No religion can be a state religion. Separation of church and state. The Russian Federation is a secular state

The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as state or compulsory.
Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.

Interpretation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation

From the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-P of December 15, 2004.

The constitutional principle of a secular state and the separation of religious associations from the state means that the state, its bodies and officials, as well as bodies and officials of local self-government, i.e. public (political) authorities do not have the right to interfere in the legitimate activities of religious associations or entrust them with the functions of state authorities and local governments; religious associations, in turn, do not have the right to interfere in the affairs of the state, participate in the formation and perform the functions of state authorities and local governments, participate in the activities of political parties and political movements, provide them with material and other assistance, as well as participate in elections, including through campaigning and public support of certain political parties or individual candidates. This does not prevent adherents of a particular religion, including clergy, from participating in the expression of the people's will by voting on an equal basis with other citizens. Supporters of a particular religion have freedom of choice and expression of their political beliefs and political interests, making decisions and carrying out relevant activities, but not as members of religious associations, but directly as citizens or members of political parties...

In the Russian Federation, as a democratic and secular state, a religious association cannot replace a political party, it is supra-party and non-political, but a party, due to its political nature, cannot be a religious organization, it is supra-confessional, non-confessional...

The Constitution of the Russian Federation stipulates that the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people (). In the name of the multinational people of Russia, as a collection of citizens of different nationalities and religions, united by a common destiny and preserving the historically established state unity, the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Preamble) was adopted.

Therefore, the principle of a secular state in the understanding that has developed in countries with a mono-confessional and mono-national structure of society and with developed traditions of religious tolerance and pluralism (which made it possible, in particular, to allow political parties based on the ideology of Christian democracy in some countries, since the concept of “Christian” in in this case, goes far beyond confessional boundaries and denotes belonging to the European system of values and culture), cannot be automatically applied to the Russian Federation...

At the present stage, Russian society, including political parties and religious associations, has not yet acquired a solid experience of democratic existence. Under these conditions, parties created on national or religious grounds would inevitably focus on primarily defending the rights of the corresponding national (ethnic) or religious groups. The competition of parties formed on national or religious grounds, which is especially acute in the pre-election struggle for votes, can lead, instead of consolidating society, to the stratification of the multinational people of Russia, the opposition of ethnic and religious values, the exaltation of some and the belittlement of others, and ultimately to the dominant significance not to national values, but to any ethnic ideology or religion, which would contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its

Today they often say that the Church interferes in the affairs of the state, that the Church and the state have grown together. Is it really? What legal content does the provision on the separation of Church and state have? Does the principle of secularism violate cooperation between 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 Sretensky Theological Seminary Mikhail Olegovich Shakhov discusses this.

Separately, but in collaboration

From a legal point of view, the statement that today we are witnessing the merging of Church and state is absolutely incorrect. The Russian Orthodox Church cannot be considered state. In those countries where the Church is a state, the legal relations between these two institutions are different from those that have been established in the Russian Federation today. An example of what a state Church is can partly be the Synodal period in the history of the Russian Church (1700–1917), when the structure governing the Church - the Holy Governing Synod - was part of the state bureaucratic apparatus (the "department of the Orthodox confession"), and at the head The church was a government official - the chief prosecutor.

It is not difficult to notice 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 doctrine, worship, internal governance in the Church, in particular the ordination of priests and bishops, movement from parish to parish, from pulpit to pulpit, are beyond 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 a school subject, which is sometimes pointed out in a polemical frenzy, is a course that includes six modules, of which, firstly, only four provide information about a specific religion, and secondly, parents have the right to choose for teaching one of the modules to your children, including the module “Fundamentals of Secular Ethics.” Considering this format of this school subject, it seems a very big 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 payment of salaries to clergy from budgetary funds;

– direct representation of the Church in the Federal Assembly. In countries where the merging of the state and the Church has occurred or continues, in one form or another there is a direct right, enshrined, as a rule, by law, of the Church to delegate its representatives to the legislative bodies of power, 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, government bodies listen to the opinion of the Church and take it into account; at the stage of discussing any law, the Church may be asked for advice. But the Church is not part of the state mechanism and is not endowed with any power functions.

Those who speak of a violation of the principle of separation of Church and state, of the merging of Church and state, point to certain phenomena that, nevertheless, lie within the constitutional framework and do not contradict the principle of the independent existence of Church and state. There is state material support for the Church in the field of preserving cultural heritage (restoration of churches and monasteries that 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 collaboration between the state and the Church is recognized throughout the world, including in those countries in which, like in our state, the principle of separation of the Church and the state, delimitation of their powers and sphere 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 and in the development of its culture is enormous, it is incommensurate with the role played by other faiths; that the majority of the population of our country is Orthodox. And of course, the format of dialogue between the state and the Orthodox Church cannot be absolutely the same as the format of dialogue between the state and some religious new formations that have a legal 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 their Constitution: France and Türkiye.

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 of the Church and the state, emphasizing the fact 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, has it been declared that we have a secular state. Moreover, in Europe only two states define themselves as secular in their Constitution: 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 to see here and there violations of the principle of secularism of the state, because it is very easy to blame something that has no specific boundaries for violation.

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

On the contrary, the principle of 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 evil for the Church. Although in Russia the principle of separation inevitably evokes associations with Lenin, with his decree on the separation of Church and state and 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 the Church and the state.

What about in other countries?

Comparison is the best way to understand any definitions. And therefore, in order to understand what a state Church is and what a secular state is, 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 enshrined. At the same time, today in France they are increasingly talking about secularism that is “understanding” or “friendly” towards religions, and not about anti-clerical secularism.

I note that France is a country with a very contradictory 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, temples, 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 passed on the separation of churches from the state (by the way, it served as an example for our Bolsheviks 13 years later; however, they deepened and developed the anti-clerical ideas of this French law). The 1905 law led to conflict with the Catholic Church. As a result of its subsequent settlement, it turned out that approximately 40 thousand Catholic cathedrals, churches, chapels built before 1905 became the property of local authorities (communes) or the state. At the same time, it cannot be assumed, as some believe, that these churches were nationalized. Nationalization took place during the revolution. But before the separation, 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 into their ownership. They found themselves in the care of the state, but their legal status is different from that which arises during nationalization. Local authorities bear the burden of costs for the protection, repair, restoration, and maintenance of these 40 thousand objects, starting from Notre Dame de Paris and ending with some small chapels in the provinces. The Catholic Church, by the way, is very satisfied with this situation and is not at all eager to change the situation.

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

France, despite its secularism, maintains military chaplains in the army, thereby ensuring freedom of religion for military personnel. Public schools do not teach the Law of God, but they do have a course on the basics of religious knowledge. At the same time, we must 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 not all French children receive a secular, religiously neutral upbringing.

The system is completely different in Great Britain, where there is a state church. But the peculiarity of Great Britain is that it is a country consisting of several parts: England itself, 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 state status; Anglican bishops hold ex officio seats in the House of Lords. The Church of England has the power to register marriages, which has legal force. 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 budget funds.

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 is little dependent on the state.

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

A few words about the Federal Republic of Germany. According to 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 differs in that churches that “by their structure and number of members provide a guarantee of long-term existence” can apply for the status of so-called public corporations. This status has no direct analogue in Russian legislation. To understand what this is, I will explain with the following example: a public law corporation is the Bar Association, it gives permission to practice law to those who are its members, and, accordingly, deprives this right of those whom it excludes from its ranks; Moreover, the decisions of the Collegium have legal significance not only for its participants, but are also taken into account by government authorities. For churches in Germany, being a public corporation means being able to collect church taxes. In Germany, citizens who are members of churches that have the status of a public corporation, in addition to income tax, pay church tax through the state system. True, in this regard, for many years there has been the following stable trend: Germans who do not want to pay church tax apply to leave 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 legal 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 churches receive strong government support and funding.

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

Let me 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 legal corporations is given only to the Lutheran and Catholic churches, traditional 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 clear as to be copied and transferred to Russian soil. Religious associations such as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses sometimes successfully achieve the status of public corporations in some German states. I repeat once again: over 100 different religious organizations of different denominations have this status.

As far as education is concerned, school in Germany is mainly public, and the study of religion is taught there without any denominational 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 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 taxes. (Italian taxpayers can choose whether to send a small (0.8%) share of their income taxes to churches 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 as non-profit associations, without recognizing them as religious. That is, in Italy there is a certain pyramid of denominations, and, depending on their position at one or another level of this pyramid, denominations have a more or less privileged position.

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

A similar picture can be observed in Spain, where there is also a hierarchy of confessions. In first place is the Catholic Church, which, however, is not state. Its status is determined by the terms of the Concordat. These are followed by three denominations recognized as rooted in Spain and which have entered into 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, those that have received “explicit rooting” are recognized: Mormons (2003), Jehovah’s Witnesses (2006), Buddhists (2007), Orthodox (2010).

There are fewer and fewer countries where religion has state status

There are fewer and fewer countries where religion has state status. Denmark and Greece remain so for now, the Constitution of which states that the dominant religion in this country is the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church in Finland have close to state status.

Is it possible to discern any trend in the way the relationship between churches and the state is changing in European countries today? Yes, a certain line can be traced. In those countries where previously there was a privileged position of either the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Protestant churches, there is a gradual abandonment of the status of the state church and the rights of the dominant church - the church of the majority of the population - and churches of religious minorities are increasingly leveled out. A typical example is Sweden, where the Church of Sweden was deprived of state status in 2000. Those state functions that were previously assigned to it, including in terms of maintaining civil registration and relevant archives, were redirected to the state.

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

So the general trend is this: the rejection of the special status of the state church and the endowment of any special powers that would significantly distinguish its position from the position of other confessions and religious minorities.

The latest edition 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 state or compulsory.

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

Commentary to Art. 14 KRF

1. The definition of Russia as a secular state means: the absence of legitimate church authority over state bodies and citizens; the lack of performance by the church and its hierarchs of any state functions; lack of 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 someone; 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, which are directly indicated in several articles of the Constitution or those arising from these articles. First of all, this is the establishment of a number of individual and collective rights, freedoms and responsibilities of man and citizen: (Article 28), (Part 2, Article 19), belonging to religious associations (Part 2, Article 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, respected and protected by the state, does not contradict the right of a citizen to replace military service with alternative civil 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 any compulsion which impairs his freedom to have or adopt the religion or belief of his choice.” The state itself must not subject anyone to such coercion and not allow anyone to do so.

A secular character 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 ensures 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 make no law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” Turkey has been declared a secular state (Article 2 of its 1982 Constitution), where the majority population is Muslim.

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 religious citizens, the constitutions record both of these circumstances, but without calling the state secular. Spanish Constitution of 1978 in art. 16 guarantees to individuals and their communities freedom of ideology, religion and cults without restrictions in their manifestations, other than those necessary for legally protected public order. No one should declare what ideology, religion or faith they adhere to. No religion is a state religion; public authorities only take into account existing religions and maintain relations with the Catholic Church and other religious communities.

This also happens in some countries with a predominance of Orthodox Christians among the population. Thus, the Greek Constitution, while 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 Constitution of Bulgaria.

In some countries, state religions are established in a similar way, quantitatively predominant, but not limiting the religious freedom of other faiths. These are, for example, the Anglican Church in England, the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, both headed 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.

A number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights emphasize that if the constitutional equality of religious citizens and religions is respected, 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 also states where the state religion reigns supreme. These are, for example, 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. 7 and 8 of its Constitution, the state and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign in their respective spheres, and their relations are regulated 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, and to spread it, with the exception of rituals contrary to good morals (Article 19). The ecclesiastical character, religious or cult goals of a society or institution cannot be the 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 preferential position of their church, based on the fact that 90 percent of Italians are Catholics, were rejected. The ban on 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 giving any religion the character of a state or compulsory religion. 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 tolerance, there was also the state nature of the Orthodox religion, and inequality of religious beliefs and churches, and persecution on religious grounds (even Christian sects, Old Believers, Molokans or other heresies, etc.) , and enormous in scope 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 character 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 pit religions against each other, to put some of them in an unequal position, contrary to the Constitution and laws of Russia. Such, for example, were the protests of part of the Orthodox clergy against the fact that in Moscow, the capital of all peoples and all believers of all faiths in Russia, on Poklonnaya Hill in the memorial in honor of all the citizens of our country who died for their Motherland in the Great Patriotic War, the majority - non-believers, 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 Patriarchate), based on the fact that it is the Church of the “majority”. This statement in itself is hardly true, since the majority remains non-believers, and even those people who traditionally consider themselves Orthodox Christians, from a church point of view, are not always such, because they do not regularly attend church services, do not confess, etc. and the ROC (Moscow Patriarchate - MP) is not the only Russian Orthodox Church in Russia; there is also the Foreign, Old Believer and a number of other Russian Orthodox churches independent of the MP. Moreover, 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 has equal rights with every minority and cannot claim to be “more equal” than other religions, denominations, churches.

Therefore, leaders of a number of other faiths 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 faiths and behave as if Russia is only an Orthodox and only a Slavic country, although no less 20 percent of its population is not Slavic or 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 there are hardly religious grounds in a secular state.

Sometimes, in connection with this, assumptions are made that the activities of some government bodies in Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) manifest a desire to transform this Church into a state church, which is clearly contrary to the Constitution. No clerical aspirations 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 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 has great legal significance. 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 area of freedom of religious beliefs and beliefs. It does not interfere in the exercise by citizens of their freedom of conscience and religion, in the legitimate activities of the church and other religious associations, and does not impose on them the performance of any of its functions. Religious associations do not interfere in government 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 and the legal activities of their associations. The latter have the right to participate in the cultural and social life of society.

These social relations, even before the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993, were regulated by the previous 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 funding of the activities of religious associations, the participation of government officials as such (and not as private individuals, ordinary believers) in religious ceremonies, construction of temples, etc. at the expense of state 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 Fundamentals of Public Service” (SZ RF. 1995. N 31. Art. 2990) prohibited civil 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 government bodies. In non-governmental 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 has the right to enjoy any advantages or be subject to any restrictions in comparison with others. Therefore, any manifestations of such tendencies were considered illegal.

Subsequent legislation has made 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 rights, 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 same rights that belong to members of these groups by virtue of the Constitution (Article 29, etc.).

In particular, in Art. 5 of the said Federal Law N 125-FZ establishes 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 their substitutes), with the consent of children studying in these institutions, and in agreement with the relevant local government body, to teach children religion outside the framework of the educational program. Religious groups did not receive this right.

At the same time, the Law prevents the creation and activities of those religious associations that cause harm to the health of citizens, induce them to illegally refuse to fulfill their duties or to commit illegal actions. For this purpose, mandatory annual re-registration of religious associations has been established for 15 years after their formation; During this time they are prohibited from engaging in many of the above-mentioned activities. Such a restriction of the rights of religious associations that were not allowed in Russia by the militant-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 considered 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, unless they could 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, we were talking about 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 limited the freedom of belief and activity of public (including religious) associations. In Resolution No. 16-P of November 23, 1999, the Constitutional Court recognized the appealed provisions of the 1997 Law as not contradicting the Constitution, since these provisions, when applied to their effect in relation to such organizations, mean that they enjoy the rights of a legal entity in full. Referring to 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 (part 2, 3, 4, 5), 50 (part 2), etc. - the Constitutional Court, based on the legislator’s recognized right to regulate the civil legal status of religious associations, not to automatically grant them this status, not to legalize sects , violating human rights and committing illegal and criminal acts, as well as obstructing 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 Determination of April 13, 2000 N 46-O (VKS. 2000. N 4. P. 58-64). The Constitutional Court recognized that the provisions of the Federal Law of 1997 N 125-FZ, appealed by the NRROI, do not violate the rights of the NRROI, as follows from the said Resolution of 1999. But the judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation L.M. Zharkova issued a dissenting opinion on this 1999 Determination, making a convincing, in our opinion, conclusion that the appealed provisions of the 1997 Law are discriminatory in nature, limit freedom of religion, violate the constitutional principles of equality of citizens and religious organizations before the law, equal rights citizens and the proportionality of restrictions on 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), etc. (VKS. 1999. N 6. P. 33-36).

In addition, provided for in Art. 14 and 28 of the Constitution (see commentary 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. connected with the establishment in Part 4 of Art. 29 of the Russian Constitution the right to freely have, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information in any legal way, in this case about any religions. After all, there is a free choice between any religious and non-religious beliefs, programs, etc. impossible without complete and free information about them. Therefore, restrictions on this freedom raise serious doubts and objections, which, of course, do not relate to criminal calls and actions only disguised as the spread of certain beliefs.

At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. The state policy towards the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) and other churches 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 clergy and believers who have become victims of unjustified repression” not only condemned the long-term terror unleashed by the Bolshevik party-state regime against all faiths. The rehabilitation of its victims, the restoration of their rights and freedoms were soon supplemented by measures for the return (i.e., restitution) to churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious institutions of property unjustly confiscated from them: temples, land plots, other valuables, etc.

Today it is often said that the Orthodox Church interferes in state affairs, and secular power influences the Church’s position on various external issues. Is it really? What legal content does the provision on the separation of Church and state have? Does the principle of “secularism” violate cooperation between the state and the Church in certain areas?

There are also no other phenomena that can indicate the “fusion” of the institutions of statehood and the Church:

State budgetary financing of the activities of the Church, including payment of salaries to clergy from budgetary funds;

Direct representation of the Church in the Federal Assembly. In countries where the merging of the state and the Church has occurred or continues, in one form or another there is a direct right, as a rule, enshrined in law, of the Church to delegate its representatives to the legislative bodies of power, 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

If today the Church and the state do not interfere with each other in carrying out their activities, then where did the idea of violating a principle, the origin of which is now forgotten and the essence of which is unclear, come from in people’s minds?

Let's try to answer this question, starting with history.

The French Law on the Separation of Churches and State of December 9, 1905 (French Loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Eglises et de l'Etat) was the first law that initiated the process of complete separation of church and state in socio-economic conditions similar to to the life of modern society. The adoption of the law and the subsequent unrest in the country caused the resignation of the government, which lasted only one year and 25 days in power.

The postulates of this law later formed the basis for similar decrees on the secularization of public life in the USSR, Turkey and other countries.

The main provisions were:

Guarantee of the right to work without indicating affiliation with a particular religion;

Elimination of funding for cults from the state budget;

All church property and all obligations associated with it were transferred to various religious associations of believers. The priests serving them were retired at state expense;

With the amendments of 1908, the objects of the “religious heritage” of France (an extensive list of buildings, including about 70 churches in Paris alone) became state property, and the Catholic Church received the right of perpetual free use. This is, in fact, an exception to its own Article 2, which prohibits subsidies to religion (Article 19 of the law explicitly states that “expenses for the maintenance of monuments are not subsidies.” The same law established the right of the public to freely visit buildings listed on the list.

In Soviet Russia, the separation of church and state was proclaimed by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of January 23 (February 5), 1918, the content of which, however, was much broader.

Decree proclaiming: 1) separation of church and state (Article 1 and 2) freedom “to profess any religion or to profess no religion” (Article 3), at the same time: 3) prohibited religious education “in all state and public, as well as private educational institutions where general education subjects are taught”, 4) deprived religious organizations of any property rights and rights of a legal entity (Article 12 and 5) announced the transfer of “the property of church and religious societies existing in Russia” to the public domain (Article 13).

The actual meaning of the decree in the USSR was completely different than in France. The goals and objectives for which it was adopted inertly find adherents in our country today.

Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, has adopted formal alienation from the Orthodox Church. However, deprived of politicization due to a distorted understanding of the principle of separation, the relationship between the Church and the state can and should have the character of a community. These two institutions, of which 2/3 of our citizens are both members, are designed to complement each other in the life of our society.

As the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin emphasized in his welcoming speech to the participants of the 2013 Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church: joint work [of the State and the Church - approx. author] “in the matter of strengthening harmony in our society, in strengthening its moral core... This is a response to the living need of people for moral support, for spiritual guidance and support.”

1. Article 14 P1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as state or compulsory. P2. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.

2. Mikhail Shakhov. STATE AND CHURCH: FREEDOM OR CONTROL? Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Law “On Freedom of Religion”

3. Pierre-Henri Prélot. Funding Religious Heritage In France. // Funding Religious Heritage. Ed. Anne Fornerod. Routledge, 2016. (English)

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, citing this top in a 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 “Church is separated from the state” is not in the law.

The well-remembered line about separation was preserved in the minds of the 1977 USSR Constitution (Article 52): “The church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school is separated 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, we get the following:

— In Russia, no religion can be compulsory

— 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 of organizing society, and on the other, as society itself - the entire 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 issues that concern society. “The separation of church and state means the division 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 the Relationship between Church and Society, said today at a round table held as part of the work of the Center for Conservative Research of the Faculty of Sociology Moscow State University.

We invite the reader to familiarize himself with several important texts that comprehensively cover this problem:

The separation of the state from the Church should not exclude it from national construction

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 partnership between government, society and religious associations - a partnership for which the need is definitely increasing. Partly - and not to a lesser extent - the ongoing struggle of beliefs associated with the search for a new national ideology. Perhaps the center of the discussion was the different interpretations of the principle of separation of Church and state, enshrined 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, cannot but be perceived as a threat to the established order of things 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 force of secular power, to assign purely state functions to the Church can have extremely negative consequences for the individual, for the state, and for the church body itself, as convincingly evidenced by the Russian history of the 18th-19th centuries, and the experience of some foreign countries , in particular, those 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 whom calls for the nationalization of religion are more a means of gaining 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 churches - well, maybe still within private and family life. We are often told that the presence of voluntary religion classes in secondary schools 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.

In defense of this position, arguments are given 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 countries in Europe and the world live according to completely different laws. Let us not take the examples of Israel and, subsequently, Muslim monarchies or republics, where the political system is based on religious principles. Let us leave aside countries such as England, Sweden, Greece, where there is a state or “official” religion. Let's take Germany, Austria or Italy - examples of purely secular states typical of Europe, where religion is separated from secular power, but where this power nevertheless prefers to rely on the public resources of the Church, actively cooperate with it, rather than distance itself from it. And let us note in the margins that the model there is increasingly being adopted by Central and Eastern Europe, including the CIS countries.

For the governments and citizens of the countries mentioned, the separation of Church and state does not at all mean the displacement of religious organizations from active public life. Moreover, there are no artificial barriers there for the work of theology faculties in the largest state universities, for the teaching of religion in a secular school (of course, at the free choice of students), for maintaining an impressive staff of military and embassy chaplains, for broadcasting Sunday services 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 massive allocation of state funds to religious communities. But why hasn’t anyone thought about a simple question: if budget money flows like a river into sports, cultural and media organizations, which also seem to be separated from the state, then why can’t religious organizations even mention this money? After all, they are asking not for missionary work or for salaries for 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 still reach ordinary people to a greater extent than money from other foundations and public associations allocated from the budget for very specific projects.

Europe values the principle of separation of Church and state no less than we do. Moreover, it is understood there quite clearly: 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 themselves renounce civil registration and the right to distribute budget funds not related to church activities. The process of “denationalization” of religion is indeed underway. However, no one in Germany, even in a nightmare, would 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 overseas. There, unlike Europe, the opposite trend has been observed for several years. The changing demographic composition of the US population not in favor of white Christians is increasingly forcing politicians to talk about the need for government support for religion (but not only Christian). Long before the arrival of George W. Bush, the US House of Representatives approved a bill allowing federal budget funds to be directly allocated to churches for their social work (they were already allocated indirectly). 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 state-paid military and embassy chaplains have always existed in America, and we don’t even need to mention the scale of Washington’s foreign policy support for Protestant missionary work.

In short, any responsible state, except, perhaps, hysterically anti-clerical France and the last bastions of Marxism, tries 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 the rudiments of Soviet theory and practice of state-church relations in Russia 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, does not exist in the current legislation. On a subconscious level, they consider religious communities to be a collective enemy, whose influence must be limited, fueling 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 interethnic peacemaking. 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 supposedly 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 not much less “multi-confessional” than Russia - full-fledged theological faculties of leading state universities have long been opened, and no St. Bartholomew’s Nights followed. Neo-atheists do not allow (or are afraid of) the idea that in Russia Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Catholics, and even a significant part of Protestants can find a modus vivendi that allows them to be present in higher and secondary schools, science , culture, national media.

However, it is useless to argue further. The course of public discussion shows that views on church-state relations are significantly divided. The religious revival does not cause any “popular protest”. However, a small but influential part of society took a position of harsh opposition to the development of partnership between the Church and the state and 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, their close interaction for the sake of the present and future of the country. It is probably impossible to convince my opponents, although I have tried to do this many times. Therefore, I will try to analyze their motives.

Firstly, the Soviet school of religious studies, 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 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 this is the main thing, 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” of Satarov’s team) or on the basis of the priorities of a self-sufficient market (“economiccentrism” of the Gref 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, domestic thinkers see nothing better than preserving this vacuum until better times. At the same time, “clearing the site” of 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 ideological confusion. The authorities should not impose religious and moral preaching on people. But it still shouldn’t prevent Russians from hearing it. Otherwise, the only feeling that unites citizens will be hatred of Caucasians, Jews, America, Europe, and sometimes even the government itself. In my opinion, there is only one alternative: renewed commitment to the ethical values of Orthodoxy, Islam, and other traditional religions, as well as reasonable, open humanism, even if agnostic.

There is no need to be afraid of ultra-conservative religious radicalism, the neophyte fuse of which is gradually running out. By the way, it is strong precisely where there is no scope for a genuine religious revival, combining fidelity to tradition and openness to the new, patriotism and dialogue with the world. This revival, and therefore the revival of Russia, needs to 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 cause, work together for the good of people - Orthodox and non-Orthodox, believers and non-believers.

Well mannered and unchurched

Mikhail Tarusin, Sociologist, political scientist, publicist. Head of the Social Research Department at 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 state or compulsory.” Paragraph 2 there adds: “Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.” It seems intuitive, but I would still like more clarity.

Let's start with the definition of “secular.” In Ushakov’s dictionary, the word is defined in two meanings: as “well-educated” and as “unchurched.” We probably need a second definition. The Large Law Dictionary (LJD) defines “secular state” as “meaning the separation of church and state, the delimitation of the spheres of their activities.” 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 no creed is recognized as mandatory or preferable.” At the same time, the Law of the Russian Federation “On Freedom of Conscience” of September 19, 1997, in its 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 a lot that is unclear here. The Constitution denies religion as a state or compulsory religion, but says nothing about the preference of one religion over others. Constitutional law seems to add a denial of the preference of any religion. The Law “On Freedom of Speech” speaks of the special role of Orthodoxy, while asserting that Russia gained spirituality precisely thanks to Orthodoxy (!). There is a clear preference for Orthodoxy, denied by constitutional law, but not directly denied by the Constitution. Paradox.

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

Why is there so much uncertainty 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 to be atheistic. The 1977 USSR Constitution, Article 52, states: “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 worship or conduct atheistic propaganda. Inciting hostility 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.”

By the way, pay attention - the Orthodox Church is clearly highlighted here as the main subject of separation. It’s time to think that a mosque, a pagoda, a house of worship and a satanic temple are not separated from the state.

Of course, there is deliberate slyness in this article - it is hardly possible to equate the possibilities of “practicing religion” and “conducting anti-religious propaganda.” But overall, the article looks pretty decent. Then where is state atheism? It turns out that it is hidden deep. The 1977 USSR Constitution 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, in 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”, in paragraph d) it is stated that a party member is obliged: “to wage a decisive struggle against any manifestations of bourgeois ideology, against the remnants private psychology, religious prejudices and other relics of the past.” In the CPSU Program of October 31. 1961, in the section “In the field of education of communist consciousness,” paragraph e) also states that: “The Party uses means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of a scientific-materialist worldview, to overcome religious prejudices, without insulting the feelings of believers. It is necessary to systematically conduct broad scientific and atheistic propaganda, patiently explain the inconsistency of religious beliefs that arose in the past because people were oppressed by the elemental forces of nature and social oppression, due to ignorance of the true causes of natural and social phenomena. In this case, one should rely on the achievements of modern science, which’ reveals the picture of the world more and more fully, increases man’s power over nature and leaves no room for fantastic inventions of religion about supernatural forces.”

Like this. The state itself is obviously secular, but since the guiding force of society and state organizations is the CPSU, which ideologically professes atheism, 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 say - this is unnecessary, we don’t need this, that’s why we tore it away from ourselves, because we want to get rid of it from our lives. In this context, the meaning of separation is clear and consistent.

But let's return to the new Russia. Which declares itself as a secular state, but at the same time specifically clarifies in Article 13, paragraph 2 that: “No ideology can be established as state or mandatory.” In other words, we do not need any “guiding and directing force”. Fine. But then why did they blindly drag and drop 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 of these.

Then why separate?

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

For example, the recently adopted Program of the United Russia party says the following: “Traditional religions are the guardians of the wisdom and experience of generations necessary for understanding and solving current social problems. We proceed from such an understanding of a secular state, which means an organizational and functional distinction between the state and religious organizations, and turning to religion is voluntary. At the same time, we are convinced that society should have the opportunity to hear the voice of traditional faiths.”

Those. it does not speak directly about separation, but about delimitation of functions- 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 y. I, for example, am a secular person, not in the sense of being well-educated, but in the sense of not serving in a church, not a priest or a monk. But I consider myself Orthodox. The President is a secular man. 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? Certainly. A significant part of modern Russian society is secular. And Orthodox at the same time.

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

And then, one of the main tasks of civil society institutions is precisely to control the state, in the person of authorities at various levels, so that they do not get too naughty. And the task of religious organizations is to tell the authorities impartially if they begin 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 difficult to talk about mutual non-interference.

Then why can’t a state, being secular, be Orthodox? I don’t see any obstacles to this. If it itself states in its own Law that Orthodoxy 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 entire last century the party leading the state destroyed Orthodoxy itself and the fruits of its labors, isn’t it logical to turn to the Church again? With a request to help the young state in developing the spirituality and culture of young Russia, which, apparently, does not have any particularly fruitful ideas in this regard. And, on the contrary, which the Church has, taking into account 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 from the perspective of cultural and spiritual health has long required prompt intervention. And, of course, it is necessary to begin with the moral guidance of young souls.

Here, by the way, there is one subtle point. It is not for nothing that there is a strange clarification in the Soviet Constitution: “The Church in the USSR is separated from the state and school - from 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 understood perfectly well that the construction of a new world must begin with the education of a new person; school for them was one of the most important components of communist construction. Therefore, the most terrible thing was the very thought of the penetration of the hated Church there. Hence the addition.

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

And the arguments themselves speak more about their exponents as legalists than as atheists. The main one relates to the fact that schools are state institutions, thus separated from the church. And then teaching the fundamentals of religion in them is a violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. But schools today in the country are municipal institutions, and municipalities belong to local government structures, which de jure cannot be considered part of the state system.

If we take the media space, which today, voluntarily or unknowingly, strictly follows the instructions of Langley experts on the disintegration 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 be in greater need of this.

Finally, the institutions of civil society, although they received a wise leader in the person of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation and its regional clones, do not show the proper enthusiasm for this appointment. On the other hand, the noticeable development of the Church’s social initiatives precisely 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 moral state throughout the entire public space, when it is not benefit and benefit, but shame and conscience that drive a person’s actions.

Simple observations show that today we are overly carried away by the quasi-ideology of economism. The plans you make for the future are rosy and promising, but for some reason you can’t take the first step. Make the first obvious breakthrough, spin the flywheel of creative movement. Why is this? And because, when you need to do something physical movement, it is necessary, first of all, to apply moral an effort.

How can this effort be created? 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 have one other than the Orthodox faith and the mother of the Russian Orthodox Church. And if our state, in addition to economic experts, arms itself with such an assistant, you will see that the current rosy plans will seem like a trifle in comparison with 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 state or compulsory. 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 a citizen’s determination 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 functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local government bodies;
does not interfere with 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 historical and cultural monuments, as well as in ensuring the teaching of general education disciplines in educational institutions created by religious organizations in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on education.
4. The activities of state authorities and local governments 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, do not have the right 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:
is created and operates 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 government bodies;
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 or 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 governments, the activities of political parties, political movements and other public associations.
7. At the request of religious organizations, the relevant government bodies in the Russian Federation have the right to declare religious holidays non-working (holiday) days in the relevant territories.

Article 5. Religious education

1. Everyone has the right to receive religious education of his choice, individually or together 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 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 government body, provides a religious organization with the opportunity to teach children religion outside the framework of the educational program.

Interpretation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation

Commentary to Art. 14 KRF

The separation of the state from the Church should not exclude it from national construction

Well mannered and unchurched

THE FEDERAL LAW ON FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS

Read also