Documents

Fides et Libertas

The Journal of the International Religious Liberty Association
1998 Fides et Libertas

Barriers to Religious Freedom in a New and Pluralistic Russia

Valery Borschev

Deputy of the State Duma

Chair of the Committee on Human Rights

President’s Political Consultative Council

Moscow

                Religious pluralism is a current issue in many countries, including Russia. Religious pluralism is not easily established; there are many barriers. How did these barriers originate in Russia? Are they to be explained by national history, national psychology, or the social and political circumstances of the day?

                History shows that Russia does not differ much from other European countries. During the Middle Ages there was a tendency to confirm a singular confession. Russia had no inquisitional fires, but the schism in Orthodoxy in the 17th century led to severe persecution directed against the old church. But in the next century Peter the Great invited foreigners to Russia and promoted church reform of a Protestant type. Thus was laid the basis for the rise of many confessions. As the 18th century ended, Catherine II called for religious tolerance: “In such a great state, which governs so many different nations, it is unreasonable, and even dangerous for the safety of citizens, to forbid or to persecute different kinds of beliefs. . . .” Thus Buddhists, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, and Muslims achieved legal status--and poly-confessionalism became a characteristic of the Russian Empire.

                But the different confessions were not equal. The Russian Orthodox Church--the state church--dominated.  And this domination lead to the shameful discrimination of Jews and the cruel persecution of the Old Orthodox church. Despite all this, Russian society was influenced by both Catholic and Lutheran thinkers. Vladimir Solovyev made a great effort to reconcile the Catholic and Orthodox churches. And Leo Tolstoy fought for religious liberty.

                Nobody knows how the relationships between the different confessions would have progressed if there had been no 1917. When the Communists came to power they persecuted all religions equally. First, they repressed what eventually became the underground Orthodox church. Leaders of other confessions understood that after the Orthodox they would be next--and so they came forward in defense of the Orthodox church. Each passing year it became increasingly obvious that peaceful coexistence of believers and Bolshevik Communists was impossible. In 1927, 17 Orthodox bishops imprisoned in the Solovetsky camp, infamous for its cruelty, declared in a letter to the Soviet government “the irreconcilability of church religious doctrine with materialism and the official philosophy of the Communist Party.” For this courageous letter, its authors and their followers paid with their lives. But the letter became the manifesto of believers of all confessions in the face of an atheistic dictatorship.

                Perhaps there are differing explanations as to why the Lord permitted Russia’s trial by communism. In my opinion one is that people came to understand discords among believers are the result of human sin, the burden of which was so real under the cruel, irreligious authority. Why then do people now so easily forget all this? Ten to twenty years ago when I participated in the activity of the newly formed Committee for Defense of the Rights of Believers, most believers felt human sin very acutely. With other defenders of human rights, our committee joined Andrei Sakharov in standing up for the rights of believers of all confessions: Baptists, Jews,  Muslims, Orthodox, Pentecostals. We helped each other. We were convinced that believers of different confessions would always find a common language. We had much evidence for this.

                Why then this weakened--and almost lost--state of soul and mind among many believers who now live in the territory of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? This did not happen at once.

                The Constitution of the Russian Federation declares equality of all religions before the law and forbids the establishment of a state religion or church. The 1990 law titled “On Freedom of Belief” is characterized by a high level of democracy and religious tolerance. It provides a good basis for religious tolerance. But now this law is criticized harshly. What is the reason?

                It seems to me that the majority of believers do not fully understand the meaning of that severe trial by communism. But Alexander Solzhenitsyn understood deeply. In his 1974 letter “To Live Without Lies” he stated clearly one of the most important doctrines of Christianity: Sin cannot exist without a carrier. It lives only as we let it live. The Communist lie cannot live if we do not let it enter our minds; unless we reject it, we are participants in the lie. Here was Solzhenitsyn’s call to moral revolution. But this call the majority of people did not want to hear. They considered themselves victims of evil, not participants. This was so evident when the USSR collapsed. Adopting the stance of victims, people blamed other people: “Caucasians, Communists, Jews, Russians--they are guilty!  But not me!”By contrast, the Germans who researched the Nuremburg materials exclaimed: “What we did to the world and to ourselves!” In chorus, citizens of the former USSR exclaimed: “What they did to us!” And this is true. They--the Communists--bear a great and terrible responsibility for what they did to the nation and its population. But they could not have done it alone. They needed translators of their lie, carriers of their sin. We became the translators and the carriers. We let them crush us. We even helped them do it. This is a bitter conclusion, but it is an inescapable one for every believer who lived in what was the USSR, no matter the degree of personal participation in the lie of irreligious ideology. There was no repentance, which means that Russia was not fully purified of totalitarianism. Russia believed that political sovereignty provides not only necessary political freedoms, but also spiritual purification. But there is no spiritual purification when you are forgiven the sins of others.

                Regarding the law titled “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Association” passed by the State Duma in June of 1997, I continue to be opposed. In many places it deviates seriously from the democratic principles laid down in the Russian Constitution as well as in the 1990 law “On Freedom of Belief.” The appearance of the new law resulted not only from the situation inside Russia itself, but also from political processes taking place in neighboring countries.      The period of perestroika (restructuring) from 1987 to 1992 is characterized by mass anticommunist attitudes and mass pro-western orientation. There was a conviction that as soon as Russia destroyed communist power and entered the market system, she would experience political, economic, and spiritual revival. This view holds that the West simply waits for Russia to take these steps and then will joyfully accept her into its community.

                Religious life did develop actively after 1990 and the adoption of the law “On Freedom of Belief.” Note these data as of January 1, 1996:

                * More than 50 confessions registered.

                * More than 13,000 religious organizations established.

                * The arrival of the Methodist church, the New Apostolic church, the Mormons, the Salvation Army, the Presbyterian church, the Unification church, the Bahais, Hindus, Tantrists, Taoists, Scientologists, Quakers, Zoroastrians, and others.

                For some time this process was rather peaceful. Missionaries to Russia from the West gathered thousands of people. Foreign religious organizations were freely registered, many becoming Russian. But the period of peace came to an end. The relationship between Russian Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, complex even before 1917, was aggravated when Catholics started forming churches. And the relationship with Protestant confessions also became tense. This was explained by Russian Orthodox jealousy and fear of increasing proselytization. A new term appeared reserving Russia as “canonic territory.” Orthodox fears and Western expectations were both, I believe, overestimated.

                True, the Russian Orthodox church reflects the character of the Russian people. The church is rooted in Russian culture and history. For instance, it is difficult for someone from the West to understand why, in Goncharov’s 19th century novel Oblomov, Russians consider as the hero the kind and gentle title character--one who is inactive in every sphere, even in personal life--rather than Stolz who is energetic, industrious, and organized. This phenomenon is pure Russian Orthodoxy. It is reasonable to say that the theme of antinomian human activity--that is, any activity purposed for good inevitably brings evil also--is characteristic of Russian literature. This theme is found in Solzhenitsyn’s Cancer Ward where enemies cure the former political prisoner of cancer, but render him impotent, doomed to the torture of loneliness.

                Russia’s unfavorable attitude toward Western missionaries has not been exclusive to the church, however. It has become, I think, the attitude of the greater part of society. Why? Surely the main reason is that the painfully slow transfer to a market system has negatively influenced the personal state of many Russian citizens. Economic reform is considered a Western reform. The people’s romantic expectations of Western support for democratic processes in Russia have not been fulfilled. While political, economic, and military spheres of interest were separated at high levels, nobody hurried to bring altruism into the Russian picture. For a great number of Russians, expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the East changed the way they think about the West. It is not at all difficult to convince people that NATO’s move does not pose a military threat to Russia, but it is very difficult to assuage their feeling of insult. “When Gorbachev took a risk in helping to unite Germany,” they say, “we were promised that NATO would not expand toward the East.” The wound is deep. As a result, the pro-Western mood of the Russian people declined sharply.

                Still and all, Western missionaries themselves played a role. Not all of them were like Billy Graham. There were those who came to Russia as to a religious desert. But Russia was not such a desert. Ensuing reaction saw regions urgently adopting laws to limit missionary activity. While these laws violated the Constitution and contradicted the Federal legacy, the fact of their adoption influenced social opinion. Scandals within both registered and unregistered religious organizations did not help the situation. Political leaders entered the scene. Alexander Lebed, then the Russian state security chief, attacked foreign religious organizations. Press reporting on Western evangelism was negative. In time, government agencies, including both the Ministries of Defense and Health, issued documents which discriminated against many religious organizations. (We discussed them at our sessions of the Committee on Human Rights of the President’s Political Consultative Council, showing that they were invalid and unconstitutional.) The Committee on Youth Salvation, an anti-cult group, targeted not only foreign religious organizations, but denominations such as the Baptists and the Seventh-day Adventists which have been rooted in Russia for more than a century. I informed the prosecutor general about these facts. Additionally, I addressed the situation in a meeting of the President’s Council on Relations with Religious Organizations.

                (I worry most of all about persecution of Adventists. In Dagestan, a small region in the Caucasus, west of the Caspian, an Adventist couple falsely suspected of a crime were publicly burned. In the press there were statements that the man had betrayed Islam and that Adventists are a satanic sect. Adventists have been persecuted in other Russian cities including Omsk. But we all know that Seventh-day Adventists have a benevolent attitude regarding the Russian Orthodox Church. Its leadership attends the President’s Council on Relations with Religious Organizations. So I consider this outbreak of trouble an example of atheistic hysteria. And this is dangerous for believers of all confessions including the Orthodox.)

                Such was the situation during the final stage of preparation of the law titled “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations.” Those who oppose religious freedom for all chose an interesting argument based on a Lithuanian law providing official recognition of nine traditionally existing religious organizations. They say it is not at all bad that the law in Lithuania does not list Adventists or Baptists or Pentecostals. While I have not heard of any violation of the rights of believers in Lithuania, I consider the change in legal norms to be of sad consequence. Without copying it word for word (because Russia has a new Constitution), the Communist members of the State Duma took this law as their model. They included in the preamble the notion of “traditional” religions. For a religious organization to be accorded the status of an all-Russian religious organization, the law requires 50 years of activity. And there is no possibility for the formation of a foreign religious organization. To be registered, the organization must have existed in Russia not less than 15 years. Non-registered groups are required to notify the state of their activities. (But other social organizations are not required to do so.) Religious groups are prohibited from drawing into their ranks children younger than 14 years without parental consent.

                The Patriarchate in Moscow does not interact with other confessions in Russia. This lack of communication was significant in the drafting of the law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations.” A meeting with the Roman Catholic pope was canceled. Many people were waiting for that meeting. Moreover, the Orthodox prelates do nothing to restrain the aggressive behavior of local priests toward Catholics, Baptists, Adventists, and other confessions--behavior which occurs with increasing frequency in different regions of the country.

                Compared to the law of 1990 (“On Freedom of Belief”), this new legislation is a step back. Will President Yeltsin sign it? [Editor’s note:  He did.] The various confessions need to express their opinions. They will be listened to. Unfortunately, they have remained passive. They did not object to the restriction on children joining religious life without parental consent. On the one hand, this creates pressures that disrupt family relations. On the other hand, it provides a basis for prohibiting the very functioning of a religious organization (fortunately, only after a judicial decision). But how can one determine whether a priest has persuaded a boy to enter a monastery or has forced him? How then should government treat all of Christianity which is subject to this teaching of Jesus: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me . . . and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me”?

                Certainly the new law has many positives for large confessions, but just for their benefit it is not wise to restrict the freedom of conscience for all. We remember that the first violation of human rights was committed on a religious basis. One person did not like how another person established his relationship with God. So he killed him. The killer was Cain and the victim was Abel, his brother. All who choose Cain’s way choose destruction for themselves. We must therefore promote dialogue to maintain religious pluralism. This dialogue should be initiated not only by representatives of government, parliamentary deputies, or defenders of human rights, but also by believers themselves. If believers act decisively to achieve religious pluralism, it will be achieved. We have a great mission. We should be worthy of it.

                Translated from the Russian. Edited from an address by Mr. Borschev to the IRLA’s Fourth World Congress on Religious Liberty, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1997.