Government official explains religion law

THE LAW IS ABOUT FREEDOM FOR ALL

Radonezh, January 1998

In issue no. 20 we published the first commentary on the "Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations" (sic) by the deputy director of the government apparatus of the Russian federation, A.E. Sebentsov. The commentary aroused stormy discussion in the press. We asked A.E. Sebentsov to sum up the discussion.

--Are you fully satisfied with your work? Which of the responses most attracted your attention?

In the main I am satisfied with the commentary, although I recognize its imperfection. Of course, it bears traces of haste. Besides this, it is more speculative than based on experience, naturally, because the law had just appeared and the purpose of the commentary was to orient those who need to work within the bounds of the law with how to understand it.

Naturally after the implementation of the law and the substatutory acts that flow from it and the development of application in practice it will need some improvement. But for the stage at which it was composed, the commentary, in my view, turned out quite well, although it is preliminary in character.

As regards the outcries, I would say that there were various outcries. Some note several contradictions and mistakes. For example they pointed out that in one place it contradicted the literal wording of the text. But this was simply either my haste or an editorial mistake, which is natural.

I think that in a sympathetic reading all such quibbles are cancelled out and the reader understands what is being discussed. But there are other responses which I would divide into three substantive sets: responses of those who consider themselves harmed by this law ("the text may seem harmless but out in the countryside it may turn out entirely differently . . .") and responses of those who consider that the law has not freed Russian society from "pernicious spiritual influence" (and then they call these or other religious organizations sects or some other such words). But the law cannot free from these. Because the law is about freedom of conscience. And it permits people to worship in accordance with their conscience. This law requires the state to create certain conditions to achieve this, and, on the other hand, to restrict the activity of those religious organizations or even associations which abuse their opportunities, infringe upon the liberties and civil rights of Russians, including their own adherents, and violate the constitution and laws by their activity. The law gives religious organizations sufficiently great rights that did not exist earlier.

What is completely new in this law is the exemption of property with religious purpose from confiscation. Exemption from military service is completely new. These are significant new rights which have been given to citizens.

In this regard there is the third category of responses, which really raise serious, profound problems. For example, border troops have made an interesting response: they discuss how to reconcile state service with the right to be a believing person and to satisfy one's religious needs. Here there really are problems which, I think, in the future will need to be considered.

--What kind of difficulties or problems can arise in the implementation of this law, in your opinion?

--The basic difficulties that I see first are that various actions not based on the law generally (not on this one but the law in general) will pertain to the operation of this particular law. Insofar as now the regulatory environment has been somewhat shaken up (as we say) some motion toward the resolution of old conflicts has begun. Several lawsuits which have been going on for two or three years and a question which the court somehow had decided long ago, but within the parameters of the old law, currently pertain to the situation that now, supposedly, a new, bad law has appeared which infringes upon believers' rights, although this has nothing to do with reality. There are various reasons for this. In particular, we have some activists, let's say dissidents, who earn the means for their existence through their dissent. To focus on one or another problem is for them the fundamental task because otherwise no one would pay them any attention.

But as a result of their irresponsible activity a situation has arisen where Russia has come under international criticism. This can facilitate attempts to erect around Russia a quarantine zone, make our life more difficult, and put pressure on Russia and on the leadership. I should say that in part this law is not the cause, but the occasion, which they specifically have been looking for, in order to put forward their claims on Russia, because they simply want to do so.

Other difficulties can be quite actual because, really, in the countryside some local administrations will have greater freedom to act. But this possibility always was there and it is there now.

Here it is extremely important how the leading confessions behave. Because to a religious consciousness it is possible to accept one's own and to reject the other's. Thus when our Orthodox exert religious influence upon an administration, and the administration sometimes cannot suspend certain religious preferences or the influence of their own conscience (this is the greatest problem we mentioned in the case of border troops), then the Orthodox might dominate and, we admit, even suppress other religious organizations. And if the administration operates on the basis of its own personal preference, then occasions for conflicts may arise.

In other places other religions might operate similarly. Although tolerance is generally a characteristic of Orthodox people, it often has been tested in our days. And this test has not always been passed honorably. Problems happen!

But there are also more serious objective complications. The point is that the mechanisms for the achievement of the law's potential, other than the action of simple prohibition during registration and reregistration, are essentially absent. Nobody now knows how to identify a problem which is created by the activity of one or another religious or pseudoreligious association; no one knows how to formulate clearly the essence of the question before a judge, and judges do not have experience in the solution of these problems. Here the objective difficulties will be quite natural and we will not be able to achieve the civil society we desire until we overcome them by means of applying our own experience.

--What would you prefer; should a mechanism for overseeing and assuring the observance of the law by created?

--The law provides for overseeing and controlling certain aspects of the activity of religious associations and organizations. It is the responsibility of the ministry of justice and the procuracy. But I don't know whether they will devote much attention to this. These are sufficiently technical matters, and without special subdivisions, in which trained specialists work who are able to identify these problems it will be quite difficult. Thus the training of cadres is a very important matter as is the preparation of professionals for work in the area of relations between the state and religious associations, because this is a complex, important, and delicate subject. But we will try to help.

With regard to some state agency, it is difficult for me to say something definite, because the idea still has not been received positively. On the one hand it is sort of necessary, but the Russian Orthodox church through the most holy patriarch has frequently spoken against it. And it is the representatives of religious minorities who nowadays are speaking in favor of an agency. I have had occasion to hear the argument: "It would be better to have a state agency because otherwise a privileged religious organization will assume this role."

--As far as I know, the constituent elements of the federation have adopted around thirty enactments regulating religious activity. What will their fate be in light of the adoption of the federal law?

--They are required to operate in accordance with the federal law, because the regulation of basic rights and freedoms in our country is accomplished by federal laws and the constitution and the securing of these rights and freedoms is a joint responsibility. Thus the parts of the federation have the right to make rules regulating religious activity. But they most be consistent with the federal laws. And this leads us to another problem of a general character (not only in the sphere of religion and religious associations): currently the mechanisms for the enactment of regulatory acts by parts of the federation in accordance with federal laws still is not well worked out. Thus there are those who say: "This law does not affect us; we have our own and it is better!" But this is a problem, as I said already, of a general character.

--What will be the situation for the Russian Orthodox church with regard to the law, as the largest religious structure of Russia?

--It will remain as it was. I do not see any serious movement with regard to the situation of the Russian Orthodox church. It is in no way infringed, but insofar as all religious associations can get something in connection with this law, then the Russian Orthodox church also can get something. It seems to me that the Russian Orthodox church, as the largest religious structure of Russia, could assume, let's say, the representation of the interests of all religious associations. On the juridical level, as well as the moral level, it could even defend them somehow. Because no one else is able to assemble the necessary juridical forces and united moral potential for better using and applying in practice the provisions of this law. But for now it seems to me that the Russian Orthodox church is not prepared for this.

--On 23 January Nezavisimaia gazeta published an article by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, "The law about freedom of conscience: commentary on the commentary." What do you think about what was said there? Do you agree with all the metropolitan said?

--To say that I agree with the opinions of the metropolitan would, of course, be incorrect. The point is that the metropolitan, in my view, in the strictest sense of the word, understands the church's interests, and he defends, so to speak, its short-term interests, which to a certain degree harms long-term interests. This pertains both to the Russian Orthodox church and perhaps to Russia as a whole. In developing his thoughts regarding the strict conditions for reregistration of religious associations, he violates the spirit of the law on freedom. Because the law on freedom is the freedom of everyone and not only the Orthodox or Muslims or those who are named in the preamble. Freedom for all. In general a person has the right to worship, as we already said at the start, whatever god and in whatever form as his conscience dictates. But the other side is more complex: if this infringes upon the civil rights of these or other persons, then this requires attention. In this case there are real, but not formal, bases to refuse registration to prevent the activity of an association. That is possible. But for this there must be real bases, and it is necessary to give attention that is not purely formalistic.

At present the law, as I wrote in the commentary, is generally not quite formulated. It speaks only about fifteen years for local religious associations who wish to be made religious organizations and acquire legal status. It is about them only. But it makes no reference to centralized organizations.

--What about foreign evaluations and actions with regard to the adoption of this law?

--I already have expressed a bit on this topic. Evaluations, unfortunately, have been dictated by intention, because from the start there has been the intention, but then the evaluations arose. So it is necessary to note that many have not even read the law, but they have expressed a negative attitude toward it. This was even before the law was published. If one wants to speak ill of Russia then it is not important what provides the occasion; they will say it nevertheless. Thus I would not begin to take very seriously the foreign evaluations in their literal form. They have their own life, their own history, and they all somehow think that we should outdo them and that we have already solved those problems which they themselves do not know how to solve. But this is not the case and we have to learn our own devices and our own capacities, perhaps sometimes even our mistakes.

Of course it is impossible to say that the law is absolutely perfect. But nevertheless this is our law, which our democratic parliament adopted by democratic means. Perhaps not entirely by their measures.

Incidentally, much of what happened in our country also was dictated by our measures. For example, Clinton's provocation which they now have set up is not quite moral, I would say. Thus I want to note that the evaluations of western politicians is not entirely free.

Now, as regards actions. Again, if you want to act then you begin to search for a justification for it. And actions toward us may not be very friendly. At present questions have been raised about restricting aid to Russia, and perhaps we shall see something more. For our part we have explained our position and I hope that it has not been entirely unsuccessful. (tr by PDS)