Religious associations in the Russian Federation are separated from the state. On the separation of church and state

The phrase that the Church is separated from the state has become lately a kind of rhetorical common place, used as soon as it comes to the participation of the Church in public life, as soon as church representatives appear in a government office. However, citing this top in a dispute today speaks of ignorance of what is written in the Constitution and the “Law on Freedom of Conscience” - the main document describing the existence of religion on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Firstly, The phrase “Church is separated from the state” is not in the law.

The well-remembered line about separation was preserved in the minds of the 1977 USSR Constitution (Article 52): “The church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school is separated from the church.” If we make a brief extract from the chapter of the “Law on Freedom of Conscience” on the relationship between the Church and the state, we get the following:

— In Russia, no religion can be compulsory

— The state does not interfere in church affairs and does not transfer its functions of state power to religious organizations,

— The state cooperates with religious organizations in the field of preservation of cultural monuments and education. Schools can teach religious subjects as an elective.

The main difficulty in reading laws lies in the different understanding of the word “state” - on the one hand, how political system organization of society, and on the other hand, the society itself - the entire country as a whole.

In other words, religious organizations in Russia, according to the law, do not perform the functions of state power, religion is not imposed from above, but cooperate with the state in matters that concern society. “The separation of church and state means the division of governing functions, and not the complete removal of the church from public life,” Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, Chairman of the Synodal Department of the Moscow Patriarchate for the Relationship between Church and Society, said today at a round table held as part of the work of the Center for Conservative Research of the Faculty of Sociology Moscow State University.

We invite the reader to familiarize himself with several important texts that comprehensively cover this problem:

The separation of the state from the Church should not exclude it from national construction

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin

In Russia, the discussion on the topic of philosophy and principles of church-state relations has revived. This is partly due to the need to regulate the legislative and practical foundations of partnership between government, society and religious associations - a partnership for which the need is definitely increasing. Partly - and not to a lesser extent - the ongoing struggle of beliefs associated with the search for a new national ideology. Perhaps the center of the discussion was the different interpretations of the principle of separation of Church and state, enshrined in the Russian Constitution. Let's try to understand the existing opinions on this matter.

In itself, the legitimacy and correctness of the principle of separation of the Church and the secular state is unlikely to be seriously disputed by anyone. The danger of “clericalization of the state” today, although more illusory than real, cannot but be perceived as a threat to the established order of things in Russia and the world, which generally satisfies the interests of both believers and non-believers. An attempt to impose faith on people by the force of secular power, to assign purely state functions to the Church can have extremely negative consequences for the individual, for the state, and for the church body itself, as convincingly evidenced by Russian history XVIII-XIX centuries, and the experience of some foreign countries, in particular those with an Islamic form of government. This is well understood by the absolute majority of believers - Orthodox and Muslims, not to mention Jews, Buddhists, Catholics and Protestants. The only exceptions are marginal groups, for whom calls for the nationalization of religion are more a means of gaining scandalous political fame than a designation of a real task.

At the same time, a considerable number of officials, scientists of the Soviet school (whom, by the way, I respect more than other “new religious scholars”), as well as liberal intellectuals, interpret the separation of the Church from the state as the need to keep it within the walls of churches - well, maybe still within the framework of private and family life. We are often told that presence in high school religious lessons on a voluntary basis is a violation of the Constitution, the presence of priests in the army is a source of mass interreligious conflicts, the teaching of theology in secular universities is a departure from the “religious neutrality” of the state, and budgetary funding of educational and social programs religious organizations - almost undermining the social order.

In defense of this position, arguments are given both from the Soviet past and from the experience of some countries, primarily France and the United States. At the same time, however, they forget that most countries in Europe and the world live according to completely different laws. Let us not take the examples of Israel and, subsequently, Muslim monarchies or republics, where the political system is based on religious principles. Let us leave aside countries such as England, Sweden, Greece, where there is a state or “official” religion. Let's take Germany, Austria or Italy - examples of purely secular states typical of Europe, where religion is separated from secular power, but where this power nevertheless prefers to rely on the public resources of the Church, actively cooperate with it, rather than distance itself from it. And let us note in the margins that the model there is increasingly being adopted by the Central and Eastern Europe, including CIS states.

For the governments and citizens of the countries mentioned, the separation of Church and state does not at all mean the displacement of religious organizations from active public life. Moreover, there are no artificial barriers there for the work of theology faculties in the largest state universities, for the teaching of religion in a secular school (of course, at the free choice of students), for maintaining an impressive staff of military and embassy chaplains, for broadcasting Sunday services on national television channels and, finally, for the most active state support charitable, scientific and even foreign policy initiatives of religious organizations. All this, by the way, is done at the expense of the state budget - either through a church tax or through direct funding. By the way, I personally think that in economically weakened Russia the time has not yet come for massive allocation of state funds to religious communities. But why hasn’t anyone thought about a simple question: if budget money flows like a river into sports, cultural and media organizations, which also seem to be separated from the state, then why can’t religious organizations even mention this money? After all, they are asking not for missionary work or for salaries for priests, but mainly for matters of national importance - for social, cultural and educational work, for the restoration of architectural monuments. In addition, with all the understanding of the weakness of financial discipline in modern Russian religious associations, I would venture to suggest that the funds given to them still reach ordinary people to a greater extent than money from other foundations and public associations allocated from the budget for very specific projects.

Europe values ​​the principle of separation of Church and state no less than we do. Moreover, it is understood there quite clearly: religious communities should not interfere in the exercise of secular power. Yes, they can call on their members to support or not support any political program, to act in one way or another in parliament, government, political parties. But the actual exercise of power is not the business of the Church. This began to be realized even in countries with a state religion, where the leadership, for example, Lutheran churches now itself renounces registration of civil status acts and the right to distribute budget funds not related to church activities. The process of “denationalization” of religion is indeed underway. However, no one in Germany, even in a nightmare, would dream of imposing on the country the Soviet model of state-church relations, the French ideology of laicite (emphasized secularism, anti-clericalism) or the American “privatization” of religion. By the way, let's move overseas. There, unlike Europe, the opposite trend has been observed for several years. Change demographic composition the US population is not in favor of white Christians, increasingly forcing politicians to talk about the need for government support for religion (but not only Christian). Long before the arrival of George W. Bush, the US House of Representatives approved a bill allowing direct allocation of federal budget funds to churches for their social work(they stood out indirectly anyway). At the local level, this practice has existed for a long time. The new president is going to significantly expand the scope of its application. Let’s also not forget that state-paid military and embassy chaplains have always existed in America, and we don’t even need to mention the scale of Washington’s foreign policy support for Protestant missionary work.

In short, any responsible state, except, perhaps, hysterically anti-clerical France and the last bastions of Marxism, tries to develop a full-fledged partnership with leading religious communities, even if it firmly stands on the principle of separation of religion and secular power. Oddly enough, supporters of preserving the rudiments of Soviet theory and practice of state-church relations in Russia do not want to notice this reality. In the minds of these people, for example, the Leninist norm about the separation of the school from the Church is still alive, which, fortunately, does not exist in the current legislation. On a subconscious level, they consider religious communities to be a collective enemy, whose influence must be limited, fueling intra- and inter-confessional contradictions, not allowing religion into any new areas of public life, be it the education of youth, pastoral care for military personnel or interethnic peacemaking. The main concern of these figures is “no matter what happens.” In a country where there is only one fairly large religious minority - 12-15 million Muslims - they frighten the people with inter-religious conflicts that will supposedly arise if, for example, Orthodox theology is allowed into a secular university. These people are completely indifferent to the fact that in Armenia and Moldova - countries not much less “multi-confessional” than Russia - full-fledged theological faculties of leading state universities, and no St. Bartholomew’s Nights followed. Neo-atheists do not allow (or are afraid of) the idea that in Russia Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Catholics, and even a significant part of Protestants can find a modus vivendi that allows them to be present in higher and secondary schools, science , culture, national media.

However, it is useless to argue further. The course of public discussion shows that views on church-state relations are significantly divided. The religious revival does not cause any “popular protest”. However, a small but influential part of society took a position of harsh opposition to the development of partnership between the Church and the state and the strengthening of the place of religion in the life of the country. Two models, two ideals collided: on the one hand, the construction of a powerful “buffer zone” between the state and the Church, on the other, their close interaction for the sake of the present and future of the country. It is probably impossible to convince my opponents, although I have tried to do this many times. Therefore, I will try to analyze their motives.

Firstly, the Soviet school of religious studies, which has undeniable achievements, was never able to overcome atheistic stereotypes, enrich itself and renew itself through dialogue with other worldviews. Time is running out, influence remains only in some corridors of the old apparatus, which means that changes in society are perceived as dangerous and undesirable. Secondly, the liberal intelligentsia, former leader public opinion in the late 80s and early 90s, today it is not and is terribly complex about this. This social stratum needed the Church only as a fellow traveler, obediently following in the wake of its ideological constructions. When she had her own position and her own influence on minds, she turned into an enemy, whose role should be limited in every possible way. This is how the “new godlessness” arose. Finally, thirdly, and this is the main thing, in Russia it was never possible to form a national idea based on values privacy(“ideologemes of local development” of Satarov’s team), nor based on the priorities of a self-sufficient market (“economycentrism” of the Gref doctrine). Society is looking for higher and more “exciting” goals, looking for the meaning of both individual and collective existence. Not being able to fill the ideological vacuum, domestic thinkers see nothing better than preserving this vacuum until better times. At the same time, “clearing the site” of everything incomprehensible and uncalculated.

The Church and other traditional religions have the answer to many questions still facing the country and people. I would venture to suggest that this answer is expected by millions of citizens of the country who continue to be in ideological confusion. The authorities should not impose religious and moral preaching on people. But it still shouldn’t prevent Russians from hearing it. Otherwise, the only feeling that unites citizens will be hatred of Caucasians, Jews, America, Europe, and sometimes even the government itself. In my opinion, there is only one alternative: renewed commitment to the ethical values ​​of Orthodoxy, Islam, and other traditional religions, as well as reasonable, open humanism, even if agnostic.

There is no need to be afraid of ultra-conservative religious radicalism, the neophyte fuse of which is gradually running out. By the way, it is strong precisely where there is no scope for a genuine religious revival, combining fidelity to tradition and openness to the new, patriotism and dialogue with the world. This revival, and therefore the revival of Russia, needs to be helped. For this, the Church and the authorities do not need to merge in a stormy embrace. They just need to do a common cause, work together for the good of people - Orthodox and non-Orthodox, believers and non-believers.

Well mannered and unchurched

Mikhail Tarusin, Sociologist, political scientist, publicist. Head of the Social Research Department at the Institute of Public Design.

In Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in paragraph 1 it is written that “ Russian Federation- a secular state. No religion can be established as state or compulsory." Paragraph 2 there adds: “Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.” It seems intuitive, but I would still like more clarity.

Let's start with the definition of “secular.” In Ushakov’s dictionary, the word is defined in two meanings: as “well-educated” and as “unchurched.” We probably need a second definition. The Large Law Dictionary (LJD) defines “secular state” as “meaning the separation of church and state, the delimitation of the spheres of their activities.” For my part, encyclopedic dictionary“Constitutional Law of Russia” defines a secular state as: “a state in which there is no official, state religion and no creed is recognized as mandatory or preferable.” At the same time, the Law of the Russian Federation “On Freedom of Conscience” of September 19, 1997, in the preamble, recognizes “the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture.”

In our opinion, there is a lot that is unclear here. The Constitution denies religion as a state or compulsory religion, but says nothing about the preference of one religion over others. Constitutional law seems to add a denial of the preference of any religion. The Law “On Freedom of Speech” speaks of the special role of Orthodoxy, while asserting that Russia gained spirituality precisely thanks to Orthodoxy (!). There is a clear preference for Orthodoxy, denied by constitutional law, but not directly denied by the Constitution. Paradox.

In addition, the BLS interprets a secular state as meaning at the same time department Churches from the state and demarcation areas of their activity. Agree, delimitation of spheres is possible only with joint activities when the parties are united common goal. Separation does not imply anything joint at all - divorce and maiden name.

Why is there so much uncertainty in this whole topic? In our opinion, for this it is necessary to go back a little, to our either bright or damned past.

Contrary to popular belief, the Soviet state did not declare itself to be atheistic. The 1977 USSR Constitution, Article 52, states: “Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess any religion or not to profess any, to practice religious worship or conduct atheistic propaganda. Inciting hostility and hatred in connection with religious beliefs is prohibited. The church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church.”

By the way, pay attention - the Orthodox Church is clearly highlighted here as the main subject of separation. It’s time to think that a mosque, a pagoda, a house of worship and a satanic temple are not separated from the state.

Of course, there is deliberate slyness in this article - it is hardly possible to equate the possibilities of “practicing religion” and “conducting anti-religious propaganda.” But overall, the article looks pretty decent. Then where is state atheism? It turns out that it is hidden deep. The 1977 Constitution of the USSR does not say anything about state atheism, but Article 6 states that “the leading and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations is the Communist Party Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.”

In turn, in the Charter of the CPSU (with additions of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU), in the section “Members of the CPSU, their duties and rights”, in paragraph d) it is stated that a party member is obliged: “to wage a determined struggle against any manifestations of bourgeois ideology, against the remnants private property psychology, religious prejudices and other relics of the past.” In the CPSU Program of October 31. 1961, in the section “In the field of education of communist consciousness,” paragraph e) also states that: “The Party uses means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of a scientific-materialist worldview, to overcome religious prejudices, without insulting the feelings of believers. It is necessary to systematically conduct broad scientific and atheistic propaganda, patiently explain the inconsistency of religious beliefs that arose in the past on the basis of people being oppressed by the elemental forces of nature and social oppression, due to ignorance true reasons natural and social phenomena. In this case, one should rely on the achievements modern science“, which’ reveals the picture of the world more and more fully, increases man’s power over nature and leaves no room for the fantastic inventions of religion about supernatural forces.”

Like this. The state itself is obviously secular, but since the guiding force of society and state organizations is the CPSU, which ideologically professes atheism, the state also uses the constitutional right to atheistic propaganda.

This is precisely why the state separated the Church from itself in order to convince society to abandon religious prejudices and remnants of the past. It seemed to say - this is unnecessary, we don’t need this, that’s why we tore it away from ourselves, because we want to get rid of it from our lives. In this context, the meaning of separation is clear and consistent.

But let's return to the new Russia. Which declares itself as a secular state, but at the same time specifically clarifies in Article 13, paragraph 2 that: “No ideology can be established as state or mandatory.” In other words, we do not need any “guiding and directing force.” Fine. But then why did they blindly drag and drop the provision on the separation of religious organizations from the state from the Soviet Constitution? The Bolsheviks needed this in order to conduct systematic atheistic propaganda and at the same time systematically destroy the Church as such. The current government does not intend to do either of these.

Then why separate?

It would be more logical to constitutionally declare cooperation between the state and religious organizations in the division of spheres of activity. Which, by the way, is mentioned in the Big Legal Dictionary.

For example, in the recently adopted Party Program “ United Russia” the following is said: “Traditional religions are the custodians of the wisdom and experience of generations necessary for understanding and solving current problems social problems. We proceed from such an understanding of a secular state, which means an organizational and functional distinction between the state and religious organizations, and turning to religion is voluntary. At the same time, we are convinced that society should have the opportunity to hear the voice of traditional faiths.”

Those. it speaks directly not about separation, but about delimitation of functions- an example worthy of legislative imitation.

Finally, it should be understood that the concept secular does not mean separation or alienation from the concept religious y. I, for example, am a secular person, not in the sense of being well-educated, but in the sense of not serving in the church, not a priest or a monk. But I consider myself Orthodox. The President is a secular man. But he is also Orthodox, he was baptized at the age of 23 of his own free will and now lives a church life, i.e. participates in the sacraments of Confession and Communion. Is the Prime Minister a secular person? Yes. Orthodox? Certainly. A significant part of modern Russian society is secular. And Orthodox at the same time.

It may be objected that the concept of separation means non-interference of the state in the affairs of the Church and vice versa. But then why is it such an honor for religious organizations? Why is the Constitution not stipulating the separation from the state of the voluntary society of firefighters and, in general, of all public organizations (the so-called NGOs)?

And then, one of the main tasks of institutions civil society It’s precisely about control over the state, in the person of authorities at various levels, so that they don’t get too naughty. And the task of religious organizations is to tell the authorities impartially if they begin to rule not according to their conscience. In turn, the state is obliged to intervene in the affairs of a religious organization if it surpasses itself in terms of totalitarianism. So it’s difficult to talk about mutual non-interference.

Then why can’t a state, being secular, be Orthodox? I don’t see any obstacles to this. If it itself states in its own Law that Orthodoxy played a special role in the formation and development of the spirituality and culture of Russia. Moreover, if Orthodoxy played this role historically, and then for almost the entire last century the party leading the state destroyed Orthodoxy itself and the fruits of its labors, isn’t it logical to turn to the Church again? With a request to help the young state in developing the spirituality and culture of young Russia, which, apparently, does not have any particularly fruitful ideas in this regard. And, on the contrary, which the Church has, taking into account the centuries-old experience of Russian Orthodoxy, the great spiritual heritage of patristic tradition, the spiritual culture of folk traditions.

Moreover, the state of modern Russian society from the perspective of cultural and spiritual health has long required prompt intervention. And, of course, it is necessary to begin with the moral guidance of young souls.

Here, by the way, there is one subtle point. It is not for nothing that there is a strange clarification in the Soviet Constitution: “The Church in the USSR is separated from the state and school - from church" Why was it necessary to add this “school from the church”? Wasn’t everything in the Soviet country state-owned? Yes, but the Bolsheviks understood perfectly well that the construction of a new world must begin with the education of a new person; school for them was one of the most important components of communist construction. Therefore, the most terrible thing was the very thought of the penetration of the hated Church there. Hence the addition.

So. But why then today are there numerous hysterics about the introduction of religious disciplines into schools? Or are we still continuing to build the “bright world of communism”? Apparently not.

And the arguments themselves speak more about their exponents as legalists than as atheists. The main one relates to the fact that schools are state institutions, thus separated from the church. And then teaching the fundamentals of religion in them is a violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. But schools today in the country are municipal institutions, A municipalities refer to local government structures, which de jure cannot be considered part of state system.

If we take the media space, which today, voluntarily or unwittingly, strictly follows the instructions of Langley experts on the disintegration of Russian society, then it certainly does not state institute. This means that it can be under the direct guardianship of the Church, and I do not know of any other community today that would be in greater need of this.

Finally, the institutions of civil society, although they received a wise leader in the person of Public Chamber The Russian Federation and its regional clones do not show sufficient enthusiasm in connection with this appointment. On the other hand, the noticeable development of the Church’s social initiatives precisely means the real formation of this very civil society, on the basis of mercy and compassion familiar to our mentality.

Finally, it is necessary to create an atmosphere of moral state throughout the entire public space, when it is not benefit and benefit, but shame and conscience that drive a person’s actions.

Simple observations show that today we are overly carried away by the quasi-ideology of economism. The plans you make for the future are rosy and promising, but for some reason you can’t take the first step. Make the first obvious breakthrough, spin the flywheel of creative movement. Why is this? And because, when you need to do something physical movement, it is necessary, first of all, to apply moral effort.

How can this effort be created? This requires moral experience. This is why the union of the state and the Church is necessary. In order for the national body to have moral strength. We have no other teacher and never will have one other than the Orthodox faith and the mother of the Russian Orthodox Church. And if our state, in addition to economic experts, arms itself with such an assistant, you will see that the current rosy plans will seem like a trifle in comparison with the newly opened prospects.

FEDERAL LAW ON FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS

Article 4. State and religious associations

1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as state or compulsory. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.
2. In accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state, the state:
does not interfere in a citizen’s determination of his attitude to religion and religious affiliation, in the upbringing of children by parents or persons replacing them, in accordance with their convictions and taking into account the child’s right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;
does not impose on religious associations the performance of functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local government bodies;
does not interfere with the activities of religious associations if it does not contradict this Federal Law;
ensures the secular nature of education in state and municipal educational institutions.
3. The state regulates the provision of tax and other benefits to religious organizations, provides financial, material and other assistance to religious organizations in the restoration, maintenance and protection of buildings and objects that are historical and cultural monuments, as well as in ensuring the teaching of general education disciplines in educational institutions created by religious organizations in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on education.
4. The activities of state authorities and local governments are not accompanied by public religious rites and ceremonies. Officials of state authorities, other state bodies and local self-government bodies, as well as military personnel, do not have the right to use their official position to form one or another attitude towards religion.
5. In accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state, a religious association:
is created and operates in accordance with its own hierarchical and institutional structure, selects, appoints and replaces its personnel in accordance with its own regulations;
does not perform the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local government bodies;
does not participate in elections to state authorities and local self-government bodies;
does not participate in activities political parties and political movements, does not provide them with material or other assistance.
6. The separation of religious associations from the state does not entail restrictions on the rights of members of these associations to participate on an equal basis with other citizens in the management of state affairs, elections to state authorities and local governments, the activities of political parties, political movements and other public associations.
7. At the request of religious organizations, the relevant government bodies in the Russian Federation have the right to declare religious holidays as non-working (holiday) days in the relevant territories.

Article 5. Religious education

1. Everyone has the right to receive religious education of his choice, individually or together with others.
2. The upbringing and education of children is carried out by parents or persons replacing them, taking into account the child’s right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
3. Religious organizations have the right, in accordance with their charters and the legislation of the Russian Federation, to create educational institutions.
4. At the request of parents or persons replacing them, with the consent of children studying in state and municipal educational institutions, the administration of these institutions, in agreement with the relevant local government body, provides a religious organization with the opportunity to teach children religion outside the framework of the educational program.

Not everyone knows about what happened during the period of the real separation of church and state, which occurred after October Revolution in Russia. It is important to say that what happened was not an imaginary (as in many countries), but a real separation of church and state.

And here it is important to emphasize that we are in no way talking about the famous “repressions” to which the priests refer. In fact, the point is precisely that the churchmen were deprived of state support, and that is why they went against the Bolsheviks, and not at all because of their supposedly principled position.

To look at it sensibly this question, to begin with, it is worth turning to the history of relations between the church and the tsarist government. Firstly, of course, under tsarism the church was maintained at the expense of the state, that is, churches were built, money was paid, and church officials could claim a number of privileges (like those of the nobility). Interestingly, temples and other church buildings did not belong to the church, and therefore priests did not have to pay for the maintenance and repair of these structures.

Actually, starting from Peter I, the church was inscribed in the vertical of power, and therefore it should be perceived to a greater extent as an apparatus of officials who simply control the mob. After all, it was the clergy who had greater contact with the population, and not other government officials.

Therefore, the illusion was created that supposedly the clergy could really control the people. However, in fact, of course, everything was not so, and the authority of the church among the population was quite weak. Well, the high attendance at churches was explained primarily by the fact that they were forced to become Orthodox by the force of the law. It is, of course, difficult to assess the real impact in such a situation.

But in any case, after the fall of tsarism, the church immediately began to cooperate with the provisional government. This probably surprised contemporaries quite a lot, since it seemed that the Orthodox Church was devoted to autocracy. And then conversations began that, supposedly, Nicholas was a despot, and the church supposedly always stood for a democratic republic.

It is clear that representatives of the provisional government probably did not particularly believe in the sincerity of this, since the entire composition had previously been “cursed” by the clergy more than once. But they still thought that the church was worth using, and therefore they left Orthodoxy as the state religion and continued to pay salaries to the priests.

Butts were mainly used during the war, the so-called. "military chaplains" Although this was of no use, since during the war the number of deserters was unprecedented in the entire history of Russia. In fact, it was impossible to win in such a situation. After all, the enthusiasm and strength that really existed in the very initial period of the war disappeared somewhere in the middle to the end of 1915.

It is clear that the state as a whole could in no way confirm its legitimacy, because the only thing they did was continue relations with priests and individual senior representatives of power, i.e. bureaucrats, nobles, etc. And all the promises that were made before were not fulfilled.

Interestingly, during the same period, the church even sent a collection of definitions and decrees to the provisional government. In particular, the church demanded:

• The Orthodox Russian Church, forming part of the one Ecumenical Church of Christ, occupies a leading public legal position in the Russian State among other confessions, befitting it as the greatest shrine of the vast majority of the population and as the great historical force that created the Russian State.

• In all secular public schools... the teaching of the Law of God... is compulsory both in the lower and middle, as well as in the higher educational institutions: The maintenance of legislative positions in public schools is paid at the expense of the treasury.
• Property belonging to the Orthodox Church is not subject to confiscation or seizure... by state taxes.
• The Orthodox Church receives from the State Treasury... annual allocations within the limits of its needs.

There were many similar demands, and the provisional government agreed with them. By the way, it was during this period that the church began to revive the patriarchate. In exchange for concessions to the VP, the churchmen prayed for the health of government ministers and in general for new uniform board. Therefore, of course, one should not talk about any secularism during the Great Patriotic War.

As soon as the Bolsheviks took power, at first everything was relatively calm (in the church environment), since the priests shared the illusion that the government would not last even a few weeks. Both clergy and political opponents spoke openly about this. At first the Bolsheviks were given a few days, then weeks. But in the end, we still had to reconsider the position.

It is absolutely clear that as soon as the Bolsheviks began to carry out their activities in a more or less “stable” regime, the churchmen became worried. I would like to immediately note that the church was separated from the state, and schools from the church, not on the very first day, but in 1918. Moreover, the clergy were notified in advance that the church would soon be completely separated from the state.

Understanding what was happening, the churchmen felt that it was necessary to reconcile with the government. The priests hoped that the Bolsheviks would reconsider their views and decide to use the church for their own needs, but all attempts were in vain, despite the persistence of the priests.

Already in December 1917, the priests sent to the Council of People's Commissars the definitions of the local council, i.e. the same points that were sent to the provisional government, which states that Orthodoxy is state religion, and all the main persons of the country must be Orthodox. The Bolsheviks not only rejected the proposal, but Lenin also emphasized that the draft on the separation of church and state must be prepared as quickly as possible, despite the fact that there was still a lot of work to do.

Probably the first blow to the Russian Orthodox Church is the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia,” which clearly states that with the adoption of the declaration there will be an abolition:

“all and all national and national-religious privileges and restrictions”

At the same time, bills appeared that allowed civil marriages, and not just church ones, which was previously a mandatory condition, and amendments were also adopted that limited the presence of priests in the army. These were some kind of half measures before the official law.

Soon the decree on the separation of church from state and school from church was published. Items:

1. Proclamation of the secular nature of the Soviet state - the church is separated from the state.
2. Prohibition of any restriction on freedom of conscience, or the establishment of any advantages or privileges based on the religious affiliation of citizens.
3. Everyone has the right to profess any religion or not to profess any.
4. Prohibition of indicating the religious affiliation of citizens in official documents.
5. Prohibition of religious rites and ceremonies when performing state or other public legal social actions.
6. Civil status records should be maintained exclusively by civil authorities, marriage and birth registration departments.
7. The school, as a state educational institution, is separated from the church - a ban on teaching religion. Citizens should teach and be taught religion only privately.
8. Prohibition of forced penalties, fees and taxes in favor of church and religious societies, as well as prohibition of coercive or punitive measures by these societies over their members.
9. Prohibition of property rights in church and religious societies. Denying them rights legal entity.
10. All property existing in Russia, church and religious societies are declared national property.

Now about the churches. Priests were allowed to use the church free of charge if there was a priest himself and 20 parishioners. But the priest, or his “brothers,” is obliged to maintain this temple and in no case turn to the state for help, since these issues should in no way concern the secular state. Accordingly, you need to pay janitors, cleaners, singers, for repairs, etc.

In the matter of cults, true equality truly appeared when Old Believers and Protestants (of Russian origin) ceased to be persecuted and could lay claim to religious buildings if all conditions were met. In general, a framework was created that was quite adequate for a secular state. It is also worth recalling one characteristic detail that church apologists do not like to remember. In many Protestant countries, where Catholicism previously occupied a dominant position, monasteries were often liquidated (in some places completely, in others not). But in Soviet Russia, and then in the USSR, monasteries were preserved, churches were preserved. Another thing is that there are fewer of them because now the rules have changed.

Moreover, what is important, the priests insisted that the Bolsheviks cancel the decree on the separation of church and state, i.e. they said that they were ready to cooperate, but only if all priestly privileges were preserved. The Bolsheviks demonstrated resilience in this regard, that is, they did not follow the lead.

Immediately the local council began to curse the Bolsheviks, who “took away” the privileges of the poor priests, who had previously used laws punishing those who left Orthodoxy. Patriarch Tikhon spoke like this:

"...we conjure the believing children of the Orthodox Church not to enter into any communication with such monsters of the human race..."

Petrograd Metropolitan Veniamin wrote to the Council of People's Commissars (probably Lenin also read the letter):

“Unrest can take on the force of spontaneous movements... it breaks out and can result in violent movements and lead to very serious consequences. No power can restrain it.”

The Council of the Orthodox Church specified that the decree:

“a malicious attempt on the entire system of life of the Orthodox Church and an act of open persecution against it.”

That is, when they talk about “persecution,” you must always understand what the churchmen mean.

Since the decree was already officially in force, the clergy through their media (for example, the newspaper Tserkovnye Vedomosti) called for a boycott of the decree:

“The authorities and students in religious educational institutions must unite with the parents of students and employees in unions (collectives) to protect educational institutions from capture and to ensure their continued activities for the benefit of the church...”

It is clear that in reality the churchmen were not particularly listened to, since when the “obligatory” nature of Orthodoxy disappeared, its authority immediately decreased, and the number of visits to churches fell sharply. Not surprising, since now they did not threaten a set of laws.

In fact, the churchmen themselves admitted in their own internal publications that their authority was insignificant. Typical examples:

• “The distrust with which parishioners regard the clergy’s attempts to get closer to the flock, that hostility bordering on open hostility... indicates that the clergy is beginning to lose their former love and authority among the parishioners... (Medical. A frank word about the mood of the minds of the modern intelligentsia // Missionary Review, 1902. No. 5).
• “For our clergy, even among the pious and previously humbly obedient peasants, life is very difficult. They don’t want to pay the priest at all for his services; they insult him in every possible way. Here we have to close the church and transfer the clergy to another parish, because the peasants resolutely refused to maintain their parish; There are also regrettable facts - these are cases of murders, burnings of priests, cases of various gross abuses of them" (Christian, 1907).
• “The priests only live by exactions, they take... eggs, wool and strive to go more often with prayer services and money: if he died - money, if he was born - money, he takes not as much as you give, but as much as he pleases. And a hungry year happens, he won’t wait until have a nice year, but give him the last, and he himself has 36 acres (together with the parable) of land... A noticeable movement against the clergy has begun” (Agrarian Movement, 1909, p. 384).
• “They scold us at meetings, they spit on us when they meet us, in cheerful company they tell funny and indecent jokes about us, and recently they have begun to depict us in indecent forms in pictures and postcards... About our parishioners, our spiritual children, I have already and I don’t say it. They look at us very, very often as fierce enemies who only think about how to “rip off” them more by causing them material damage” (Pastor and flock, 1915, No. 1, p. 24).

Therefore, the decree was mainly hampered only by internal and external political circumstances. Since the authorities had a lot of tasks, and of course it was necessary to separate the church from the state, but still this was not the most important point.

The longer the maternity leave worked, the harder it hit the butts, because after only a month of the actual work of the “department”, they simply howled. And they began to distribute all sorts of appeals in which they called openly for disobedience:

“Any participation both in the publication of this legalization hostile to the church (the decree on the separation of church from the state and school from the church), and in attempts to implement it is incompatible with belonging to the Orthodox Church and brings upon guilty persons of the Orthodox confession the gravest punishments, up to and including excommunication. churches"

The tactics, of course, are ridiculous, since they literally told people the following: we are forbidden to live at the expense of others, and to live in luxury. Therefore, we call on you to cancel this decree, otherwise we will excommunicate you from the church. It is unlikely that such a thing could inspire defense of the church, especially on the part of those who were actually driven into churches by force. It is important to remember that there were people who truly sincerely attended churches during the tsarist period, but still forced everyone there. Accordingly, if a fanatical visitor to temples suddenly stopped doing this, then sanctions would await him.

Therefore, the decrees in big cities were not particularly blocked. But it happened in the villages, because the clergy there were “wiser.” They declared that the Bolsheviks were the Antichrist, that they not only separated church and state, but were literally killing all priests and believers. Therefore, it often happened that government representatives, police officers and Red Army soldiers were simply killed in villages after such “sermons”. However, what is important to note is that this did not happen so often.

Then the churchmen began holding religious processions in order to show their “influence” so that the authorities would come to their senses. It is important to note that each religious procession was sanctioned by the authorities, which allegedly interfered with the activities of the churchmen. The most massive religious procession was in St. Petersburg, when the priests turned directly to the Council of People's Commissars, declaring that 500 thousand believers would come to the procession. But the priests were warned at the same time that if there were provocations, it would be the clergy who would bear responsibility for this. In the end, everything went more or less calmly, and not 500 thousand came, but 50. Within a couple of years, hundreds of people gathered for such events.

After the religious procession, the Black Hundreds from the magazine “Fonar” directly called:

“Our path... is the only one - the path of parallel organization of Russian military power and the restoration of national identity... the real conditions for us are the help of America and Japan...”

And in the future one can see mainly only despondency and similar calls. Probably, in this way the priests spent the funds that they had available since tsarist times.

This could not continue for a long time, and in the end a split simply occurred. Orthodox priests remained in the center, earning money (since, although the number of parishioners had decreased, there were still quite a lot of them, and it was possible to live off donations, but, however, much more modestly). At the same time, such figures actively called for sabotage and war with the authorities until they agreed to an ultimatum from the church. That is why the issue soon had to be resolved radically. That is, to arrest figures who actively violated the law, including Patriarch Tikhon (and they tolerated them for about 5 years, i.e. most of them were arrested only in the early 20s). Soon, most of them “realized their guilt” and were released.

Although, what is important, with their provocations they contributed to inciting hatred and actually provoked bloody clashes that cost many lives. For the sake of liberation, the Patriarch only had to ask for forgiveness from the Soviet government. The rest of the “old church members” then took a loyal position and began to go about their daily business, but their number was significantly reduced, since basically only priests who had higher ranks and wealthy parishes (where a significant number of parishioners remained) could earn money.

On the other hand, there were more radical groups. For example, the clergy who supported the White Guards. They even had their own “Jesus regiments”. Such priests took part precisely in armed confrontation, and therefore often faced execution by the revolutionary tribunal. In fact, many of these are considered “martyrs” today.

It is also worth noting the priests who simply emigrated, taking with them the jewelry of the church. All they could do was describe the “horrors of the Soviet regime” to foreigners, from which they made good money for decades. Although they emigrated, as a rule, almost immediately, and therefore their descriptions do not differ from those that individual churchmen wrote about Peter I - i.e. the Antichrist, the harbinger of the end of the world, etc.

But the smartest ones are the so-called “renovationists” who immediately understood what needed to be done. Since there are churches, and the number of parishes is quite significant, and it’s easy to get them (1 priest + 20 parishioners), then, of course, you need to use this. They actually began to create “their own Orthodoxy.” Various “living”, “revolutionary”, “communist” and so on appeared. churches, which then began to be collectively called “renovationism.” They, by the way, used symbols of power (they tried to prove that they were “communist”) precisely to make money. Such figures dramatically promoted themselves hierarchically, and occupied the central selling points of the church. The Bolsheviks treated them loyally.

But still, to a greater extent, the priests simply left the churches. These people became ordinary workers, since the places in the church where they could still significantly enrich themselves were already occupied, and the Orthodox, naturally, would not worship for free. Since after Peter I the priests were mostly relatively literate, they could be clerks, secretaries, etc.

IN in this case What is instructive is the fact of what became of the church as soon as the state ceased to support it. A structure that had stood for hundreds of years, which supposedly had colossal authority and even a “basic position,” collapsed in just a couple of years. That insignificant state, which was already characteristic of 1922-23, of course, only indicates that the Orthodox Church simply cannot function normally without active state support. It has proven in practice that it is not capable of independently maintaining most of the churches, monasteries, seminaries, etc., that all this is possible only when the church uses administrative resources.

Text Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the current version for 2020:

1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as state or compulsory.

2. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.

Commentary to Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation

1. All states of the world, from the point of view of the relationship between state power and the church, are divided into three unequal groups:

theocratic (from the Greek theos - god, kratos - power) - a form of government in which political power belongs to the head of the church, the clergy (for example, the Vatican);

clerical (from the Latin clericalis - church) - a form of government in which the state and the church are not merged, but the latter, through legislative institutions, including constitutional norms, actively influences public policy, and school education compulsorily includes the study of church dogmas ( Italy, UK);

secular - states where the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church (France, Russia, Turkey).

Most democratic states in the world are clerical, where the dominant role is played by the traditionally established faith, to which the majority of citizens of a given state belong, but freedom of conscience and religion is constitutionally enshrined, other faiths operate freely, whose teachings do not contradict the laws of the given state. As for secular states, their formation is predetermined by subjective historical processes that took place in specific states.

As is known, Orthodoxy (Catholic Christianity, Eastern confession), borrowed by Prince Vladimir in Eastern Byzantium, was aimed at creating a Russian centralized state, uniting the people around the grand ducal power. Due to the above reasons, Orthodoxy has become the dominant religion of the predominantly Slavic and other population of Russia, attributively associated with the ruling power. At a certain stage (March 17, 1730), the Russian Orthodox Church was subordinated to the Holy Governing Synod, which turned the church into a political institution, subordinate to the power of the state. This situation was in effect until the victory of the October socialist revolution. Decree of the Council People's Commissars RSFSR of January 20, 1918 “On the separation of church from state and school from church” Russia was proclaimed a secular state, the Synod was abolished, all property of the church was declared a national treasure, and the church and its institutions were deprived of the status of a legal entity. Freedom of conscience was proclaimed in society, and religion became a private matter for Russian citizens * (54).

The Bolsheviks were prompted to take such a drastic step towards the church by a well-founded fear of the possibility of restoring autocracy in Russia from within with the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, therefore the goal pursued by the Decree was to maximally weaken the economic and spiritual positions of the church in the still politically weak Soviet state.

Subsequently, all constitutions adopted in Soviet era, confirmed the secular nature of the Russian state. The current Constitution is also no exception. The commented article proclaimed the Russian Federation a secular state. The term “secular” (introduced by Martin Luther in his treatise “On Secular Power,” 1523), meaning “secular, civil, non-religious,” is not very successful from the point of view of legal accuracy, but has been used to define the subject in question since time immemorial times and means the opposite of everything spiritual and religious.

The secular nature of the state is revealed through an indication of the prohibition of establishing any religion as a state or compulsory one. Moreover, the term “religion” is universal, meaning a set of spiritual values ​​and beliefs based on their divine origin. However, Russia is a multinational state, which predetermined the presence of several faiths in it; almost all world religions and a number of lesser-known religious teachings are represented in the spiritual life of its society. The exaltation of even the most popular teaching about God among the population - Orthodoxy - means an insult to the religious feelings of believers professing Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other faiths. Thus, the current Constitution went further than declaring the country a secular state, and Russia, as a democratic state, took a position of religious tolerance and tolerance towards the religious life of the population, which cannot be said about a number of representatives of the official spiritual authorities. Recently, the Russian Orthodox Church, with a certain connivance of the secular authorities, has taken a sharply offensive position in matters of the spread of faith, the return of church values ​​and property, and has interfered in the political, legislative, and educational spheres of society. Such activities cannot be called consistent with the Constitution and the law. Moreover, this gives rise to religious and with them national conflicts, and contributes to the growth of chauvinistic and racist sentiments in society.

2. The second part of the commented article develops the characterization of Russia as a secular state, establishes the equality of religious associations and the principle of their separation from the state. Here we must keep in mind the differences between the church as an organizational form of worship and religious ceremonies and religion as a set of spiritual values ​​based on divine origin. According to Art. 6 Federal Law of September 26, 1997 “On freedom of conscience and religious associations”, a religious association is a voluntary association of citizens of the Russian Federation, other persons, permanently and legally living on the territory of the Russian Federation, formed for the purpose of joint confession and dissemination of faith and having characteristics corresponding to this purpose: religion, performance of divine services and other religious rites and ceremonies, teaching religion and religious education of its followers * (55).

Separation from the state means that the state does not have the right to interfere in the affairs of the church if its organizations do not violate the laws of the Russian Federation, and the church does not have the right to interfere in the exercise of political power and other activities of the state. Although the provisions of Art. 14 clearly demonstrate the legal continuity of the above-mentioned Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR; unfortunately, it does not indicate the separation of the school from the church. This unfortunate omission, in our opinion, allows individual clergy to try to impose on state and municipal schools, in violation of the Law “On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations,” the need to teach a curriculum of the law of God. Let us emphasize once again: religion, including religious teaching and upbringing, is a private matter of the child and his legal representatives. Religious instruction itself can be carried out in an organized form, but in specialized educational institutions established exclusively for this purpose, on a voluntary basis (see commentary to Article 28).

Pyatkina S.A.

The article is devoted to one of the earliest formed features of a modern rule of law state. The article operates in unity with Article 28 of the Constitution and the Law of the RSFSR “On Freedom of Religion” of October 25, 1990. The secular nature of the state implies the recognition of a number of principles in the sphere of relations between the state and religious organizations. The basis of these relations is freedom of conscience, since, according to, no religion can be established as a state or compulsory one.
Secular character Russian state means the separation of church and state, the delimitation of their spheres of activity. This separation is manifested, in particular, in the civil nature of justice, in the state registration of acts of civil status, in the absence of civil servants’ obligations to profess a certain religion, as well as in the civil status of believers, since, according to Article 6 of this Law, Russian citizens are equal before the law in all areas of civil, political, economic, social and cultural life, regardless of their relationship to religion. Indication of attitudes towards religion in official documents is not permitted.
In accordance with the principle of separation of religious associations from the state, Article 8 of the Law “On Freedom of Religion” determines that the state, its bodies and officials do not interfere in the legitimate activities of religious associations and do not entrust them with the performance of any state functions. In turn, religious associations should not interfere in the affairs of the state. They can't be integral part government bodies and institutions, including such as public schools, universities, hospitals, preschools.
Article 9 of the Law specifies such a property of a secular state as the secular nature of the state system of education and upbringing. Since education and upbringing shape the spiritual world of the individual, the state respects the individual’s right in the sphere of spiritual self-determination. In addition, state educational institutions are supported by taxpayers of various religions, which excludes privileges for any particular religion.
According to Article 5 of the Law, in these institutions, at the request of citizens (parents, children), the teaching of religious doctrine can be optional, i.e. be voluntary and not be considered as compulsory subject for other students. Coercion to attend such classes is unacceptable.
The Law also clearly distinguishes between the teaching of religious doctrine and the observance of religious rituals and the acquisition of knowledge about religion in the historical, cultural, and informational sense. Disciplines of a religious and religious-philosophical nature that are not accompanied by religious rites may be included in the curriculum of state educational institutions.
The second principle, formulated in, is to proclaim the equality of religious associations created by citizens. This principle is more widely developed in Article 10 of the Law “On Freedom of Religion,” which indicates the equality of religions and religious associations, which do not enjoy any advantages and cannot be subject to any restrictions in comparison with others. The state is neutral in matters of freedom of religion and belief, i.e. does not take sides with any religion or worldview. The secular nature of the state does not mean that it does not interact with religious organizations. The state issues laws ensuring the implementation of freedom of religion and establishes liability for its violation and insult to the religious feelings of citizens (see commentary to Article 28). Since the activities of religious associations must be legal, they must have a charter and be registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. The procedure for the formation and registration of religious associations, their rights in charitable, informational, cultural and educational, property, financial activities, international relations and contacts are regulated by Articles 17-28 of the Law.
A special problem that needs legal regulation is the situation of religious associations created by foreign citizens and stateless persons. According to Article 4 of the Law “On Freedom of Religion”, such a right is recognized, however, the legal regulation of creation, registration, activity and termination of activity covered only religious associations created by citizens of the Russian Federation (Article 15-32 of the Law). Meanwhile, legislation must, in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution, regulate this problem, determine the boundaries of the activities of religious associations of foreign citizens in the field of education, health care, culture, and television and radio broadcasting. In addition, since freedom of conscience has been violated in our country for a number of decades, including the destruction of the material foundations of traditional mass religions, their protection from religious expansion abroad is necessary. There should be no room for market competition in this area.
The state reacts to the emergence of pseudo-religious organizations that form paramilitary groups, manipulate the psyche of the individual, and forcibly keep their members in the association. These are the so-called totalitarian sects “Aum Shinrikyo”, “White Brotherhood”, etc. Regarding such organizations, the state, including the Russian Federation, prohibits their activities by legal means and, if necessary, takes measures of state coercion.
The state takes into account the interests of religious associations in its activities. In accordance with the order of the President of the Russian Federation dated April 24, 1995. the Regulations on the Council for Interaction with Religious Associations under the President of the Russian Federation were developed, approved by the latter on August 2, 1995.
In accordance with Article 1 of the Regulations, the Council is advisory in nature, and its participants carry out their activities on a voluntary basis. The regulation regulates the interaction of the President of the Russian Federation with members of the Council representing various religious associations. Members of the Council take part in the development of a modern concept of relations between the state and these associations and in the preparation of legislative acts. The composition of the Council, which included representatives of nine faiths, is capable of ensuring the task set in Article 4 of the Regulations of maintaining interfaith dialogue, achieving mutual tolerance and respect in relations between representatives of different faiths (see also

The latest edition of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation reads:

1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as state or compulsory.

2. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.

Commentary to Art. 14 KRF

1. The definition of Russia as a secular state means: the absence of legitimate church authority over state bodies and citizens; the lack of performance by the church and its hierarchs of any state functions; lack of mandatory religion for civil servants; non-recognition by the state of the legal significance of church acts, religious rules, etc. as sources of law binding on someone; refusal of the state to finance the expenses of any church and other rules of this kind. By defining Russia as a secular state, the Constitution thereby establishes these provisions. At the same time, the concept of a secular state also includes a number of its other features, which are directly indicated in several articles of the Constitution or those arising from these articles. First of all, this is the establishment of a number of individual and collective rights, freedoms and responsibilities of man and citizen: (Article 28), (Part 2, Article 19), belonging to religious associations (Part 2, Article 14), (Part 5, Art. 13), (part 2 of article 29) and (part 2 of article 19), (part 3 of article 29). The secular nature of a democratic state in which a person, his rights and freedoms, including freedom of conscience, are highest value, recognized, respected and protected by the state, does not contradict the right of a citizen to replace military service with alternative civil service for religious reasons (Part 3 of Article 59).

One of the important requirements for a secular state is expressed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 in Art. 18: “No one shall be subjected to any compulsion which impairs his freedom to have or adopt the religion or belief of his choice.” The state itself must not subject anyone to such coercion and not allow anyone to do so.

A secular character is inherent in many democratic legal states (USA, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc.). Sometimes this is expressed directly, as, for example, in Art. 2 of the French Constitution: "France is a... secular... Republic. It ensures equality before the law to all citizens, regardless of... religion. It respects all beliefs." In the US Constitution, the first amendment (1791) states: “Congress shall make no law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” Turkey has been declared a secular state (Article 2 of its 1982 Constitution), where the majority population is Muslim.

In some other states, where, as in Russia, the secular nature of the state is combined with the predominance of one of the religions among religious citizens, the constitutions record both of these circumstances, but without calling the state secular. Spanish Constitution of 1978 in Art. 16 guarantees to individuals and their communities freedom of ideology, religion and cults without restrictions in their manifestations, other than those necessary for legally protected public order. No one should declare what ideology, religion or faith they adhere to. No religion is a state religion; public authorities only take into account existing religions and maintain relations with the Catholic Church and other religious communities.

This also happens in some countries with a predominance of Orthodox Christians among the population. Thus, the Greek Constitution, while democratically resolving the issue of freedom of conscience and equality of religions, at the same time establishes: “The dominant religion in Greece is the religion of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ” (Article 3). A similar provision is contained in Part 3 of Art. 13 of the Constitution of Bulgaria.

In some countries, state religions are established in a similar way, quantitatively predominant, but not limiting the religious freedom of other faiths. These are, for example, the Anglican Church in England, the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, both headed by the monarch of Great Britain, the Catholic Church in Italy, the Evangelical Church in the Scandinavian countries, the Muslim Church in Egypt, and the Jewish Church in Israel.

A number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights emphasize that if the constitutional equality of religious citizens and religions is respected, then the statement of the quantitative predominance of a particular religion in the Constitution of this country does not contradict human rights and freedoms in this area.

There are also states where the state religion reigns supreme. These are, for example, some Muslim countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.).

But even where no religion has the legal status of a state, official or even traditional one, sometimes one of the existing churches often shows a desire to create for itself a predominant legal position on a national or regional scale, using the centuries-old tradition of a part of the population and the semi-official support of the authorities.

Italy can serve as an example of a secular state that has overcome such difficulties. According to Art. 7 and 8 of its Constitution, the state and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign in their respective spheres, and their relations are regulated by the Lateran Agreements. All religions are equal and free, and non-Catholic denominations have the right to create their own organizations in accordance with their statutes, without contradicting the legal order of Italy. Their relations with the state are determined by law on the basis of its agreements with the bodies representing them. Everyone has the right to worship in any form, individual or collective, and to spread it, with the exception of rituals contrary to good morals (Article 19). The ecclesiastical character, religious or cult goals of a society or institution cannot be the reason for legislative restrictions or fiscal burdens on their creation and activities (Article 20). In accordance with these constitutional provisions in Italy back in the 50s of the twentieth century. The claims of part of the Catholic clergy to the preferential position of their church, based on the fact that 90 percent of Italians are Catholics, were rejected. The ban on proselytism (recruiting new members to the church by offering material or social benefits, psychological pressure, threats, etc.) was also abolished.

Part 1 art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation prohibits giving any religion the character of a state or compulsory religion. Apparently, this also means the inadmissibility of establishing restrictive or humiliating rules for any religion. The historical experience of Russia - in which, along with the traditions of religious freedom and tolerance, there was also the state nature of the Orthodox religion, and inequality of religious beliefs and churches, and persecution on religious grounds (even Christian sects, Old Believers, Molokans or other heresies, etc.) , and enormous in scope persecution of all churches, terror against the clergy and believers during the times of communist “militant atheism”, and the use by the authorities of the church and religion in their own interests, etc. - convincingly proves the need to preserve and strengthen the secular character of the state, freedom of conscience, equality of religions and churches.

This problem retains its significance also because sometimes in our time there are attempts to pit religions against each other, to put some of them in an unequal position, contrary to the Constitution and laws of Russia. Such, for example, were the speeches of a part of the Orthodox clergy against the fact that in Moscow, the capital of all peoples and all believers of all faiths in Russia, on Poklonnaya Hill in the memorial in honor of all those who died for their Motherland in the Great Patriotic War citizens of our country, most of them non-believers, churches of other faiths were built along with the Orthodox Church. Another example is the wishes of some hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), based on the fact that it is the Church of the “majority”. This statement in itself is hardly true, since the majority remains non-believers, and even those people who traditionally consider themselves Orthodox Christians, from a church point of view, are not always such, because they do not regularly attend church services, do not confess, etc. and the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate - MP) is not the only Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, there is also the Foreign Church, the Old Believer Church and a number of other Russians independent from the MP Orthodox churches. Moreover, in a democratic society and secular state the majority is obliged to respect the rights of the minority, as well as the individual rights of the individual. In this sense, any, including religious, majority has equal rights with every minority and cannot claim to be “more equal” than other religions, denominations, churches.

Therefore, leaders of a number of other faiths have repeatedly stated in the press that, in their opinion, higher authorities The state authorities of the Russian Federation do not always take into account the rights and legitimate interests of these faiths and behave as if Russia is only an Orthodox and only a Slavic country, although at least 20 percent of its population are not Slavs and not even traditionally Christians.

Apparently, with secular character state, freedom of conscience and religion, equality of religions and churches, as well as the right of everyone “to profess any religion or not to profess any”, to freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs (Article 28), attempts to protect only traditional mass religions from “foreign religious expansion” and proselytism, for which in a secular state there are hardly any religious grounds.

Sometimes, in connection with this, assumptions are made that the activities of some government bodies in Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) manifest a desire to transform this Church into a state church, which is clearly contrary to the Constitution. No clerical aspirations are incompatible with the secular nature of the state and the constitutional rights of man and citizen.

2. Proclaimed in Part 2 of Art. 14 separation of religious associations from the state (without mentioning the separation of schools from church and religion) and the equality of these associations before the law are the most important principles of a fully developed legal democratic secular state. They have also been implemented in many other countries.

The separation of religious associations from the state has great legal significance. First of all, this is mutual non-interference in each other’s affairs on the part of religious associations, on the one hand, and the state, its bodies and officials- on the other. The state is neutral in the area of ​​freedom of religious beliefs and beliefs. It does not interfere in the exercise by citizens of their freedom of conscience and religion, in the legitimate activities of the church and other religious associations, and does not impose on them the performance of any of its functions. Religious associations do not interfere in state affairs, do not participate in the activities of political parties, in elections of state bodies, etc.

But certain forms of interaction between them exist. The state, in accordance with the law, protects the individual and collective rights and freedoms of believers and the legal activities of their associations. The latter have the right to participate in the cultural and social life of society.

These social relations, even before the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993, were regulated by the previous Constitution and the Law of October 25, 1990 “On Freedom of Religion” (Vedomosti RSFSR. 1990. N 21. Art. 240). According to them, the separation of religious associations from the secular state was contradicted by: the organization of worship services in state institutions and state enterprises, the placement of objects of religious symbols in them, state funding of the activities of religious associations, the participation of government officials as such (and not as private individuals, ordinary believers) in religious ceremonies, construction of temples, etc. at the expense of state funds, attempts to form any attitude towards religion or the teaching of religious disciplines in public educational institutions. In particular, the Federal Law of July 31, 1995 “On the Fundamentals civil service"(SZ RF. 1995. N 31. Art. 2990) prohibited civil servants from using their official position in the interests of religious associations to promote attitudes towards them. In government agencies structures of religious associations cannot be formed. In non-governmental institutions, enterprises, schools, etc. all this is possible.

The same Law specified the constitutional provision on the equality of religious associations in a secular state before the law. No religion, Church or other religious association has the right to enjoy any advantages or be subject to any restrictions in comparison with others. Therefore, any manifestations of such tendencies were considered illegal.

Subsequent legislation has made a number of changes to address these issues. Federal Law of September 26, 1997 N 125-FZ “On freedom of conscience and religious associations” - divided equal rights, according to Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Constitution, religions and religious associations into unequal varieties: firstly, into traditional and non-traditional and, secondly, into religious organizations that have the rights of a legal entity, the right to engage in publishing and educational activities, to carry out international relations of a religious nature and much more, and religious groups that do not even have the same rights that belong to members of these groups by virtue of the Constitution (Article 29, etc.).

In particular, in Art. 5 of the said Federal Law N 125-FZ establishes that religious organizations, acting in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and their charters, have the right to create their own educational institutions. And in state and municipal educational institutions, their administration received the right, at the request of parents (or their substitutes), with the consent of children studying in these institutions, and in agreement with the relevant local government body, to teach children religion outside the framework of the educational program. Religious groups did not receive this right.

At the same time, the Law prevents the creation and activities of those religious associations that cause harm to the health of citizens, induce them to illegally refuse to fulfill their duties or to commit illegal actions. For this purpose, mandatory annual re-registration of religious associations has been established for 15 years after their formation; During this time they are prohibited from engaging in many of the above-mentioned activities. Such a restriction of the rights of religious associations that were not allowed in Russia by the militant-atheistic communist party-state regime, and the recognition of those organizations that for some reason were allowed by this regime, hardly corresponds to the constitutional principles of Art. 14 in a democratic legal society and a secular state.

The Constitutional Court has repeatedly considered these problems, and only considered complaints from citizens and some religious organizations that were created before the adoption of the aforementioned Federal Law of 1997 N 125-FZ and were not subject to the restrictions imposed by it, unless they could confirm that they had existed for at least 15 years and etc., but in accordance with it they were deprived of many rights that they already had, in particular in accordance with the Law of 1995. In 1999, we were talking about two complaints filed by the Society of Jehovah's Witnesses (Yaroslavl) and "Christian Church of Glorification" (Abakan), and in 2000 - "Independent Russian Region of the Society of Jesus" (IRROI). The Constitutional Court proceeded from the fact that, by virtue of Art. 13 (part 4), 14 (part 2) and 19 (parts 1 and 2), as well as 55 (part 2) of the Constitution, the legislator did not have the right to deprive these organizations of the rights they already had, because this violated equality and limited the freedom of belief and activity of public (including religious) associations. In Resolution No. 16-P of November 23, 1999, the Constitutional Court recognized the appealed provisions of the 1997 Law as not contradicting the Constitution, since these provisions, when applied to their effect in relation to such organizations, mean that they enjoy the rights of a legal entity in full. Referring to related art. 13 (part 4), 14, 15 (part 4), 17, 19 (parts 1 and 2), 28, 30 (part 1), 71, 76 - but not on Art. 29 (part 2, 3, 4, 5), 50 (part 2), etc. - the Constitutional Court, based on the legislator’s recognized right to regulate the civil legal status of religious associations, not to automatically grant them this status, not to legalize sects , violating human rights and committing illegal and criminal acts, as well as hindering missionary activities, including in connection with the problem of proselytism.

The constitutionality of these measures against missionary activity and proselytism is highly questionable.

In the Determination of April 13, 2000 N 46-O (VKS. 2000. N 4. P. 58-64). The Constitutional Court recognized that the provisions of the Federal Law of 1997 N 125-FZ, appealed by the NRROI, do not violate the rights of the NRROI, as follows from the said Resolution of 1999. But the judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation L.M. Zharkova issued a dissenting opinion on this 1999 Definition, making a convincing, in our opinion, conclusion that the appealed provisions of the 1997 Law are discriminatory in nature, limit freedom of religion, violate the constitutional principles of equality of citizens and religious organizations before the law, equal rights citizens and the proportionality of restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms to constitutionally significant goals and, thus, do not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its Art. 14 (part 2), 19 (parts 1 and 2), 28 and 55 (part 3), etc. (VKS. 1999. N 6. P. 33-36).

In addition, provided for in Art. 14 and 28 of the Constitution (see comment to Article 28) the right of everyone in a secular state to profess any religion or not to profess any religion, to freely choose religious and other beliefs, to have and disseminate them, etc. connected with the establishment in Part 4 of Art. 29 of the Constitution of Russia the right to freely have, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information by any in a legal way, in this case about any religions. After all, there is a free choice between any religious and non-religious beliefs, programs, etc. impossible without complete and free information about them. Therefore, restrictions on this freedom raise serious doubts and objections, which, of course, do not relate to criminal calls and actions only disguised as the spread of certain beliefs.

At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. State policy towards the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) and other churches began to change significantly in many ways in better side. The Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 14, 1996 “On measures for the rehabilitation of clergy and believers who have become victims of unjustified repression” not only condemned the long-term terror unleashed by the Bolshevik party-state regime against all faiths. The rehabilitation of its victims, the restoration of their rights and freedoms were soon supplemented by measures for the return (i.e., restitution) to churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious institutions of property unjustly confiscated from them: temples, land plots, other valuables, etc.

• Up