A criminal case on article 282 of the criminal code of the Russian federation, that is applied extremely rarely, was recently conducted by the prosecutor's office of Sverdlovsk province. The list of suspects includes not only overt nationalists from the editorial board of the local "Russian Society of Ekaterinburg" newspaper but also religious personnel representing the Ekaterinburg diocese. The chief of the administration of the Prosecutor General of the Urals federal district, Yury Zolotov, sent the case of the clergy for supplementary investigation so that "it would be studied with all care."
The basis for opening the criminal case was a statement by thirteen leaders of national associations of Sverdlovsk province and Ekaterinburg. This was not the first time that they complained to the prosecutor's office against the "Russian Society of Ekaterinburg" newspaper and the Ekaterinburg diocese, in whose publications there regularly appear nationalistic materials. At first the statement came only from the Jewish National Cultural Authority. Later appeals were signed also by leaders of Bashkir, Germany, Gypsy, and Tatar national cultural groups as well as representatives of the Sverdlovsk provincial society of Kazakh culture, the society of Tajik culture, the head of the national cultural community "Aan doidy" of the republic of Sakha (Yakutia), and the vice president of the Urals Regional Society of Greeks.
In the opinion of those making the declarations, one of the recent issues of "Russian Society" contains materials "offending the national dignity of citizens and distorting the history, tradition, and religions of non-Russian nations." Besides this, accusations of antisemitism were made against the editorial boards of "Pravoslavnaia gazeta" and the "Pravoslavnyi vestnik" magazine, which are published with the blessing of Bishop Vikenty of Ekaterinburg and Verkhotursk.
Despite the opening of the criminal case, the Sverdlovsk Division of the Congress of National Associations of Russia is not satisfied with the actions of the prosecutor's office and it considers them as indecisive and even as a dragging out of the case. "It is amazing for us that interethnic strife is being enflamed by marginal groups like the editors of 'Russian Society of Ekaterinburg,'" stated the president of the Jewish National Cultural Authority of Sverdlovsk province, Mikhail Oshtrakh. "But when RPTs gets involved, which undoubtedly enjoys authority and power in society, this is very dangerous."
Prosecutorial personnel were asked to pay attention to the fact that "Pravoslavnyi vestnik" has frequently published poems of a certain hieromonk Roman that contain such lines as: "Ringletted Jewish men scream Shalom; antichrists greet antichrist. Their hour has come. Zhids are on the throne." "But the third vision will be more bitter than the first: when Zhids rule Russia."
The leaders of the national cultural groups of the Urals have virtually no doubt about the Ekaterinburg diocese's support for the Russian nationalists. In their opinion, this is proven by the fact that in the icon stands and churches of the province the book by Sergei Nilus "It is near, even at the doors" is sold freely, which includes excerpts from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." "We intend to get an apology from the diocese and to get the prosecutor's office to carry this case to a finish," says Mr. Oshtrakh.
Representatives of both the Ekaterinburg diocese and the Moscow patriarchate are for now carefully avoiding comment. In the diocesan office they appeal to Bishop Vikenty of Ekaterinburg and Verkhotursk, who suddenly departed for Moscow. In the patriarchate they claim that they know nothing about such a conflict and, moreover, they express doubt that such conduct by Orthodox clergy would be possible at all. Since "the recently held World Russian People's council gave a new definition of the Russian nation ("Russian" is not a genetic but a cultural and historical concept), and also proclaimed the friendship of peoples and the union of the basic confession." One of the employees of the Department of External Church Relations of the patriarchate suggested that Muslims should not complain about restrictions and offenses on the part of Orthodox.
From the side of the "offenders" only the editor of "Pravoslavnaia gazeta" and "Pravoslavnyi vestnik," Fr Dmitry Baibakov, consented to shed light on the situation. He stated to a "Vremia novostei" reporter: "I do not see in these statements anything more than the desire of Mr. Oshtrak to create cheap popularity for himself. This is the manifestation of a sick imagination." (tr. by PDS, posted 20 December 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The judicial trial of the religious society is continuing.
The trial in the Golovin Moscow court of the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which began in 1998, has dragged out for two and a half years. The prosecutor of the northern administrative district of the capital requested prohibiting the activity of this religious organization in Moscow. The charge against the Jehovah's Witnesses is that its members enflame religious strife, break up the family, and the like. The court under the presidency of Judge Elena Prokhorycheva, after hearing many witnesses and experts and the opinions of the plaintiffs and defense, rendered a decision on 23 February 2001: there are no bases for prohibiting the Jehovah's Witnesses.
It seems, however, that it was premature for the Witnesses to rejoice; the same prosecutor sent an appellate protest to the Moscow city court and this court on 30 May 2001 decided to set aside the earlier decision of the Golovin court and to send the case for a new review in the very same court but with a different composition.
Why? Perhaps some new circumstances had opened up? Perhaps the court approached the case superficially and in haste? But no new facts appeared and it is difficult to accuse the judge's decision of hastiness. Apparently the issue was something else. There are in society real forces who would wish to alter the existing order of things established by the constitution according to which all religions are equal before the law.
What are these forces? First of all, parents whose children, contrary to their will, joined the "alien" religious organization. The "anticult attack" was begun in 1993 by two organizations: the Committee for Rescuing Youth from Totalitarian Sects (Moscow) and the Committee for Defense of the Family and Individual from Totalitarian Sects (St. Petersburg). It was on declarations from the leadership of these committees in various cities of Russia that investigations were conducted, but every time it became clear that Jehovah's Witnesses do not violate laws and the criminal cases against them were stopped.
However there are not many "aggrieved" parents; there are 15 to 20 "enthusiasts" in the Committee for the Rescue of Youth. A significantly greater role in the so-called antisectarian movement is played by certain centers, the St. Irenaeus of Lyons Informational Consultative Center (headed by Alexander Dvorkin), the A.S. Khomiakov Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Nontraditional Religions (directed by Fr Oleg Steniaev), and centers operating with the support of local Orthodox dioceses in Tver, Novosibirsk, Omsk, and other cities.
It is intended that several leaders of these centers will take part in the "Golovin trial" of the Jehovah's Witnesses case. The involvement in the trial of confessionally interested centers will not help to answer the chief question: is there a juridical basis for banning the Moscow congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses? It is significant that the "second round" had barely begun when the court declared a recess so that members of the court and the sides of the trial could study religious literature. The Witnesses are charged with enflaming religious strife. The proof is this: they think their faith is the only true one. However there are similar claims in the literature of other confessions, including Orthodoxy.
We note that an expert analysis on this matter has already been conducted. Specialists of the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, having studied all of the Jehovah's Witnesses' publications in Russian produced from 1993-2000, did not find any calls for actions of an illegal nature.
There also exists a "third layer" of "enemies" of the Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as other protestant confessions). These are the representatives of state agencies who think that the restriction of the influence of all non-Orthodox religions corresponds to the interests of Russian statehood. In the majority of regions, relations between governmental offices and the Jehovah's Witnesses are normal. It is no accident that in the Russian federation 387 congregations of Witnesses have been registered. But unfortunately several governmental workers think that in the interest of strengthening the country it is necessary to support only "traditional" religions and to restrict the activity of "new" confessions. It is against the background of such "trends" that the "Golovin trial" has been revived. (tr. by PDS, posted 20 December 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
--Liudmila Mikhailovna, what it the greatest problem arising today in Russia in connection with the concept of "freedom of conscience"?
--The greatest problem has to do with the 1997 law "On freedom of conscience and religious association." Believers are divided into two categories, among which are the more legitimate and less legitimate one in the eyes of both the government and society, while according to the constitution all citizens are equal, regardless of religious confession.
--But the law doesn't yet divide religions into traditional and nontraditional?
--Right, in our country all are equal. But there are those that are more equal. There is no doubt. Even experts who defend the 1997 law and the judicial practice associated with it admit that especially in the provinces the practice based upon this law is much worse than the law itself.
--On 29 November you presided over a round table in the House of Journalists that was devoted to judicial reform and problems of freedom of conscience. What was discussed at this session?
--Some very well known experts spoke at the round table. They were Viktor Mironov, a member of the Independent Expert Legal Council, Anatoly Pchelintsev, director of the Institute of Religion and Law, Andrei Sebentsov, vice chairman of the Commission on Questions of Religious Associations of the Russian government, Galina Krylova, a member of the Moscow City College of Attorneys, Vladimir Riakhovsky, cochairman of the Slavonic Legal Center, and John Burns, an attorney of the Korolevsk board of attorneys. They all spoke about common problems of our courts and the necessity of reforming the legal system, law enforcement agencies, and the prosecutors' offices. They particularly criticized prosecutors and the General Procuracy and its position with regard to those who profess nontraditional religions. The General Procuracy was criticized for distributing to courts the recommendation of how to conduct trials connected with problems of religion that expressed general ignorance with regard to nontraditional religions in Russia. Particular note was made of statements of representatives of judicial organs about Jehovah's Witnesses as a very dangerous sect. In general a great deal of attention was concentrated on the Jehovah's Witnesses since this really is an egregious case; the court has frequently concluded that there is no basis to deny registration to their Moscow organization, but every time a protest has ensued from the prosecutor and the trial has been revived, although no new facts whatsoever have surfaced and the previous accusations also have not acquired supplementary proofs. Now a new trial is coming up and thus much was said about this. The prosecutor Kondratiev, who has conducted the trial all these years, spoke at the round table. She dared to say that she is protecting from the influence of Jehovah's Witnesses not only all of those who do not belong to this confession but also those who are Jehovah's Witnesses, because they also are victims of their own organization. After this Vasily Kalin, coordinator of the administrative center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow, read and commented upon an appeal of the congregation that was sent to the General Procuracy and President Putin in which they affirm that they do not feel the need of protection but, on the contrary, would wish to protect their church. He also displayed a file in which were collected signatures of people who protested against the attack on the Jehovah's Witnesses church. According to Kalin, around 9000 signatures have been collected already, mostly in Moscow.
Pchelintsev and Kalin spoke about growing numbers of instances of attacks on believers, both Pentecostals, Baptists, and Jehovah's Witnesses. People are beaten and threats are made, while for the most part these attacks are made by officers of law enforcement agencies. Speakers produced specific cases and they named the people who were beaten, some of whom were clergy of these churches and some simple parishioners. They say that this began soon after adoption of the 1997 law and every year such cases have increased, which is especially alarming.
--That is, you connect this directly with the 1997 law?
--In every case the speakers made the connection. I don't presume to judge; I am not an expert on these matters.
--With what is this nonacceptance by the Orthodox population of Russia of protestants connected?
--The experts who addressed the round table were unanimous on this matter. Even Sebentsov, who defended the position of state agencies, admitted that often the decisions of the courts are discriminatory with regard to believers and they are evoked by the complete ignorance of our judges in matters of religion; this pertains to personnel of the prosecutors' offices and other law enforcement agencies, as well as the majority of citizens. We understand. This is the heritage of soviet times which was surrounded with suspicion and even hatred toward religions that are unusual for us. People who lived for a long time in the closed society, like the majority of our fellow citizens, are suspicious and hostile toward everything that is not customary, and that is what religious minorities are like (minorities in comparison with the basic mass of those professing Orthodoxy or Islam).
--Are the new protestant groups, religious organizations, and minorities really innocent in their activity or their preaching? Doesn't it seem to you that they can sometimes provoke a negative reaction by their conduct or their religious preaching activity?
--Not only can they, but they do; that is an established fact. But my position in this regard is absolutely firm. I am sincerely interested in what constitutes the doctrine of every one of these religions, although I am not about to become their follower. In our country there exists a criminal code, and if an organization or group of citizens, whatever their religion, violates this code they are liable to judgment and punishment for this, but if they do not violate it, but only believe in a way that is unusual for me, then what right do I have to discriminate against them in any way, whether I am an ordinary citizen or a state official, law enforcement officer, or court worker. According to the constitution, our state guarantees for all citizens freedom of religious profession. So what if they annoy me with their preaching activity? Perhaps atheists are annoyed by Orthodox preaching activity or atheists annoy any believer with their preaching of atheism. We must be tolerant of one another.
--That is, in the case of infringement of the rights of Orthodox believers or Muslims the Moscow Helsinki Group and you will come to their defense?
--So it seems. As also for the rights of atheists.
--And does it seem to you that the rights of atheists are being violated?
--I do not know; they haven't appealed to us yet.
--There recently arose a real scandal provoked by the notorious sect fighter Alexander Dvorkin when he declared that the Civil Forum was led by sectarians.
--We held that a month before this round table, and actually Scientologists and many representatives of other religions participated, and Dvorkin declared that the Moscow Helsinki Group was financed by Scientology. But this was an absolutely unproven assertion. Our group is not financed by any religious organizations. All that we do in defense of believers, whatever their religion, we never do on a commercial basis; we never accept money for this. All our financial accounts are absolutely transparent. And anybody who wants not just baseless accusation but confirmation of their suspicions can be convinced of this.
--If it is not a secret, just who finances the Moscow Helsinki Group?
--Like the overwhelming majority of public organizations in Russia, we have grants from western foundations.
--Which ones, specifically?
--McArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation, "Open Society" Institute, Agency for International Development of USA (USAID), Henry Jackson Foundation, MATRA program (Netherlands). We are a large group; we are conducting 12 projects and they all are paid for by western foundations. Unfortunately, we do not have a single project that is paid for by wealthy Russians, and we do not take government money on principle.
--In this regard the question arises of your participation in the Civic Forum. It was very strange to see how you--a well known rights defender--were sitting alongside a former KGB officer, Vladimir Putin. Don't you see something strange in this paradox? What is this? Eclecticism naturally existing in Russia or something of the new age, or are rights defenders prepared to forget what structures violence came from?
--Sitting next to a KGB officer--that wasn't a first for me, the more so since our president is a former KGB officer; I have had occasion to sit beside active KGB officers many times when they summoned me for questioning or when they came to make searches in my home. But even then I also talked with them because I consider that people should talk with one another, even if they hold to extremely diverse positions. Don't argue; it's better to talk. As regards this situation, Putin was sitting in this forum not as a KGB lieutenant but as the popularly elected president and that is the capacity in which I received him. If you are interested, I can say that I did not vote for Putin, but like every law abiding citizen I respect the choice of my fellow citizens. And I never will allow myself a disrespectful attitude toward him so long as my fellow citizens choose him as their president. Is this a KGB lieutenant? I was sitting next to the president. Sitting next to the president was really very strange. If you had told me 25 years ago when we started the Moscow Helsinki Group, which at the time KGB took under surveillance and began persecuting, that I would be invited in the capacity of president of this group to a meeting where the president would make a speech, and I would deliver a word to him, I would, of course, not take such a prediction seriously. It would have been too fantastic.
--It was obvious that no religious and public organizations which concerned themselves with religious activity were represented at the forum. Why did the Civic Forum, whose task was to consolidate all forces of civil society, ignore religious issues?
--That was the decision of the organizing committee, not to invite to the forum religious organization, labor unions, or the media. Not because anybody intended to discriminate against all these organizations, but for pragmatic considerations. As regards religious organizations, these considerations were the following: if we invite them to the forum, then since the overwhelming majority of the population is Orthodox, every Orthodox parish will get a pass and we will have an enormous imbalance in the representation of various religions. And these organizations, if they decide to be represented at this forum, simply will overwhelm it and there will just not be room left for ordinary noncommercial organizations. The same with labor unions. A division of the Federal of Independent Labor Unions of Russia exists in every city and even region. Labor unions have been left over from the soviet time and their structures have been maintained, and if they all should want to be represented at the forum then the unions would overwhelm all our other organizations. As regards the media, many of them can hardly be called noncommercial organizations. The media can be simply accredited to this forum without being its participants. As regards unions, I very much regret that they were not invited because we have free labor unions, although not many. It is hard for these organizations to survive but they are very active and, I would say, courageous public organizations.
--Nevertheless this was taken as a conscious snub by the organizers of the forum and, primarily, its ideologue Gleb Pavlovsky of the religious factor in Russia. You said that there were too many religious organizations and thus they were not invited. Doesn't that mean that they were prohibited because it was feared they would have a very influential voice, and isn't that an infringement of their rights?
--Perhaps I would have a hard time speaking about this because I was not present at the meeting of the organizing committee that made this decision. I know only the final decision. Perhaps such an idea existed; I do not know.
--Are there some organizations or religious or public groups that the Moscow Helsinki Group would not defend on principle under any circumstances?
--There is no such group. If the constitutional rights to freedom of conscience of any group really are being infringed, we will defend it. Irrespective of their religious confession.
--That is, even the most radical national patriotic group that is persecuted for whatever reasons?
--If their rights to freedom of conscience are violated, then their views do not interest me. I consider that we all must defend our constitutional rights regardless of ideological differences. Once Yury Fedorovich Orlov, the founder of the Moscow Helsinki Group, said to me a phrase that I have recalled all my life: "It's easy to defend people who are sympathetic, but who will defend the unsympathetic when they are offended?"
--Would you undertake to defend bin Laden or the Taliban movement if it turned out that their rights were violated and that their opinion was not being heard?
--They are terrorists; they must be judged by the criminal code. They could appeal to us if judicial procedure were violated. But that it is necessary to condemn and punish them, I have not the least doubt about that because they have attacked human life. (tr. by PDS, posted 20 December 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
A second or two separates the Russian church from the state. At yesterday's opening of the World Russian People's Council the prayer "To the king of heaven" segued into the Russian national anthem with a second's pause. In such a solemn way the choir greeted the appearance on the stage of the Hall of Church Councils of the Moscow church of Christ the Savior of President Vladimir Putin and Patriarch Alexis II. At the presidium they were awaited by the head of the Department of External Church Relations, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, members of the Holy Synod, the supreme mufti of Russia and European CIS countries, Talgat Tajuddin, the chief rabbi of Russia, Adolf Shaevich, the head of Russian Buddhists, Damba Aiusheev, chess champion Anatoly Karpov, artist Ilia Glazunov, and other public and religious leaders.
The forum had a wealth of participants. Here were assembled about a thousand delegates from Russia and also countries of the near and far abroad. Incidentally, the president attended such an event for the first time. Former governors had gotten away with simply sending telegrams of greetings. The council is not an official church structure but an alliance of several public organizations: RPTs, the Union of Writers, "Union of Realists," and the Belaia Rus Slaviansky Sobor. But its chairman is Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus. The council meets approximately every year and a half to two years, when the need arises to work out a public opinion on matters of relations between the church and society. This time, according to organizers, the council was also supposed to fix shortcomings of the recently held Civic Forum at which representatives of the church were not given opportunity to speak. It was decided to devote the 2001 council to the tragic events in USA. The main goal of the meeting was to develop a philosophical understanding of the situation which has developed in the world since 11 September and to try to find a universal, nonmilitary response to the challenge thrown down by the terrorists.
The main theme of the council was the place of Russia in the new world system and world order which has inexorably arisen since the events of 11 September. In his address of greeting to the delegates of the forum the president spoke about the enormous responsibility which lies upon all of us, responsibility for the future and the creation of a democratic, just, and secure system of world order. "We need public unity in rejecting xenophobia and violence on which the ideology of terrorism feeds," the head of state declared. "We are obliged to use spirituality and tolerance to resist the barbarian attempt to ignite a conflict of civilizations and religions."
However the discussion of terrorism came down more and more to the point that Russia and Orthodoxy need to become the center of the new world. "Orthodox civilization must become the center for adopting decisions in the world," the patriarch announced in his speech and quoted the words of F.M. Dostoevsky about "Slavic genius" and "the great powers of the Russian person." Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, the co-chairman of the council, spoke about the necessity of a transition to a multipolar world. "We are in a position to teach a great deal to the current restless world," the metropolitan said. "We do not possess a tenth of the financial resources of the West; our population is many times less than the Chinese or Indian; and our industry is experiencing a crisis as before. But the spiritual and intellectual potential of the nation guarantees us a worthy place in the new world order."
Speaking as an honored guest Nikita Mikhalkov rejoiced that the current council was strikingly different from previous ones, since at the present time there is no need to be embarrassed by accusations of nationalism and extreme religiosity, in contrast to the forums of previous years which were held, as he said, in complexes and impotence. The Russian Orthodox church has been adjusting its contacts with the state for several years. The council that opened yesterday showed that the efforts have been crowned with victory. RPTs is ready to support the rulers in geopolitics and to support them with national love while at the same time overcoming its own separation from the state. (tr. by PDS)
METROPOLITAN KIRILL OF SMOLENSK AND KALININGRAD
Vremia novostei, 14 December 2001
--Metropolitan, today's council is much more noteworthy and representative than earlier ones. How do you explain that?
--Each of the previous councils was [not?] viewed with great understanding by our society. Our first sessions evoked people's distrust. At that time there existed many organizations in our country that used the word "council" [sobor] in their title. As a rule, they were radical nationalistic organizations. Now everybody understands that under the chairmanship of His Holiness the patriarch there cannot be any radicalism. That the council is a place for assembling people of various views and convictions and that it is simply a free tribune for the expression of concerns.
--Nevertheless at today's session much was said about the great Russian nation. But the composition of the forum is multinational.
--Russians--that is not just an ethnic concept, a concept conditioned by blood and genes. It is a spiritual and cultural concept. And it is very important that at the current council we had representatives not only of Orthodoxy but also other traditional Russian religions. The council was open to all of those who are striving for the glory of the fatherland and the prosperity of the nation.
--It seems that in recent years the church is intruding more and more into the life of the state?
--The fact that the president and patriarch were sitting together say nothing special about their relations. It does not mean that the church is leaning on the state or that it is trying to establish a special form of relations with the state in order to extract some benefits for itself. One simply must know Russia's history. The church always has been present in the center of the life of the nation. This is the church's historic place. (tr. by PDS)
SUPREME MUFTI OF RUSSIA AND EUROPEAN CIS COUNTRIES TALGAT TAJUDDIN
Vremia novosti, 14 December 2001
--How many Muslims are there in Russia?
--Around 15 million traditional followers of Islam.
--What does the support of the Russian Orthodox church mean for you?
--It is natural. We have one life, one state, one fate. We have been neighbors for a long time and a neighbor is all the same as a brother.
--Has the life of Russian Muslims changed after 11 September?
--It has become more difficult. Without peace and calm nothing is possible, neither prayer nor worship of God. There is an enormous danger of a clash of peoples and confessions. The grief of the American people should not be an occasion for causing pain and suffering to other nations and countries. People are divided not only by national but also by religious principle. Nobody can remain impassive and indifferent to this.
--Surely today's council should give you joy?
--I am very pleased that so much attention was shown to this council on the part of governmental offices. We hope that the problems of the spiritual and moral regeneration of the world, stability, and the religious mutual understanding of peoples will receive yet more development on the governmental level. Now the most difficult situation is not in the center but in the regions. From all regions of Russia, the Caucasus, Volga, Urals, Bashkortostan, and Siberia, representatives of Muslims have come to the forum. We hope that the Russian People's Council will facilitate the establishment of good relations and mutual understanding of various peoples of Russia. (tr. by PDS, posted 18 December 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
For long years the topic of alternative service was forbidden in our country since formally such a problem did not exist. The right of citizens to refuse military service on religious or pacifist convictions began openly to be discussed for the first time only at the end of the eighties. Today a law on alternative service is in effect in a majority of western states and in many CIS countries, but as before Russia lags behind.
Although it was Russia that was the first country where believers were granted the right not to perform military service in cases where that violated their religious convictions. By decree in 1762 Catherine II exempted from military service Mennonites who were being subjected to persecution in Germany for refusal of military service. She suggested that they resettle in Russia, granting them the opportunity to do agricultural work, which brought great income into the state treasury.
Even under the soviet regime, in the years of the civil war, a decree of 1919 "On exemption from military obligation for religious convictions," signed by Lenin, was in effect, according to which people who refused military service were granted the right "upon decision of a people's court" to substitute alternative service for military service. Conscientious objectors were sent as medics to "infectious hospitals" or to other "generally useful work selected by the draftee." This decree ceased to have any force by the end of the twenties and for long years there was silence about the problem of military obligation in our country.
In 1990 a working group in the USSR Supreme Soviet was formed for drafting a law on alternative service. By 1991 the draft was completely ready. But USSR fell at this time, parliament was dispersed, and a new working group was created in the Russian parliament, comprising new people. Everything began over again from the beginning. When the draft was ready, its composers faced decisive opposition on the part of the Ministry of Defense. Several commissions were organized and in 1994 a law was finally adopted on first reading, but the parliament's term expired and new commissions arose. Now three draft laws on alternative service are ready in parliament but it is not likely that such a law will be adopted in the near future.
Commenting on the situation that now surrounds the problem of alternative service, the director of the Institute of Religion and Law, Anatoly Pchelintsev, emphasized that the Ministry of Defense, which opposed the adoption of a law, proceeds from a mistaken understanding of state interests. Its workers are convinced that the adoption of a law on alternative service will wreck the army. But that is not so. Sociological investigations have been conducted several time that have shown that in 1996 there were in all 1500 persons who desired to perform alternative service. It is not likely that this figure has changed much. But that the absence of a law infringes on the human right of choice is undoubted.
And this problem has yet another serious aspect about which it is unpleasant to speak. The point is that the situation as it now exists is convenient for very many military bureaucrats who are simply selling deferments. The adoption of a law on alternative military service would deprive them of their "feeding troughs" and the opportunity to improve their material condition. Although such a position undoubtedly is counter to state interests, since alternative service is a form of state obligation equal to the military service and presumes participation in harvesting and construction work or in the spheres of health care and social services, which are practiced widely in many countries of the world.
Anatoly Pchelintsev pointed out yet another possibility for resolving the problem of alternative service. The majority of people who refuse military service on religious convictions base their decision on the premise that the oath is one form of swearing and the Bible says: "Do not swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God's throne, nor by earth, because it is his footstool" (Mt 5.33). It would be simple to exempt believers from the oath or to change its text. Besides this, it would be possible to return to the prerevolutionary experience when believers, including Orthodox, Muslims, and protestants, took an oath in the presence of clergy. The government prefers not to resolve these problems, while the absence of the law on alternative service not only violates human rights but also leads to destabilization of society. Because the inaction of the federal legislative authorities leads to adoption of such laws on the regional level, just as happens in the case of laws on freedom of conscience. Thus, their own laws on freedom of conscience have been adopted in thirty constituent parts of the federation, and this, of course, cannot be normal and testifies only to the absence of political will on the state's part.
Adoption of a law on alternative service would aid in reducing tension in society and would lead in the future to a higher level of a professional army, following the example of western countries. But it is still too early to speak of this. This step has still not been taken in Russia, which speaks about the low level of the legal culture of our bureaucrats and deputies. This question troubles Russian attorneys. In particular, the problem of the illiteracy of court personnel was raised at the November conference organized by the Institute of Religion and Law with the support of the Open Society Institute, at which examples were cited where courts displayed ignorance of laws connected with the problem of exercising the right to freedom of conscience.
However, in recent time judicial practice de facto involving refusals of military service to a great extent has been of a positive nature. This is because young judges have used the constitution as an act of supreme juridical force, in contrast to judges of the older generation, who always have treated the constitution as a political declaration and frequently ignore it. In 1996 in Tula there was a case of refusal of military service by sixteen students of the Zaoksk ecclesiastical seminary of the church of Christian Seventh-Day Adventists. A young judge heard the case and on the basis of the constitution she ruled the decision of the draft commission illegal, which at the time was viewed as a very bold decision.
However despite the presence in the constitution of a provision that refusal of military service is not a crime there have been attempts, as before, to hold draftees liable, and in by no means all instances have judicial investigations ended favorably. In Novocheboksari city court there was a case of refusal of military service by a parishioner of a Pentecostal church, Alexander Volkov. The court offered Volkov alternative service in the Ministry of Emergency Situations, calling it "the grace of God." He nevertheless declined.
Law enforcement officers have had to deal with explicitly illegal actions by court personnel. There have been instances when the government has artificially made a criminal out of a person (even a recidivist) by punishing him several times for one and the same "crime" in accordance with a simple scenario: a man refused to do military service for religious convictions and he was convicted. After serving his sentence he was again conscripted for the army and he again refused, and he was taken to court. This happened in the nineties even after the constitution article had been adopted, which says that a citizen of the Russian federation, "in case his convictions or religious doctrines forbid performing military service, has the right to substitute for it alternative civilian service."
Sometimes it happens that the court is not persuaded by the arguments of a draftee who refuses to serve in the army. But in Anatoly Pchelintsev's opinion an experienced attorney is able to determine immediately whether a person wants to evade military service under the guise of religious convictions or whether he really has them. However he thinks that the law does not bear a decisive nature but a declarative one and that convictions--religious or pacifist--do not require proof. Besides, sometimes it happens that it is impossible to prove the sincerity of such convictions since the right to freedom of conscience is of an individual nature and must be guaranteed regardless of whether a person is a member of some religious organization or not.
Nevertheless in the majority of instances conscientious objectors are people who participate in religious life. They include for the greater part protestants, since a protestant is a traditional objector to military service. Baptists refuse to perform military service much more rarely, since their doctrine does not contain an absolute prohibition of military service. There have been Orthodox believers among objectors, but rarely. As regards the position of representatives of religious associations, it is especially categorical among Jehovah's Witnesses, who speak out decisively against both military and alternative service.
His Holiness the patriarch has often spoken out on the issue of alternative service, calling the adoption of a law a necessity. At the same time, Father Konstantin Tatarintsev, an employee of the synodal department of the Moscow patriarchate for relations with armed forces and law enforcement organizations declared that RPTs "has always welcomed military service as a sacred obligation," and it does not support those who "for personal, selfish reasons evade this service."
Nevertheless it is necessary to approach each instance individually, since sometimes there exist objective reasons for refusal to perform military service. However, whatever may be the position of religious leaders with regard to this problem, society feels the acute necessity of the adoption of a law on alternative service. But Anatoly Pchelintsev predicts that such a law will not likely be adopted in the near future. The generation of politicians who not only know the rights of their fellow citizens but also respect them has not yet come to power. (tr. by PDS, posted 18 December 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
A dispute over the right to construct a prayer building for the "Emmanuel" church of Christians of Evangelical Faith in the "Fiftieth-Anniversary of October" park developed within the corridors of justice of the western district of the capital. As we were told by the administrator of the church of Evangelical Faith (TsVE), Bakur Azarian, for a long time the prefect of the eastern [sic] district of Moscow has not granted the permission to build a church that earlier had been promised by Moscow authorities. The representatives of the "Emmanuel" church think that the prefecture has no evident reasons for the refusal. However they have not managed to get the promised permission for beginning construction.
The story of the church's construction began back in 1996. At that time Moscow authorities allotted a plot of land on Vernadsky Prospect for constructing a religious-cultural center and prayer building of the church of Evangelical Faith. This plot for construction of the church had been proposed by the prefect of the western district, Aleksei Prechikhin.
From that time representatives of the "Emmanuel" church began numerous steps for the confirmation of construction. Drawing up of the plans and their approval took a long time. When finally all necessary papers had been received and the question of the start of construction arose, for some reason all documents were returned to the public council of the mayor's office. At the public council, instead of the expected approval of the plans, a question about the accuracy of the dimensions of the church was raised; it was explained that during the time the plans were being prepared, the legislative base in the city had changed. The council decided to temporize with the construction of the church and ordered the conduct of a survey among the local population regarding their consent to the church's construction.
The head of the district justice office of Moscow, Vladimir Riazanov, told representatives of the "Emmanuel" church, when they asked him when they could expect the results of the survey, that they should determine public opinion independently and then present the results to the district assembly. All of the church's parishioners (around 1,000 persons) engaged zealously in the attempt to remove the obstacles from the path of getting their church. In a short time believers visited all residents of the district. In the course of the unprecedented operation, despite the reluctance of many citizens to open their doors, signatures of more than 6,000 residents of neighboring buildings had been collected in support of constructing the prayer building. At the same time the leadership of the Central Church of Evangelical Faith appealed to the local council of veterans asking for a statement whether they would be opposed to constructing a church as planned by city hall near the Alley of Partisans. On this matter the veterans supported representatives of the "Emmanuel" church and gave their blessing to the construction. Also representatives of the "Emmanuel" church were supported by the Society of Multichildren Families and Society of Crippled Children located nearby.
But in the district justice office such zeal and efforts were not appreciated. The district assembly, without informing representatives of the Central Church of Evangelical Faith, reviewed the question of the benefits of beginning construction, in a closed session. Having reviewed the signatures collected by the parishioners of the "Emmanuel" church and other documents, the assembly made the sensational decision: to deny the evangelicals the construction of the religious-cultural center and prayer building.
After this decision had been made, representatives of the Central Church of Evangelicl Faith legally requested to receive the minutes of this meeting that was so damaging to them, but instead of the minutes they were presented with a copy of the decision to deny only, along with the explanation that minutes on this matters had not been kept at the session since the question was not very substantive. It was explained to the aggrieved petitioners in the district assembly that the decision had been made on the basis of the negative public opinion of residents of neighboring buildings.
As Bakur Azarian explained: "In response to all our requests to be shown the results of the public opinion survey at the prefecture, no documents whatsoever were presented. No answers were given to us anywhere. But immediately after the story of the secret survey appeared in the district newspaper, which is circulated free among residents, a whole campaign against construction of our prayer building unfolded."
The district newspaper wrote that "representatives of the church have exerted psychological pressure on advisors of the prefect and have distorted facts," and that "representatives of the 'Emmanuel' church deceived residents regarding their true intentions." Soon the newspaper revealed a real sensation: "How many Orthodox churches have been built in Rus with the people's money! In the case of 'Emmanuel' foreign capital is being imported since the 'Emmanuel' Christian Church of Evangelical Faith is a Russian mission of the neopentecostal 'Faith Movement' brought to Russia from USA via Sweden. Guided by these conclusions, the justice office and advisors of the district assembly decided not to support the application of representatives of the 'Emmanuel' church for construction."
Representatives of "Emmanuel" church are concerned that facts are distorted in the articles. As representatives of "Emmanuel" church have commented to us in writing, all these articles were based on letters distributed by the Department of Sectarian Studies of St. Irenaeus Information Consultation Center of the Russian Orthodox church, directed by Doctor of Philosophy Alexander Dvorkin. The letters sent by him to the head of the justice office and chairman of the district assembly contained requests "to study carefully the activity of the 'Emmanuel' mission," and they warned that "intervention of law enforcement agencies may be necessary."
The final argument from the point of view of the prefecture was that "FSB has opposed the construction of the church since they have secret objects located in this park." In response to this statement representatives of the "Emmanuel" church sent an inquiry to FSB, where they received the answer the FSB has never had anything to do with the question of the construction of a church on Vernadsky Prospect, and such a question is not within its competence. What may serve as a new basis for refusing construction of the church can only be guessed. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 December 2001)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication
from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material
is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.