Religion is separated from the state by the constitution of the Russian Federation. Is the Church separated from the state in modern Russia? The Russian Federation is a secular state

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

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

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

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

1. All states of the world in terms of the relationship between state power and the church are divided into three unequal groups:

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

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

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

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

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

The Bolsheviks took such a drastic step towards the church due to a well-founded fear of the possibility of restoring autocracy in Russia from within with the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, so the goal pursued by the Decree was to weaken the economic and spiritual position of the church as much as possible in the still politically weak Soviet state.

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

The secular nature of the state is revealed through an indication of the prohibition of establishing any religion as a state or mandatory one. At the same time, the term "religion" is universal, meaning a set of spiritual values, creeds based on their divine origin. However, Russia is a multinational state, which predetermined the presence of several confessions in it; almost all world religions and a number of lesser-known religious teachings are represented in the spiritual life of its society. The rise of even the most demanded by the population of the doctrine of God - Orthodoxy, means an insult to the religious feelings of believers who profess Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other faiths. Thus, the current Constitution went beyond declaring the country a secular state, and Russia, as a democratic state, took the position of religious tolerance and tolerance towards the religious life of the population, which cannot be said about a number of representatives of official spiritual authorities. Recently, the Russian Orthodox Church, with a certain connivance of the secular authorities, has taken a sharply offensive position in matters of spreading the faith, returning church values ​​​​and property, interfering in the political, legislative, and educational spheres of society. Such activities cannot be called consistent with the Constitution and the law. Moreover, it gives rise to religious, and along with them national conflicts, contributes to the growth of chauvinistic and racist sentiments in society.

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

Separation from the state means that the state has no right to interfere in the affairs of the church if its organizations do not violate the laws of the Russian Federation, and the church has no right to interfere in the exercise of political power and other activities of the state. Although the provisions of Art. 14 clearly demonstrate the legal continuity of the above-mentioned Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR; unfortunately, it does not contain an indication of the separation of the school from the church. This unfortunate, in our opinion, omission allows individual clergymen to try to impose on state and municipal schools, in violation of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, the need to teach a curriculum of the law of God. We emphasize once again: religion, including religious education and upbringing, is a private affair of the child and his legal representatives. Religious education itself can be carried out in an organized form, but in specialized educational institutions established solely for this purpose, on a voluntary basis (see commentary to Article 28).

Pyatkina S.A.

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

The Russian Federation is a secular state

Secular a state is recognized in which religion and the state are separated from each other. The state and state bodies are separated from the church and religious associations and do not interfere in their activities, in turn, the latter do not interfere in the activities of the state and its bodies.

The secular state presupposes the absence of any ecclesiastical authority over the organs of the state; inadmissibility 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 and religious rules as sources of law binding on anyone; refusal of the state to finance the expenses of any church or religious organization.

The Russian Federation in Part 1 of Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is recognized as a secular state. This provision determines the attitude of the state to religion.

In accordance with the secular nature of the Russian state, religious associations are separated from the state (Part 2, Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). This means that, firstly, no religion can be established as a state or obligatory one (Part 1, Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation); secondly, the state has no right to impose state functions on religious organizations and interfere in their activities. Thus, the relationship between religion and the state in the Russian Federation is based on mutual non-interference.

The idea of ​​a secular state is developed in other norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and in federal laws. The Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaims the equality and freedom of various faiths, religions and confessions (Articles 19 and 28), federal laws guarantee freedom of conscience, non-interference of the church, religious associations in the affairs of the state, local self-government and vice versa.

The status of a secular state does not exclude in practice the possibility of granting benefits and providing certain material assistance to the church and religious associations, including in order to ensure the rights of religious minorities. However, at the same time, the legislator must guarantee equal rights for all religious associations upon receipt of appropriate benefits and material assistance.

The nature and procedure for the relationship of religious associations with the state and society is determined by the Federal Law of September 26, 1997 No. 125-FZ "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", in et. 4 of which the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state is concretized, relations between the state and religious associations are determined. In accordance with this constitutional principle, the Russian Federation as a state:

  • - does not interfere in the determination by a citizen of his attitude to religion and religious affiliation, in the upbringing of children by parents or persons replacing them, in accordance with their convictions and taking into account the child's right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;
  • - does not impose on religious associations the performance of the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local self-government bodies;
  • - does not interfere in the activities of religious associations, if it does not contradict federal law;
  • - ensures the secular nature of education in state and municipal educational institutions.

The separation of religious associations from the state does not entail restrictions on the rights of members of these associations as citizens to participate on an equal basis with other citizens in the management of state affairs, elections to state authorities and local self-government bodies, in the activities of political parties, political movements and other public associations.

At the request of religious organizations, the relevant state authorities in the Russian Federation have the right to declare religious holidays non-working (holiday) days in the respective territories. In particular, in Russia, January 7 - Christmas is recognized as such a non-working holiday.

According to part 2 of Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, religious associations are equal before the law. This provision should be considered much broader than its literal meaning: implying the equality of not only individual associations, but also religions as such. In the context of the analysis of this principle of equality, it is impossible not to touch upon such an issue as the historical and social conditions for the development of religions in our state. Orthodoxy is the leading denomination in Russia. This is how it happened historically. At present, the majority of believers in Russia are Orthodox. This feature is noted in the preamble of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", which states that this Federal Law is adopted in the conditions of the functioning of the Russian Federation as a secular state with recognition of the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture and simultaneous respect for other Christian religions, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions that are an integral part of the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia.

The official position of the Orthodox Church and its individual representatives in Russia proceeds from the fact that relations between the state and the church in a secular state should be based not on the idea of ​​their opposition, but on the idea of ​​harmony and concord. With the proclamation of the separation of church and state, a policy of confessional indifference should not be pursued, in which the state power is on the positions of atheism. The idea of ​​harmony and agreement with state power should be extended to all religions and confessions that cooperate with it in the interests of the people and observe the Russian Constitution and laws.

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

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

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

No religion can be compulsory in Russia

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

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

The main difficulty in reading laws lies in the different understanding of the word "state" - on the one hand, as a political system for organizing society, and on the other - directly to society - the whole country as a whole.

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

We invite the reader to familiarize themselves with several important texts that exhaustively cover this problem:

The separation of the state from the Church should not exclude her from nation-building

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin

In Russia, the discussion on the topic of philosophy and principles of church-state relations has revived. This is partly due to the need to regulate the legislative and practical foundations of the partnership between the authorities, society and religious associations - a partnership, the need for which is definitely growing. Partly - and no less - by the ongoing struggle of beliefs associated with the search for a new national ideology. Perhaps the center of the discussion was the various interpretations of the principle of the separation of the Church from the state, laid down in the Russian Constitution. Let's try to understand the existing opinions on this matter.

In itself, the legitimacy and correctness of the principle of separation of the Church and the secular state is unlikely to be seriously disputed by anyone. The danger of “clericalization of the state” today, although more illusory than real, really cannot but be perceived as a threat to the order of things that has developed in Russia and the world, which generally satisfies the interests of both believers and non-believers. An attempt to impose faith on people by the power of secular power, to entrust purely state functions to the Church can have extremely negative consequences for a person, for the state, and for the church organism itself, as Russian history of the 18th-19th centuries, and the experience of some foreign countries convincingly testifies to. , in particular, having an Islamic form of government. This is well understood by the absolute majority of believers - Orthodox and Muslims, not to mention Jews, Buddhists, Catholics and Protestants. The only exceptions are marginal groups, for which calls for the nationalization of religion are more a means of acquiring scandalous political fame than a designation of a real task.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly, the Soviet religious studies school, which has undeniable achievements, was never able to overcome atheistic stereotypes, enrich itself and renew itself through dialogue with other worldviews. Time is running out, influence remains only in some corridors of the old apparatus, which means that changes in society are perceived as dangerous and undesirable. Secondly, the liberal intelligentsia, which was the leader of public opinion in the late 80s and early 90s, is not one today and is terribly complex about this. This social stratum needed the Church only as a fellow traveler, obediently following in the wake of its ideological constructions. When she had her own position and her own influence on the minds, she turned into an enemy, whose role should be limited in every possible way. This is how the “new godlessness” arose. Finally, thirdly, and most importantly, in Russia it has not been possible to form a national idea either on the basis of the values ​​of private life (“the ideologeme of local development” by Satarov’s team) or on the basis of the priorities of a self-sufficient market (“economic centrism” of Gref’s doctrine). Society is looking for higher and more "exciting" goals, looking for the meaning of both individual and collective existence. Not being able to fill the ideological vacuum, Russian thinkers see nothing better than preserving this vacuum until better times. At the same time, "clearing the site" from everything incomprehensible and uncalculated.

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

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

Well educated and non-church

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

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

Let's start with the definition of "secular". In Ushakov's dictionary, the word is defined in two meanings: as "well-bred" and as "non-church". We probably need a second definition. The Big Law Dictionary (LLC) defines "secular state" as "meaning the separation of church and state, the delimitation of their spheres of activity." For its part, the encyclopedic dictionary "Constitutional Law of Russia" defines a secular state as: "a state in which there is no official, state religion and none of the creeds is recognized as obligatory and preferable." At the same time, the Law of the Russian Federation "On Freedom of Conscience" of September 19, 1997 in the preamble recognizes "the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture."

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

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

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

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

Pay attention, by the way, that the Orthodox Church is clearly singled out here as the main subject of separation. It is just right to think that a mosque, a pagoda, a prayer house and a satanic temple are not separated from the state.

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

In turn, the Charter of the CPSU (with additions of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU), in the section "Members of the CPSU, their duties and rights", paragraph d) states that a member of the party is obliged: "To wage a resolute struggle against any manifestations of bourgeois ideology, against the remnants private property psychology, religious prejudices and other vestiges of the past. In the CPSU Program of 31.10. 1961, in the section “In the field of education of communist consciousness”, paragraph e) also states that: “The party uses the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of a scientific and materialistic worldview, to overcome religious prejudices, not allowing insulting the feelings of believers. It is necessary to systematically carry out broad scientific-atheistic propaganda, patiently explain the inconsistency of religious beliefs that arose in the past on the basis of the oppression of people by the elemental forces of nature and social oppression, due to ignorance of the true causes of natural and social phenomena. At the same time, one should rely on the achievements of modern science, which reveals the picture of the world more and more fully, increases the power of man over nature and leaves no room for the fantastic inventions of religion about supernatural forces.

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

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

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

Then why separate?

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

For example, the recently adopted United Russia Party Program states the following: “Traditional religions are the custodians of the wisdom and experience of generations needed to comprehend and solve pressing social problems. We proceed from such an understanding of the secular state, which means the organizational and functional separation of the state and religious organizations, and the appeal to religion is voluntary. At the same time, we are convinced that society should be able to hear the voice of traditional confessions.”

Those. does not directly refer to separation, but to delimitation of functions is an example worthy of legislative imitation.

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

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

And then, one of the main tasks of civil society institutions is precisely to control the state, represented by authorities at various levels, so as not to be too naughty. And in the tasks of religious organizations - it is impartial to tell the authorities if they start to rule not according to their conscience. In turn, the state is obliged to intervene in the affairs of a religious organization, if it surpasses itself in terms of totalitarianism. So it's hard to talk about mutual non-interference.

Then why can't a state, being secular, be Orthodox? I don't see any barriers to that. If it itself claims in its own Law that Orthodoxy has played a special role in the formation and development of the spirituality and culture of Russia. Moreover, if Orthodoxy played this role historically, and then for almost the last century, the ruling party of the state destroyed both Orthodoxy itself and the fruits of its labors, is it not logical to turn to the Church again? With a request to help the young state in the formation of the spirituality and culture of young Russia, which, apparently, has no particularly fruitful ideas on this score. And, on the contrary, which the Church has, given the centuries-old experience of Russian Orthodoxy, the great spiritual heritage of patristic tradition, the spiritual culture of folk traditions.

Moreover, the state of modern Russian society in terms of cultural and spiritual health has long required the most prompt intervention. And, undoubtedly, it is necessary to begin with the moral nourishment of young souls.

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

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

And the arguments themselves speak more about their spokesmen as legalists than as atheists. Chief among these refers to the fact that schools are de government institutions, thus separated from the church. And then teaching them the basics of religion is a violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. But schools today in the country are municipal institutions, and municipalities are local government structures that de jure cannot be considered part of the state system.

If we take the media space, which today, voluntarily or without knowing it, strictly follows the instructions of Langley experts on the decomposition of Russian society, then it is certainly not a state institution. This means that it can be under the direct guardianship of the Church, and I do not know of any other community today that would need it more.

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

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

Simple observations show that we are today overly involved in the quasi-ideology of economism. The plans built for the future are rosy and promising, but for some reason it is not possible to take the first step. Make the first obvious breakthrough, unwind the flywheel of creative movement. Why is this? And because, when you need to make a physical traffic, it is necessary, first of all, to apply moral an effort.

And how to create this effort? This requires moral experience. This is why the union of the state and the Church is necessary. In order for the national body to have moral strength. We have no other teacher and never will be, except for the Orthodox faith and the mother of the Russian Orthodox Church. And if our state, in addition to economic experts, is armed with such an assistant, you look, and the bright plans of the current will seem like a trifle compared to the newly opened prospects.

THE FEDERAL LAW ON FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS

Article 4 State and religious associations

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

Article 5 religious education

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

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.

Read also