative act, but also in keeping with the circumstances. The American ambassador to Ukraine, Carlos Pascual, mentioned this specifically in an article for the "Den" newspaper.
It is also unacceptable that while expanding the right of churches to educational activity the draft of the law does not promote any requirements for ecclesiastical educational institutions regarding their accreditation or the quality of the teaching or training. It is widely known that the current level of quality cannot be considered adequate.
One other thing. Considering that Ukraine is a member of the world and European community and that the West has acquired a great deal of experience (legislative, judicial, and social_ in the protection of religious freedom, it would be worthwhile, very worthwhile, to present the draft of the law for expert analysis at one of the appropriate European institutions. (tr. by PDS, posted 26 June 2003)
NEW DRAFT LAW RESTRICTING FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS CONFESSIONS
Maranatha,
19 June 2003
The Committee on Questions of Culture and Spiituality of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, chaired by Les Taniuk, on 17 June 2003 considered the draft of the law of Ukraine "On introducing amendments into the law of Ukraine 'On freedom of conscience and religious organizations' (registration No. 1281, of 12 May 2003, replacing earlier submission): and confirmed the decision to recommend that the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine adopt this draft on first reading.
On 11 June of this year, on the eve of the consideration of the draft in the parliamentary committee, a round table "Legislative guarantee of freedom of religious confession in Ukraine" was held at which a resolution was adopted in which representatives of various Christian churches (Ukrainian Orthodox church of Kiev patriarchate, Ukrainian Orthodox church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, All-Ukrainian Union of KhVEP [Pentecostal] churches, the Ukrainian Christian Evangelical church, and others) expressed their negative attitude toward the draft law because of there is no conceptual basis for state-confessional relations in Ukraine.
However, the position of the Christian churches of Ukraine with regard to the draft of the law for amending the freedom of conscience law was against, as last year (23 October 2002), ignored by the deputies of the Committee on Question of Culture and Spirituality. It should be noted that in the draft supported by the committee of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine a number of suggestions and considerations voiced in the past months by religious organizations have been taken into account. However, there still remain provisions (articles 15 (point 7), 25, 29, and 30, etc.) that substantially restrict freedom of religious confession and may negatively affect processes of democratization in Ukrainian society. (Source: Institute of Religious Freedom; tr. by PDS, posted 26 June 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Vladimir Putin stated on 25 June at a meeting with academic circles in Edinburgh that Russia's civil authorities are doing everything they can to bring the positions of the Holy See in the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox church into line, RIA Novosti reports.
The Russian president stressed that "he knows the opinions of Patriarch Alexis II on this matter and he is positively inclined." "We consider that relations between the Holy See and RPTs will be developing positively," he indicated. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 June 2003)
PUTIN HOPES FOR POSITIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN ROC, CATHOLIC CHURCH
ITAR-TASS, 25 June 2003
Russian President Vladimir Putin said he was hopeful that relations between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Catholic Church "will develop positively."
"Patriarch Alexy II (of Moscow and all Russia) is very positive about the development of relations with the Vatican and the Catholic Church, and I hope that relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church will develop positively," Putin said at the Signet law library in Edinburgh on Wednesday. (Copyright 2003 ITAR-TASS News Agency, posted 25 June 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Yesterday for the first time in modern Russian history the training of regimental priests began in Riazan at the institute for paratroopers. At the Moscow patriarchate's synodal Department for Relations with Military Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies a reporter for the "Vremia novostei" newspaper was told that more than 100 clergy from all dioceses came to the classes. But so far there still is no such classification as a military priest. There are clergymen who work with troops, so to speak, on social bases. At the synodal department it was acknowledged that the church is still not prepared for "staff" work, but it was not ruled out that in the future such positions will be introduced into the military.
The head of the group for relations with public and religious organizations of the Chief Directorate for Educational Work of the Ministry of Defense, Lt. Vladimir Polikarpov, confirmed in a conversation with a reporter from the "Vremia novostei" newspaper that there are really no regimental priests in the army. There are parish priests who provide spiritual nurture for Orthodox troops at the request of commanders, if their subordinates request it. The value of such contacts, in the opinion of the military, is undoubted. Priests give moral teaching to soldiers, they protect them from suicide in difficult times, and they ameliorate manifestations of hazing. Officers do not interfere in the conduct of religious rituals.
In recent years the cooperation of the army and the church has been manifested in quite diverse forms. Recently in Tambov a long-distance airplane was consecrated. On the eve of the Day of the Defender of the Fatherland, Metropolitan Feodosy of Omsk and Tarsk even sprinkled holy water from on board a military transport plan over army villages. During this past spring's draft the church send its representatives to conscription commission meetings. Incidentally, at the request of the military priests determined the sincerity of the religious convictions of conscripts who refused to serve in the army.
There is an official agreement on joint activity between the military command and the Russian Orthodox church. However the army command permits the church into the army to the extent that this is beneficial for the army. The Russian Orthodox church is significantly more active than the military. In 69 dioceses there are departments for relations with people in the ranks. The church divides the personnel into nine sectors: paratroops, interior forces, and so forth.
While undergoing military reforms Russia today is oriented to a great extent to USA and thus it is worth reviewing how the military gets on with the church there. There are more than 5,000 military priests or chaplains in the American army, 3,300 in the regular forces and 1,700 in the reserves. There is a center for training chaplains and a council of chaplains which is under the personal supervision of an aide of the Department of Defense. The American troops' oath ends with the phrase "So help me God," and the code of conduct of the American military contains the words: "I shall remain faithful to the Lord God and the United States of America." Among Americans there is a slogan that "there are no nonbelievers in foxholes."
At the classes the priests are discussing methods of working in churches located alongside military detachments and they are studying the experience of pastors who are participating along with troops in peacekeeping and counterterrorist operations. The spiritual fathers are not loath to become acquainted with the military techniques of paratroopers and even to meet with the commander of the paratroops, Georgy Shpak. To my question how to reconcile one of the main commands of Christ, one of the priests responded resonantly: "Do not kill does not mean do not defend."
Information: The number of believers among Russian military forces is 26 to 27%, and among conscripts, more than 30%; more than 70% of the total number of believers are Orthodox, Muslims, more than 8%, and Buddhists, almost 2%. Those who participate in religious rituals are 5 to 7%. On the territories of military villages there are 37 Orthodox churches and chapels functioning. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 June 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items