The separation of church and state is a constitution. Separation of church and state

Not everyone knows what happened during the period of real separation of church and state, which occurred after the October Revolution in Russia. It is important to say that it 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 by no means talking about the famous “repressions” to which the priests refer. In fact, the essence lies precisely in the fact 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.

In order to consider this issue sensibly, we should first turn 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, they built churches, paid money, and church officials could claim a number of privileges (as well as nobles). Interestingly, temples and other church buildings did not belong to the church, and therefore the 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 more as an apparatus of officials who simply control the mob. After all, it was the clergy who came into contact with the population to a greater extent, and not other government officials.

Therefore, the illusion was created that allegedly the clergy really can control the people. However, in fact, of course, everything was not so, and the authority of the church among the population was rather weak. Well, the high attendance of temples was explained primarily by the fact that Orthodoxy was forced by the force of 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 strongly, since it seemed that the Orthodox Church was devoted to autocracy. And then talk began that, they say, Nikolai was a despot, and the church allegedly always stood for a democratic republic.

It is clear that the representatives of the interim government did not particularly believe, probably, in the sincerity of this, since the entire staff had previously been “cursed” by the churchmen more than once. But still, they considered that the church should be used, and therefore they left Orthodoxy as the state religion and continued to pay salaries to priests.

Priests were mainly used during the war, the so-called. "military chaplains". Although there was no sense in this, 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 position. After all, the enthusiasm and strength that really existed in the very initial period of the war already disappeared somewhere in the middle or 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 to continue relations with the priests and individual highest representatives of power, i.e., bureaucrats, nobles, and so on. And all the promises that were made before that were not fulfilled.

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

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

• In all secular public schools ... the teaching of the Law of God ... is obligatory both in lower and secondary, and in higher educational institutions: the content of teaching posts in public schools is accepted 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 funds of the State Treasury ... annual appropriations 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 clergy prayed for the health of government ministers and, in general, for the new form of government. Therefore, of course, one should not talk about any secularism during the GP period.

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 alleged government would not last even a few weeks. Both churchmen 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 our position.

It is quite 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 immediately like to note that the church was separated from the state, and the schools from the church, not on the very first day, but in 1918. Moreover, the clergy were informed in advance that the church would soon be finally separated from the state.

Understanding what was happening, the clergy 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 the definitions of the local council to the Council of People's Commissars, that is, the same points that were sent to the provisional government, which states that Orthodoxy is the 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 project for 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 be done.

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

"all and any 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 prerequisite, and amendments were also adopted that limited the presence of priests in the army. These were some half-measures before the official law.

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

1. Proclamation of the secular nature of the Soviet state - the church is separated from the state.
2. The prohibition of any restriction of freedom of conscience, or the establishment of any advantages or privileges on the basis of the religious affiliation of citizens.
3. The right of everyone to profess any religion or none.
4. The prohibition of indicating the religious affiliation of citizens in official documents.
5. Prohibition of religious rites and ceremonies when performing state or other public law public actions.
6. Civil status records should be kept exclusively by the civil authorities, marriage and birth registration departments.
7. The school as a state educational institution is separated from the church - a ban on the teaching of religion. Citizens should teach and learn religion only in private.
8. Prohibition of forced collections, fees and taxes in favor of ecclesiastical and religious societies, as well as the prohibition of measures of coercion or punishment on the part of these societies over their members.
9. Prohibition of property rights in church and religious societies. Prevention for them of the rights of a legal entity.
10. All property existing in Russia, church and religious societies declared public property.

Now about 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 “brethren”, 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, choristers, for repairs, and so on.

In the matter of cults, real equality really appeared when the 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, frameworks were created that were quite adequate for a secular state. It is also worth recalling one characteristic detail that church apologists do not like to recall. In many Protestant countries, where Catholicism previously dominated, monasteries were often liquidated (somewhere completely, somewhere not). But in Soviet Russia, and then in the USSR, monasteries were preserved, temples 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 take and cancel the decree on the separation of church and state, that is, they said that they were ready to cooperate, but only if all priestly privileges were preserved. In this regard, the Bolsheviks demonstrated steadfastness, that is, they did not follow their lead.

Immediately, the local council began to curse the Bolsheviks, who "took away" the privileges of the poor priests, who had previously used laws that punished for leaving Orthodoxy. Patriarch Tikhon put it this way:

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

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

"Unrest can take on the power of spontaneous movements ... it breaks out and can result in violent movements and lead to very serious consequences. No power can hold it back"

The Council of the Orthodox Church clarified that the decree:

"a malicious attempt on the whole system of life of the Orthodox Church and an act of open persecution against it."

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

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

"Leaders and students in religious educational institutions should rally with the parents of students and employees in unions (collectives) to protect educational institutions from seizure and to ensure their further activities for the benefit of the church ..."

It is clear that in reality the clergy were not particularly listened to, because when the "obligation" of Orthodoxy disappeared, then the authority immediately decreased, and the number of church visits dropped sharply. Not surprising, because now they did not threaten the code of laws.

Actually, the clergy themselves in their own internal publications admitted that their authority is negligible. Typical examples:

• “The mistrust with which the parishioners relate to the attempts of the clergy to get closer to the flock, that hostility bordering on open hostility ... testifies that the clergy is beginning to lose its former love and authority among the parishioners ... (Medic. A frank word about the mood of the minds of the modern intelligentsia // Missionary Review, 1902. No. 5).
• “Our clergy, even among the pious and previously humbly submissive peasants, live very hard. They do not want to pay the priest at all for the services, they insult him in every possible way. Here it is necessary to close the church and transfer the clergy to another parish, because the peasants resolutely refused to contain their parable; there are still unfortunate facts - these are cases of murders, burning of priests, cases of various gross mockeries against them ”(Christianin, 1907).
• “Priests only live by requisitions, they take ... eggs, wool and strive, as it were, to go to prayers more often, and money: he died - money, was born - money, he takes not how much you give, but how much he wants. But a hungry year happens, he will not wait until a good year, but give him the last, and at the very 36 acres (together with the parable) of land ... A noticeable movement began against the clergy ”(Agrarian movement, 1909, p. 384).
• “At meetings they scold us, when they meet with us they spit, in a cheerful company they tell funny and indecent anecdotes about us, and recently they began to portray us in an indecent form in pictures and postcards ... About our parishioners, our spiritual children, I already and I don't say. They look at us very, very often as fierce enemies who only think about how to “rip them off” more, causing them material damage ”(Shepherd and flock, 1915, No. 1, p. 24).

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

The more the decree worked, the more it hit the priests, because after a month of the real work of the “department”, they simply howled. And they began to distribute all sorts of appeals in which they openly called for disobedience:

“Any participation both in the issuance of this legalization hostile to the church (the decree on the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church), and in attempts to put it into practice, is incompatible with belonging to the Orthodox Church and brings the most severe punishments on those guilty of the Orthodox confession, up to excommunication from churches"

The tactic, of course, is ridiculous, because people were literally told the following: we are forbidden to live at someone else's expense, and to live in luxury. Therefore, we call for the abolition of this decree, otherwise we will be excommunicated from the church. It is unlikely that this could inspire the defense of the church, especially on the part of those who were actually driven into the temples by force earlier. It is important to remember that there were people who really sincerely attended churches during the period of tsarism, but still drove everyone there by force. Accordingly, if a fanatical visitor to the temples abruptly stopped doing this, then sanctions would await him.

Therefore, decrees in large cities were not particularly blocked. But in the villages it happened, because there the clergy were "wiser." They declared that the Bolsheviks were antichrists, that they not only separated the church from the state, but literally killed all priests and believers. Therefore, it often happened that representatives of the government, policemen and Red Army soldiers were simply killed in the villages after such “sermons”. However, it is important to note that this did not happen very often.

Then the clergy began to hold 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 churchmen. The most massive religious procession was in St. Petersburg, when the priests turned directly to the Council of People's Commissars, declaring that 500,000 believers would come to the procession. But the priests were then warned that if there were provocations, then it was the clergy who would be held responsible for this. As a result, everything went more or less calmly, and not 500 thousand, but 50 thousand came. In a couple of years, hundreds of people gathered for such events.

The Black Hundreds from the Lantern magazine, after the procession, directly called:

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

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

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

Although, what is important, with their provocations, they contributed to inciting discord and actually provoked bloody clashes that cost many lives. For the sake of liberation, the patriarch had only to ask for forgiveness from the Soviet authorities. The rest of the “Old Churchmen” 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 also more radical groups. For example, the clergy who supported the Whites. There were even their own “Jesus regiments”. Such priests took part precisely in the armed confrontation, and therefore they were often awaited by execution by the revolutionary tribunal. In fact, many of these are today considered "martyrs."

It is also worth noting the priests who simply emigrated, taking with them the jewels of the church. All they had to do was describe the “horrors of the Soviet regime” to foreigners, on 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 - that is, the Antichrist, the harbinger of the end of the world, etc.

But the smartest are the conditional “renovators” who immediately understood what needed to be done. Since there are churches, and the number of parishes is quite significant, and it is easy to get them (1 priest + 20 parishioners), then, of course, you need to use this. They actually began to create "their Orthodoxy". Various "living", "revolutionary", "communist", etc. churches, which then became generically called "renovationism". By the way, they used the symbols of power (they tried to prove that they were “communist”) just to earn money. Such figures have rapidly promoted themselves hierarchically, and occupied the central outlets of the church. The Bolsheviks were loyal to them.

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 get rich were already occupied, and the Orthodox, of course, will not send a cult for free. Since after Peter I the priests were mostly relatively literate, they could be clerks, secretaries, and so on.

In this case, it is instructive to know what happened to the church as soon as the state stopped supporting it. The building, which had been standing for hundreds of years, which allegedly had colossal authority and even a “basic position”, collapsed in just a couple of years. The insignificant state that was already characteristic of 1922-23, of course, only indicates that the Orthodox Church simply cannot function normally without active state support. It has proved in practice that it is not capable of maintaining on its own most of the churches, monasteries, seminaries, etc., that all this is possible only when the church uses the administrative resource.

Separation of church and state in Russia (1917-1993)

The separation of church and state in Soviet Russia was ideologically based on the Marxist understanding of freedom of conscience, which involved the elimination of political, economic and other ties between the state and the church and the abolition of church ideology as such. Formally, during this period (since 1917), freedom of conscience was proclaimed in the country and a policy of separation of church and state was pursued, but the secularism of the state was not enshrined in any of the constitutions of the Soviet period. In reality, Russia is turning into a state with a dominant atheistic ideology.

As you know, before the revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was state. Since the time of Peter I, the church has been almost completely subordinate to the monarchy. Carrying out church reform, Peter I abolished the patriarchal rank and replaced it with the Holy Synod. Since that time, “the state controlled the church, and the emperor was legally considered its head. At the head of the highest church body - the Holy Synod was a secular official - the chief prosecutor ... The Church actually lost the possibility of an independent voice. In state affairs and in the life of society, becoming a spiritual department among other state departments, she and her servants merged in the minds of the people with representatives of the authorities and thus became responsible for all the acts of this authority, ”rightly states S. Yu Naumov.

So, Russia until 1917 was a country with a state religion, which led to a crisis in the Russian Orthodox Church itself, which had the opportunity to use police methods of conversion to the Orthodox faith (in 1901, at St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings, Prince S. Volkonsky expressed the following idea : "If church leaders and clergy do not understand the need to separate church from state, then this only proves the internal weakness of the church, forced to cling to outside help and resort to other people's measures to replace the impotence of its fading authority"). Until 1917, non-believers found themselves in an unprotected position in Russia, since it was mandatory to indicate their affiliation to a particular religion in the passport, and the activities of representatives of other religions, except for the Orthodox, were often prohibited.

The identification of state power and the Russian Orthodox Church in the minds of the people helped the Bolsheviks after the revolution, along with terror, to pursue a policy of splitting the Russian Orthodox Church and undermine faith in its teachings. With the loss of faith of the people in the king, the church immediately lost its former authority, and with his death it was beheaded. At the same time, millions of Orthodox believers remained in Russia after the revolution (according to official figures - 117 million), many of whom did not turn away from the Russian Orthodox Church and supported it. This fact confirms the assertion that the church is not only the clergy, but also numerous laity. The Bolsheviks had a difficult job of introducing an atheistic ideology, but since they used any means, including mass repressions, to achieve their goal (holding power), they succeeded in many ways.

The process of separation of church and state in Soviet Russia was peculiar. First of all, the clergy themselves made an attempt to reform the church. At the All-Russian Local Church Council, held from June 1917 to September 1918, the Russian Orthodox Church attempted to rebuild its independent infrastructure. At the Council, a Patriarch was elected, who became Metropolitan Tikhon (Vasily Belavin), the statutes of the cathedral structure of the entire church were adopted - from the patriarch to monasteries and self-governing parishes, with the provision of a broad initiative from below and an elective principle at all levels. The main obstacle that stopped the activities of the Council and made it impossible to carry out its decisions was the anti-religious policy of the Soviet state. The first steps in politics V.I. Lenin on the liquidation of the Russian Orthodox Church and the separation of church and state became the well-known Decree on Land of November 8, 1917 and a number of others (for example, the Decree on Land Committees), according to which all Orthodox clergy were deprived of the right to own land, including all church , specific and monastic. On December 11 (24) a Decree was adopted on the transfer of all church schools to the Commissariat of Education, and on December 18 (31) church marriage was officially annulled and civil marriage was introduced. On January 12, 1918, the Decree on the democratization of the fleet was adopted by the People's Commissariat for Maritime Affairs. It stated that all sailors were free to express and practice their religious views. Decree of December 11, 1917 "On the transfer of upbringing and education from the spiritual department to the Commissariat for Public Education" transferred to the People's Commissariat of Education not only parochial schools, but also theological academies, seminaries, schools with all their property. Thus, the ground was prepared for the adoption of the main decree in the sphere of state-church relations of that time.

The most important legal act in this area was the Decree of January 20, 1918 on the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church4 (the abstracts of this Decree were already published in January 1918), according to which the Russian Orthodox Church was separated from states. Local authorities could not issue any laws and regulations in this area (limiting or giving privileges to any religion). Paragraph 3 of the Decree enshrined the right to freedom of conscience, it stated that “every citizen can profess any religion or not profess any. Any right deprivation associated with the confession of any faith or non-profession of any faith is canceled. From that moment on, it was not necessary to indicate religious affiliation in official acts (previously it was mandatory to indicate religion, for example, in a passport). At the same time, the Decree deprived the church of all property, movable and immovable, and the right to own it, in addition, the church was deprived of the rights of a legal entity. Church and religious organizations ceased all state subsidies. The church could receive the buildings necessary for worship only on the terms of “free use” and with the permission of the authorities. In addition, the teaching of religious beliefs was prohibited in all state, public and private educational institutions (Section 9 separates the school from the church). From now on, citizens could study religion only in private.

By itself, the decree of 1918 proclaimed the secular nature of the new state and established freedom of conscience. But the deprivation of the church of the status of a legal entity, the confiscation of property, the real actions of the Soviet government and further legislative acts testified that an atheistic state was being built in the country, where there was no place for any other faith than faith in socialist ideals. In pursuance of this Decree, by decision of the Council of People's Commissars of May 9, 1918, a special department of the People's Commissariat of Justice was created, headed by P.A. Krasikov. After the adoption of the Decree, about six thousand churches and monasteries were confiscated from the church and all bank accounts of religious associations were closed.

In the first years of the struggle with the church, the Soviet government, following the teachings of K. Marx about religion as a superstructure of the material basis, tried to take away its material base. Only the help of true believers to the clergy, classified by the Soviet authorities among the dispossessed, helped many to avoid starvation. “When by 1921 it becomes clear that the Church is not going to wither away, measures of direct centralized persecution begin to be applied.”

It is known that the drought of 1920-1921. led to unprecedented famine throughout the country. In August 1921, Patriarch Tikhon appealed to the heads of Christian churches outside Russia for help for the starving. The All-Russian Church Committee for Assistance to the Starving was created, donations began to be collected.

The Soviet government, under the pretext of helping the starving, launches a broad anti-religious campaign. So, by order of the Government, the All-Russian Church Committee for Assistance to the Starving was closed, and the funds raised were transferred to the Government Committee for Assistance to the Starving (Pomgol). On February 23, 1922, the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee "On the seizure of church valuables and bells" was adopted. The Soviet government recognizes this Decree as necessary because of the difficult situation in the starving regions. The true reasons were guessed by Patriarch Tikhon, who noted among them the desire to compromise the church in the eyes of the masses. This is confirmed by Lenin's "strictly secret" letter to Molotov dated March 19, 1922, regarding the events in Shuya. Here are some characteristic excerpts from it: “For us, this very moment is not only an exceptionally favorable, but in general the only moment when we can count on 99 out of 100 chances of complete success, smash the enemy utterly and provide for ourselves the necessary us position for many decades. Precisely now and only now ... we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most frenzied and merciless energy and without stopping to suppress any kind of resistance ... The more representatives of the reactionary clergy and the reactionary bourgeoisie we manage to shoot on this occasion , all the better". The content of this letter shows the true attitude of V.I. Lenin to the starving. It is clear that he tried to use the calamity of the people to further liquidate the church as an institution.

Legislation in 1922 became more and more strict. The Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of July 12, 1922 (Art. 477), the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of August 3, 1922 (Art. 622), the instruction of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of August 10, 1922 (Art. 623) introduced the principle of mandatory registration of any societies , unions and associations (including religious communities) in the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs and its local bodies, which now had the unconditional right to allow or prohibit the existence of such communities. When registering, it was mandatory to submit complete information (including party affiliation) about each member of the community, the charter of the society and a number of other documents. It provided for the refusal of registration if the registered society or union, in its goals or methods of activity, contradicts the Constitution and its laws. This understandable article actually left a lot of scope for the arbitrariness of the authorities. The "permissive" principle will become the basis of all subsequent Soviet legislation in this area.

In 1923-1925. the formalization of the legal basis for the existence of religious associations continued. Thus, on February 26, 1924, the Politburo approved the instruction on the registration of Orthodox religious societies. On March 21, 1924, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a resolution “On the termination of the case on charges of c. Belavina V.I.” . Once free, Patriarch Tikhon begins the struggle for the legalization of the bodies of the central administration of the Russian Orthodox Church. He achieves that on May 21, 1924, People's Commissar of Justice D.I. Kursky, having read the statement of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, agreed with the requirements of the patriarch. On the same day, the patriarch, sitting with the Synod in the Donskoy Monastery, decided to formalize the formation of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council and listed the personal composition of both bodies.

Thus ended at this stage the long struggle of the patriarch for the legalization of the Russian Orthodox Church, its governing bodies, its hierarchy, outlawed by the Moscow Tribunal in the verdict of May 5, 1922.

During the same period, Catholic communities were also legalized, since the Soviet government had certain hopes for the help of the Vatican in the international arena. On December 11, 1924, the Politburo approved two main legal documents legalizing Catholic organizations: the Statute of the Catholic Faith in the USSR and the Basic Provisions on the Catholic Faith in the USSR. According to these documents, the Vatican retained the right to appoint clergymen, but with the permission of the NKID for each candidate. The Soviet government retained the right to challenge, including for political reasons. Any papal messages are distributed throughout the country only with the permission of the Soviet authorities. All relations between the highest Catholic hierarchs of the country and the Vatican go only through the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs.

In general, in order to facilitate the task of destroying the Russian Orthodox Church, the authorities sought to secure something like an alliance with other confessions or to ensure neutrality on their part. This is confirmed by the fact that some of them were given certain privileges. For example, in 1918, the Commissariat for the Affairs of Muslim Nationalities was created. Some denominations tried to turn the current situation to their advantage. Evangelicals and Catholics at first welcomed the consolidation of the separation of church and state, assuming that the nationalization would only affect the property of the Russian Orthodox Church. But in subsequent years, all confessions experienced severe repression and persecution.

Following rather favorable acts for Muslims, such as, for example, the appeal of the Council of People's Commissars of Soviet Russia “To all the working Muslims of Russia and the East” dated November 20, 1917, two years later, quite harsh measures against Muslims followed. “In 1919, waqf lands were confiscated in Central Asia, the proceeds from which were used for religious needs (zakat) and for charitable purposes (saadaka), mektebs (comprehensive schools for Muslims) were liquidated, in Eastern Bukhara, when Soviet power was established, mosques were engaged in institutions ".

In the 1930s, many churches, many Protestant prayer houses, Muslim mosques were closed, at the same time the Buddhist datsan, the only one in Leningrad, created by the efforts of ethnic Buryats and Kalmyks in 1913, was closed. even if breaking the law than to be accused of a loyal attitude to religion - the opponent of Soviet power. The Soviet government did not need any of the religious teachings, recognizing only the Marxist ideology.

Only on April 8, 1929, at a meeting of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, a resolution “On Religious Associations” was adopted, which regulated the legal status of religious associations in the Soviet Union for 60 years. But this did not improve the position of church organizations in the country. This decree limited the activities of associations to meet the religious needs of believers, and their range of action was limited to the walls of a prayer building, which was provided to them by the state (since then, a priest could not perform ritual actions at home, in a cemetery and in public places without special permission). “It legislated the exclusion of religious associations from all spheres of civil life and introduced a number of restrictions on the activities of religious societies (over 20 people) and groups of believers (less than 20 people).”

Despite the fact that the church, according to the Decree of April 8, 1929, did not receive the status of a legal entity, all religious associations operating at that time on the territory of the RSFSR were required to register. The registration procedure was very complicated and time consuming. The decision on registration was given to the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which took it after considering the submission of the Councils of Ministers of the autonomous republics, regional executive committees, and regional Soviets of People's Deputies. In addition, local authorities had the right to refuse registration. If registration was refused, the parish was closed and the church building was taken away from the believers. However, despite the fact that the church was deprived of the status of a legal entity, the Decree "On Religious Associations" of 1929 granted them the following rights: the acquisition of vehicles, the right to lease, build and purchase ownership of buildings for their needs (imposing all these buildings with exorbitant taxes), the acquisition and production of church utensils, objects of religious worship, as well as their sale to communities of believers. From a legal point of view, such a situation is absurd, since an organization deprived by the state of the rights of a legal entity received from it the right to own and partially dispose of property.

In accordance with the adopted resolution, it was forbidden to hold general meetings of religious societies without the permission of the authorities (Article 12); engage in charity (art. 17); convene religious congresses and meetings (Article 20). It was forbidden to teach any kind of religious beliefs in institutions not specially designed for this (Article 18). The situation with religious education in those years was deplorable, since almost all institutions specially designed for this purpose were closed. Believing parents, by mutual agreement, could themselves teach religion to children under the age of majority, but on condition that this training did not take the form of a group, but was carried out with their children individually, without inviting teachers. The clergy did not have the right, under the threat of criminal punishment (Art. 142 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR), to teach children religion.

Thus, the church was separated not only from the state, but also from the life of society as a whole, which had a negative impact on the development of many religious associations.

The only positive factor was the very fact of the adoption of this regulation, which replaced the conflicting circulars in force in this area.

The Constitution of 1936 fixed the same wording that was adopted at the XIV All-Russian Congress of Soviets in May 1929. Art. 124 of the Constitution of the USSR of 1936, it was stated: “In order to ensure the freedom of conscience for citizens, the church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda are recognized for all citizens. This Constitution was less discriminatory towards the clergy. An article that deprived the clergy of voting rights was excluded from it. In Art. 135 of the Constitution, it was established that religion does not affect the electoral rights of a citizen.

The USSR Constitution of 1977 also proclaims the separation of the state from the church. Art. 52 of this Constitution for the first time defined freedom of conscience as the right to profess any religion or not to profess any, to practice religious cults or conduct atheistic propaganda. But even in this Constitution it is forbidden to conduct religious propaganda. And for the first time, a new legal guarantee of freedom of conscience was recorded in the Constitution of the USSR: the prohibition to incite enmity and hatred in connection with religious beliefs. Freedom of conscience, enshrined in the main law of the country, as well as the principle of secularism and many other norms, were in many ways an empty formality that meant nothing to the authorities. Perhaps that is why the citizens of our country have forgotten how to respect and use its laws.

But the main changes took place on September 4, 1943, after a personal conversation between I. V. Stalin and Metropolitans Sergius, Alexis and Nikolai. During this meeting, the following decisions were made: the decision to create a Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (which was supposed to communicate between the government and the patriarchy) and to appoint Colonel of State Security G. G. Karpov to the post of its chairman, the decision to convene the Local Council and the election of a patriarch who had not been elected for 18 years. I.V. Stalin also stated that from now on there will be no obstacles on the part of the government for the Moscow Patriarchate to publish its own journal, open religious educational institutions, Orthodox churches and candle factories.

So, in his policy towards the church, I.V. Stalin made some concessions. But at the same time, it must be recognized that the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church was created for its total control, its representatives interfered in all the internal affairs of the church. It is also characteristic that in the instructions of the Council for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church for the representatives of the Council on the ground of February 5, 1944, some provisions of the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of 1929 were duplicated. For example, "due to the fact that religious communities do not enjoy the rights of a legal entity, they are prohibited from any kind of production, trade, educational, medical and other activities."

So, during the Great Patriotic War, the positions of the Russian Orthodox Church were significantly strengthened, the number of churches increased, it became possible to train new cadres of clergy, its material well-being was improved, the church was restored as an institution. And yet it was under the strictest state control.

In the late 1950s, a new period of struggle against religious organizations began in the country. “During these years, the Russian Orthodox Church again lost half of the churches, monasteries, and theological seminaries returned to it. The registration of a significant part of religious communities of other confessions was cancelled. Normative acts were adopted that undermine the economic basis of the activities of religious organizations: resolutions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of October 16, 1958 “On monasteries in the USSR”, of November 6, 1958 “On taxation of income of monasteries”, of October 16, 1958 “On tax taxation of incomes of enterprises of diocesan administrations, as well as incomes of monasteries” and others”.

In March 1961, by a resolution of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, a new instruction was established on the application of legislation on cults. However, the tightened law enforcement practice in relation to religious associations during the Khrushchev era did not prevent a certain revitalization of the religious life of society.

Some stabilization of relations between the state and religious associations occurs in the 1970s. In July 1975, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR "On introducing amendments and additions to the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of April 8, 1929 "On Religious Associations"" was adopted. Removing some financial restrictions, this document also granted religious organizations the following rights: the right to purchase vehicles, the right to rent, build and purchase buildings for their own needs, the right to produce and sell church utensils and religious objects. Thus, another step was taken in the state to obtain the rights of a legal entity for religious organizations, but this was not enshrined in law. Therefore, the introduction of such changes in the resolutions as a whole did not change the anti-church essence of state policy.

The 1977 constitution changed little. In fact, only the term “anti-religious propaganda” was replaced by the more euphonious “atheistic propaganda” in it. At this time, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR "On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church" continues to operate unchanged. Real change began to take place only in the mid-1980s. In a legal sense, everything changed with the adoption in 1990 of two new laws.

In 1990, the Committee for Freedom of Conscience, Religion and Charity was formed, which was part of the newly elected Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, which was entrusted with control and administrative functions in relation to religious associations. It was this body that developed new legislation in the field of state-church relations. In connection with the creation of such a structure, by order of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR of August 24, 1990, the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR was liquidated.

Already on October 1, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the Law of the USSR "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations", and on October 25, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR adopted the Law "On Freedom of Religion". In connection with the adoption of these laws, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of January 23, 1918 "On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church" and the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of April 8, 1929 "On religious associations" were declared invalid.

In fact, the adoption of these two laws served as the first step towards building a secular state in the Russian Federation, since they really ensured freedom of conscience by lifting discriminatory prohibitions and restrictions that offended any believer. The state reduced interference in religious activities to a minimum. The clergy were equal in civil rights with workers and employees of state and public institutions and organizations. And most importantly, religious associations finally received full legal capacity as a legal entity, and it was possible to obtain it as a result of a simplified procedure for registering the charter of a religious organization. The law secured for religious organizations the right to property in full, as well as the right to protect their rights in court. All the rights of believers were now protected at the level of the law, and not a by-law. On the other hand, due to the fact that the institution of mandatory registration of a religious association was abolished, and the notification of authorities about the creation of a religious organization was declared optional, a stream of pseudo-religious organizations poured into the country, in modern terminology - totalitarian sects, posing a great threat to society. In general, these laws have created normal conditions for the activities of religious organizations.

It is rather difficult to give an unambiguous assessment of the studied material, since until recently the Soviet period was considered only from the positive side, and now exclusively negative assessments have prevailed. However, the indisputable fact is that the policy of the Soviet state was aimed at building an atheistic state. Confirmation of this is the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of January 23, 1918, adopted already at the beginning of the coming to power of the Soviets, which deprived religious societies of property and the rights of a legal entity. The first Soviet Constitution was discriminatory towards clergy, as it deprived them of voting rights, which were restored only by the Constitution of 1936. The Law of April 8, 1929 contained many restrictions that prevented the activities of religious organizations from the very beginning. The brutal repressions and anti-religious propaganda aimed at eradicating faith in our country speak for themselves. They tried to separate the church not only from the state, but also from the life of society, to enclose it in a reservation and wait for it to self-destruct.

Progressive, in our opinion, in that period was the fact of the separation of church and state. The Russian Orthodox Church no longer interfered in the politics of the state. Legal sources of the Soviet period clearly confirm the existence of the process of formation of a secular state. In legislation, starting from the very first Decree "On the separation of church from state and school from church", the ideas of freedom of conscience were proclaimed. If the state followed the democratic path of development, then perhaps it would put these ideas into practice. But their consolidation in the legislation turned out to be only formal.

The legal acts of that time, devoted to state-church relations, were quite contradictory and of low quality. The very fact that four constitutions were adopted in a short period of time testifies to their imperfection, although this was largely due to the personal factor and the state policy that changed in connection with this.

The latest version 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 a state or obligatory one.

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

Commentary on Art. 14 KRF

1. The definition of Russia as a secular state means: the absence of legal church authority over state bodies and citizens; the lack of performance by the church, its hierarchs of any state functions; the absence of a 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 anyone; 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, directly indicated in several articles of the Constitution or arising from these articles. First of all, this is the establishment of a number of individual and collective rights, freedoms and duties of a person and a citizen: (Art. 28), (Part 2, Art. 19), belonging to religious associations (Part 2, Art. 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 the highest value recognized, observed and protected by the state, does not contradict the right of a citizen to replace military service with alternative civilian service for religious reasons (part 3 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 coercion that would impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice." The state itself must not subject anyone to such coercion and not allow anyone to do so.

The secular nature 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 provides 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 not make laws establishing any religion or prohibiting its free worship ..." Turkey was proclaimed a secular state (Article 2 of its 1982 Constitution), where the majority population are Muslims.

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 believing citizens, the constitutions fix both these circumstances, but without calling the state secular. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 in Art. 16 guarantees to individuals and their communities the freedom of ideology, religion and cults without restrictions in their manifestations, except for the restrictions necessary for the social order protected by law. No one should declare what ideology, religion or faith they adhere to. No religion is state; public authorities only take into account existing denominations and maintain relations with the Catholic Church and other religious communities.

This is also happening in some countries with a predominance of Orthodox Christians among the population. Thus, the Constitution of Greece, 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 Bulgarian Constitution.

In some countries, state religions are established in this way, quantitatively predominating, but not restricting the religious freedom of other faiths. Such, for example, are the Anglican Church in England, the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, both led 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.

In a number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, it is emphasized that if the constitutional equality of believing citizens and religions is observed, 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 states where the state religion reigns supreme. Such, for example, are 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. According to Articles 7 and 8 of its Constitution, the State and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign in their own spheres, and their relations are governed 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, to spread it, with the exception of rites contrary to good morals (Article 19). The ecclesiastical nature, religious or cult goals of a society or institution cannot be a 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 pre-eminence of their church, based on the fact that 90 percent of Italians are Catholics, were rejected. The prohibition of 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 making any religion a state or obligatory character. 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 religious tolerance, there was also the state character of the Orthodox religion, and the inequality of religious beliefs and churches, and religious persecution (even of Christian sects, Old Believers, Molokans or other heresies, etc.) , and huge persecution of all churches, terror against the clergy and believers during the communist "militant atheism", and the use of the church and religion by the authorities in their own interests, etc. - convincingly proves the need to preserve and strengthen the secular nature 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 oppose religions to 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 for all peoples and all believers of any religion in Russia, on Poklonnaya Hill in the memorial in honor of all the citizens of our country who died for the Motherland in the Great Patriotic War, in the majority - unbelievers, along with the Orthodox Church, churches of other faiths were also built. Another example is the wishes of some hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchy), based on the fact that it is the Church of the "majority". This statement in itself is hardly true, since the majority remain unbelievers, and even those who traditionally consider themselves Orthodox Christians, from the church point of view, are not always such, because they do not regularly attend church services, do not go to confession, etc., and the ROC (Moscow Patriarchate - MP) is not the only Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, there is also the Church Abroad, the Old Believers and a number of other Russian Orthodox Churches independent of the MP. In addition, in a democratic society and a 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 is equal with every minority and cannot claim to be "more equal" than other religions, denominations, churches.

Therefore, the leaders of a number of other confessions have repeatedly stated in the press that, in their opinion, the highest bodies of state power of the Russian Federation do not always take into account the rights and legitimate interests of these confessions and behave as if Russia is only an Orthodox and only Slavic country, although no less 20 percent of its population is not Slavic and not even traditionally Christian.

Apparently, with the secular nature of the state, freedom of conscience and religion, equality of religions and churches, as well as with 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 are not entirely consistent, 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 authorities in Russia and the ROC (MP) manifest a desire to turn this Church into a state church, which is clearly contrary to the Constitution. No aspirations of a clerical nature 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 The 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 is of great legal importance. 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 sphere of freedom of religious beliefs and beliefs. It does not interfere with the exercise by citizens of their freedom of conscience and religion, in the legitimate activities of the church and other religious associations, 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, the lawful activities of their associations. The latter have the right to participate in the cultural and social life of the community.

Even before the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993, these social relations were regulated by the former 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 financing of the activities of religious associations, the participation of public officials as such (and not as private individuals, ordinary believers) in religious ceremonies, the construction of temples, etc. at the expense of public 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 Foundations of Public Service" (SZ RF. 1995. N 31. Art. 2990) prohibited public servants from using their official position in the interests of religious associations to promote attitudes towards them. Structures of religious associations cannot be formed in state bodies. In non-state 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 is entitled to enjoy any advantages or be subject to any restrictions in comparison with others. Therefore, any manifestations of such tendencies were declared illegal.

Subsequent legislation introduced 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, 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 rights that belong to members of these groups by virtue of the Constitution (Art. 29 and others).

In particular, Art. 5 of the said Federal Law N 125-FZ, it is established 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 persons replacing them), with the consent of children studying in these institutions, and in agreement with the relevant local government, to teach children religion outside the framework of the educational program. Religious groups did not receive such a right.

At the same time, the Law prevents the creation and activities of those religious associations that cause harm to the health of citizens, encourage them to illegally refuse to perform their duties or to illegal actions. For this purpose, mandatory annual re-registration of religious associations has been established within 15 years after their formation; during this time they are prohibited from engaging in many of the above activities. Such a restriction of the rights of religious associations that were not allowed in Russia by the militantly 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 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 were considered, if they could not 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, there were 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 restricted freedom of belief and activities of public (including religious) associations. In Resolution No. 16-P of November 23, 1999, the Constitutional Court recognized the challenged provisions of the 1997 Law as not contradicting the Constitution, since these provisions, as applied to their effect in relation to such organizations, mean that they enjoy the rights of a legal entity in full. Referring to the 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 (parts 2, 3, 4, 5), 50 (part 2) and others - the Constitutional Court, based on the legislator's recognized right to regulate the civil status of religious associations, not to grant them this status automatically, not to legalize sects who violate human rights and commit illegal and criminal acts, as well as hinder 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 Definition of April 13, 2000 N 46-O (VKS. 2000. N 4. S. 58-64). The Constitutional Court recognized that the provisions of the Federal Law of 1997 N 125-FZ appealed by the RRRJ do not violate the rights of the RRRJ, as follows from the aforementioned Resolution of 1999. But the judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation L.M. Zharkova delivered a dissenting opinion on this 1999 Determination, making a convincing, in our opinion, conclusion that the contested provisions of the 1997 Law are discriminatory, restrict freedom of religion, violate the constitutional principles of equality of citizens and religious organizations before the law, equality of rights citizens and the proportionality of the restriction of 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) and others (VKS. 1999. No. 6. S. 33-36).

In addition, provided for in Art. 14 and 28 of the Constitution (see comments 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. associated 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 in any legal way, in this case about any religions. After all, free choice between any religious and non-religious beliefs, programs, etc. is impossible without complete and free information about them. Therefore, restrictions on this freedom raise serious doubts and objections, of course, not related to criminal calls and actions, only disguised as the spread of certain beliefs.

At the end of the XX - beginning of the XXI century. state policy towards the ROC (MP) and other churches in many ways began to change significantly for the better. The Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 14, 1996 "On Measures for the Rehabilitation of Priests and Believers Who Became Victims of Unjustified Repressions" not only condemned the long-term terror unleashed by the Bolshevik party-state regime against all confessions. The rehabilitation of its victims, the restoration of their rights and freedoms were soon supplemented by measures to return (i.e., restitution) to churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious institutions the property unjustly confiscated from them: temples, land, other valuables, etc.

• Up

Today it is often said that the Church interferes in the affairs of the state, that the Church and the state have grown together. Is it really? What is the legal content of the provision on the separation of the Church from the state? Does the principle of secularism violate the cooperation of the state and the Church in certain areas? What is the experience of other countries in building relations between churches and the state? Professor of the Sretensky Theological Seminary Mikhail Olegovich Shakhov discusses this.

Separate, but in collaboration

From the point of view of law, the assertion that today we are witnessing the merging of the Church and the state is absolutely wrong. The Russian Orthodox Church cannot be considered a state church. In those countries where the Church is state, the legal relations between these two institutions are different than those that have been established in the Russian Federation today. The Synodal period in the history of the Russian Church (1700-1917) can partly serve as an example of what a state Church is, when the structure that governs the Church - the Holy Governing Synod - was part of the state bureaucratic apparatus (“Department of the Orthodox Confession”), and at the head Church was a state official - chief prosecutor.

It is easy to see that today church-state relations are completely different. They are determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the current law on freedom of conscience.

Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation declares the separation of religious associations from the state. This means that issues of dogma, worship, internal governance in the Church, in particular the ordination of priests and bishops, moving from parish to parish, from pulpit to pulpit, lie outside the competence of the state. The state does not regulate them, does not interfere in the affairs of the Church - and has no right to interfere.

A very important point: in the Russian Federation there is no compulsory education in the public education system. At the same time, let me remind you that the school subject, which is sometimes pointed out in a polemical fervor, is a course that includes six modules, of which, firstly, only four provide information about a particular religion, and secondly, parents have the right to choose for teaching your children one of the modules, including the module "Fundamentals of secular ethics." Given the format of this school subject, it seems a stretch to interpret it as a form of compulsory state religious education. There is no such thing in our country.

Just as there are no other components of the state church system:

- state budgetary financing of the activities of the Church, including the payment of salaries to clergymen from budgetary funds;

- direct representation of the Church in the Federal Assembly. In countries where the merging of the state and the Church has taken place or is being preserved, in one form or another there is a direct, usually enshrined in law, right of the Church to delegate its representatives to the legislative authorities, to other state bodies of power and administration.

The Church in Russia is not part of the state mechanism and is not endowed with any power functions.

Yes, when discussing any legislative innovations, when making important decisions, state bodies listen to the opinion of the Church, take it into account; at the stage of discussing any law, the Church may be consulted. But the Church is not part of the state mechanism and is not endowed with any power functions.

Those who speak about the violation of the principle of separation of the Church from the state, about the merging of the Church and the state, point to certain phenomena that, nevertheless, lie within the constitutional framework and do not contradict the principle of the independent existence of the Church and the state. There is state material support of the Church in the field of cultural heritage preservation (restoration of churches and monasteries, which are recognized as objects of cultural heritage). There is state support for the socially significant activities of the Church in the field of education, enlightenment, and social service. But this form of cooperation and cooperation between the state and the Church is recognized all over the world, including those countries in which, like our state, the principle of separation of the Church from the state, delimitation of their powers and spheres of competence has been implemented.

There are certain priorities in the religious policy of our state: it is taken into account that the role of Orthodoxy in the history of our country, in the development of its culture is enormous, it is incommensurable with the role played by other religions; that the majority of the population of our country is Orthodox. And of course, the format of the dialogue between the state and the Orthodox Church cannot be exactly the same as the format of the dialogue between the state and some religious neoplasms that have a legitimate right to exist - but not at all to such priority attention and care of the state as those religions that constitute the main part of the historical and cultural heritage of the peoples of our country.

In Europe, only two states define themselves as secular in the Constitution: France and Turkey

I would like to say a few words about the term "secular state" used in Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. This term is liked to be manipulated by those who are unfriendly to the cooperation between the Church and the state, emphasizing that the above-mentioned article reads: "The Russian Federation is a secular state." This term, by the way, appeared in our Constitution of 1993 for the first time in the history of Russia. Never before, even under Soviet rule, was it declared that we have a secular state. Moreover, in Europe there are still only two states in the Constitution that define themselves as secular: Turkey and France.

The vagueness of the concept of “secular state” leads to its manipulation

The problem is that the secular nature of the state is constitutionally enshrined, but not clarified. This allows representatives of anti-clerical circles here and there to see violations of the principle of secularism of the state, because it is very easy to accuse of violating something that has no specific boundaries.

In general, I doubt the absolute need to declare constitutionally the principle of secularism. I published where I suggested thinking about it.

On the contrary, the principle of the separation of church and state, in my opinion, should be preserved in the Russian Constitution. The state should not interfere in the life of the Church, the Church should remain internally free. And in this sense, the principle of separation is more good than bad for the Church. Although in Russia the principle of separation inevitably evokes associations with Lenin, with his decree on the separation of the Church from the state and with the subsequent anti-religious pogrom. But in modern conditions, this principle has a completely different content, it is observed, and there is no reason to talk about its violation, about some kind of unconstitutional merging of Church and state.

How about in other countries?

Comparison is the best way to understand any definitions. And therefore, in order to understand what is a state Church and what is a secular state, let us turn to the example of other countries.

I mentioned above that in France, as in Russia, the secular nature of the state is constitutionally fixed. At the same time, today in France they are talking more and more about secularism “understanding” or “friendly” towards religions, and not about anti-clerical secularism.

I note that France is a country with a very controversial heritage in the field of state-confessional relations. On the one hand, for many centuries this country has been traditionally Catholic. During the Middle Ages, she was even called the eldest daughter of the Catholic Church, being one of the strongholds of Catholicism. But on the other hand, France is freethinking, Enlightenment, Freemasonry, anti-clericalism, revolution with its anti-Catholic pogrom, atheism, etc.

In France, Catholic cathedrals, churches, chapels are the property of local authorities (communes) or the state

The provision on the secular nature of the French Republic was introduced into the constitution of this country after the Second World War. But earlier, in 1905, a law was adopted on the separation of churches from the state (by the way, it served as an example to our Bolsheviks 13 years later; however, they deepened and developed the anti-clerical ideas of this French law). The 1905 law brought it into conflict with the Catholic Church. As a result of its subsequent settlement, it turned out that approximately 40,000 Catholic cathedrals, churches, chapels built before 1905 ended up in the ownership of local authorities (communes) or the state. At the same time, it cannot be considered, as some believe, that these churches were nationalized. Nationalization took place during the revolution. But before secession, Catholic parishes and dioceses were in the position of state religious organizations (taking into account the conditions of the Concordat concluded by Napoleon I with the Pope), and after the adoption of the Law of 1905, the Catholic Church refused to create non-state religious associations and accept church buildings as their property. They ended up in the care of the state, but their legal status is different from that which arises during nationalization. Local authorities bear the brunt of the costs of protecting, repairing, restoring, and maintaining these 40,000 objects, from Notre Dame de Paris to some small chapels in the provinces. The Catholic Church, by the way, is very satisfied with this situation and is by no means eager to change the situation.

France, despite its secularity, maintains military chaplains in the army

France, despite its secularity, maintains military chaplains in the army, thus ensuring freedom of religion for military personnel. The Law of God is not taught in public schools, but there is a course in the basic knowledge of religion. At the same time, one should not forget that in France there is a very powerful system of non-state Catholic schools. They provide a very high level of education and are therefore very popular. So far from all French children receive a secular, religiously neutral upbringing.

A completely different system in the UK, where there is a state church. But the peculiarity of Great Britain is that it is a country consisting of several parts: England proper, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Anglican Church is the state church in this country only in England in the narrow sense of the word. It has a state status, Anglican bishops hold positions in the House of Lords. The Church of England has the right to register marriages, which is legally binding. The ecclesiastical law of the Church of England is part of the state legal system. But at the same time, few people know that the state church of England is not budget-funded, that is, despite its state status, it is supported mainly by donations from its parishioners, its believers, and not from the budget.

In other parts of the United Kingdom, the Church of England is not a state church. In Scotland, the Presbyterian Church has formal state status, but in fact it has great autonomy and little dependence on the state.

As for education, the UK is characterized by a strong proportion of non-state education, including religious schools, mostly Anglican, although there are many Catholic ones. So in this country, a significant part of the children receive education and upbringing in the non-state sector, coupled with voluntary religious education.

A few words about the Federal Republic of Germany. In accordance with the constitutional provisions of this country, there is no state church. The largest are the two "Big Churches" - Evangelical Lutheran and Roman Catholic. The German system is distinguished by the fact that churches which "by their structure and number of members give a guarantee of long existence" can apply for the status of so-called public corporations. This status has no direct analogue in Russian legislation. To understand what it is, let me explain with the following example: a public legal corporation is the Bar Association, it gives permission to practice law to those who are its members, and, accordingly, deprives those who are excluded from their ranks from this right; at the same time, the decisions of the Collegium have legal significance not only for its members, but are also taken into account by state authorities. For churches in Germany, the status of a public corporation means the ability to collect church tax. In Germany, citizens who are members of churches that have the status of a public corporation, in addition to income tax, through the state system pay church tax. True, in connection with this, for many years now there has been the following steady trend: Germans who do not want to pay church tax apply for withdrawal from the Lutheran or Catholic Church.

In Germany, cooperation in the social sphere is one of the key points in state-confessional relations.

The German system is sometimes called cooperative, since cooperation in the social sphere is one of the key points in state-confessional relations. Churches that have the status of public corporations are actively engaged in social service. There are church hospitals, medicine, work with the elderly, the homeless, orphans, and so on. And to a large extent, these social activities of the churches receive strong state support and funding.

More than 100 different denominations and religious organizations have the status of public corporations in different states of Germany

I will add one more important detail. The authors of various projects to introduce in Russia the status of traditional religions or the privileged position of the most rooted religions often refer, for example, to Germany, saying that in this country the status of public corporations is given only to the traditional Lutheran and Catholic churches for the population of the country. But in fact, in Germany, more than 100 different religious organizations of various denominations, including those that we would call non-traditional, have the status of public corporations in different states. The German experience is not so unambiguous as to be copied and transferred to Russian soil. Religious associations such as the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses sometimes unsuccessfully seek to obtain the status of public corporations in certain lands of Germany. I repeat once again: over 100 different religious organizations of different confessions have this status.

As far as education is concerned, schools in Germany are mostly state-run and the study of religion is taught there without any confessional education.

In Italy there is a certain hierarchy in the legal status of churches

The experience is different in Italy, where there is a certain hierarchy in the legal status of the churches. In this country, within the framework of the concordat, the Catholic Church is in the most privileged position. It is followed by 11 denominations that have signed an agreement with the state and therefore have some expanded powers, including the right to receive a share of income tax. (Italian taxpayers can choose whether they send a small (0.8%) share of income tax to church needs or to the state for social programs.) Next come those registered as religious organizations that have not signed an agreement with the state. And even lower are those who act on the rights of non-profit associations, without recognizing them as religious. That is, in Italy there is a certain pyramid of confessions, and, depending on the position at one or another level of this pyramid, confessions have a more or less privileged position.

Can we take this experience into account? Let's see what such a system led to. The group of 11 confessions that have concluded an agreement with the Italian state and are close in legal status to that of the Catholic Church, includes the Waldensians, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostals, Jews, Baptists, Lutherans, followed by the Italian Metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Mormons, the New Apostolic Church, Buddhists and Hindus. As we can see, those whom we usually call “new religious movements” also fall into the status of the privileged in Italy.

A similar picture can be observed in Spain, where there is also a hierarchy of confessions. In the first place is the Catholic Church, which, however, is not a state. Its status is determined by the terms of the Concordat. This is followed by three confessions that are recognized as rooted in Spain and have concluded agreements with the state on their legal status: the Federation of Evangelical Communities, the Federation of Jewish Communities and the Islamic Commission. In addition to the three confessions that have already concluded agreements with the state, they have received “clear roots”: Mormons (2003), Jehovah’s Witnesses (2006), Buddhists (2007), Orthodox (2010).

There are fewer and fewer countries where religion has the status of a state religion.

There are fewer and fewer countries where religion has the status of a state religion. So far, Denmark and Greece remain such, the Constitution of which states that the dominant religion in this country is the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. Close to state status have the Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church in Finland.

Is it possible to see any trend in how relations between churches and the state are changing in European countries today? Yes, there is a definite line. In those countries where there was previously a privileged position of either the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Protestant churches, there is a gradual rejection of the status of the state church and the rights of the dominant church - the church of the majority of the population - and the churches of religious minorities are more and more leveled. A typical example is Sweden, where the Church of Sweden in 2000 was deprived of its state status. Those state functions that were previously assigned to it, including in terms of conducting registration of acts of civil status and relevant archives, were redirected to the state.

This trend can also be seen in how church-state relations changed in the 20th century in Italy, the modern system of which I have described above. According to the concordat of 1929, it was recognized as the only religion of the Italian state. The new concordat of 1984 abandoned this provision, as did Catholic countries such as Spain and Portugal, where previous concordats established the unique, special position of the Catholic Church.

So the general trend is as follows: renunciation of the special status of the state church and of endowing it with some special powers that would significantly distinguish its position from that of other confessions, religious minorities.

the federal law

The federal law is a normative legal act, which is adopted in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the most important and topical public issues. Federal laws are adopted by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

Power is the ability of some subjects of public relations to dictate their will and lead other subjects of public relations.

The law is a normative legal act adopted by the representative body of state power on the most significant and topical issues of public life.

State

The state is a special form of organization of political power. The state as a special form of organization of political power is characterized by the presence of the following features: the presence of public authorities (i.e., institutions of power that are outside of society, isolated from it); the presence of governing bodies and maintaining law and order within the state; the presence of an organized tax system necessary to maintain the functioning of the state and state institutions, as well as the solution of other social issues; the presence of a separate territory and state borders that separate one state from another; the presence of an independent legal system, while, according to the majority of jurisprudence: the state cannot exist without law; monopoly on violence, only the state has the right to use violence; the presence of sovereignty, i.e. independence in internal and external affairs.