On the separation of church and state. The Russian Federation is a secular state Article 14 of the CRF

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

Separate, but in cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about in other countries?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not everyone knows what happened during the period of real separation of church and state, which occurred after the October Revolution in Russia. It is important to say that it was not an imaginary (as in many countries), but a real separation of church and state.

And here it is important to emphasize that we are by no means talking about the famous “repressions” to which the priests refer. In fact, the essence lies precisely in the fact that the clergy were deprived state support, and that is why they went against the Bolsheviks, and not at all because of their supposedly principled position.

In order to consider this issue sensibly, we should first turn to the history of relations between the church and the tsarist government. Firstly, of course, under tsarism, the church was maintained at the expense of the state, that is, they built churches, paid money, and church officials could claim a number of privileges (as well as nobles). Interestingly, temples and other church buildings did not belong to the church, and therefore the priests did not have to pay for the maintenance and repair of these structures.

Actually, starting from Peter I, the church was inscribed in the vertical of power, and therefore it should be perceived more as an apparatus of officials who simply control the mob. After all, it was the clergy who came into contact with the population to a greater extent, and not other government officials.

Therefore, the illusion was created that allegedly the clergy really can control the people. However, in fact, of course, everything was not so, and the authority of the church among the population was rather weak. Well, the high attendance of temples was explained primarily by the fact that Orthodoxy was forced by the force of law. It is, of course, difficult to assess the real impact in such a situation.

But in any case, after the fall of tsarism, the church immediately began to cooperate with the provisional government. This probably surprised contemporaries quite strongly, since it seemed that the Orthodox Church was devoted to autocracy. And then talk began that, they say, Nikolai was a despot, and the church allegedly always stood for a democratic republic.

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

Priests were mainly used during the war, the so-called. "military chaplains". Although there was no sense in this, since during the war the number of deserters was unprecedented in the entire history of Russia. In fact, it was impossible to win in such a position. After all, the enthusiasm and strength that really existed in the very initial period of the war already disappeared somewhere in the middle or end of 1915.

It is clear that the state as a whole could in no way confirm its legitimacy, because the only thing they did was to continue relations with the priests and individual highest representatives of power, i.e., bureaucrats, nobles, and so on. And all the promises that were made before that were not fulfilled.

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

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

• In all secular public schools... the teaching of the Law of God... is obligatory both in the lower and secondary schools, and in the higher educational institutions: the content of teaching posts in public schools is accepted at the expense of the treasury.
• Property belonging to the Orthodox Church is not subject to confiscation or seizure ... by state taxes.
• The Orthodox Church receives from the funds of the State Treasury ... annual appropriations within the limits of its needs.

There were many similar demands, and the provisional government agreed with them. By the way, it was during this period that the church began to revive the patriarchate. In exchange for concessions to the VP, the clergy prayed for the health of government ministers and, in general, for the new form of government. Therefore, of course, one should not talk about any secularism during the GP period.

As soon as the Bolsheviks took power, at first everything was relatively calm (in the church environment), since the priests shared the illusion that the alleged government would not last even a few weeks. Both churchmen and political opponents spoke openly about this. At first, the Bolsheviks were given a few days, then weeks. But in the end, we still had to reconsider our position.

It is quite clear that as soon as the Bolsheviks began to carry out their activities in a more or less "stable" regime, the churchmen became worried. I would immediately like to note that the church was separated from the state, and the schools from the church, not on the very first day, but in 1918. Moreover, the clergy were informed in advance that the church would soon be finally separated from the state.

Understanding what was happening, the clergy felt that it was necessary to reconcile with the government. The priests hoped that the Bolsheviks would reconsider their views and decide to use the church for their own needs, but all attempts were in vain, despite the persistence of the priests.

Already in December 1917, the priests sent the definitions of the local council to the Council of People's Commissars, that is, the same points that were sent to the provisional government, which states that Orthodoxy is the state religion, and all the main persons of the country must be Orthodox. The Bolsheviks not only rejected the proposal, but Lenin also emphasized that the project for the separation of church and state must be prepared as quickly as possible, despite the fact that there was still a lot of work to be done.

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

"all and any national and national-religious privileges and restrictions"

At the same time, bills appeared that allowed civil marriages, and not just church ones, which was previously a prerequisite, and amendments were also adopted that limited the presence of priests in the army. These were some half-measures before the official law.

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

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

Now about churches. Priests were allowed to use the church free of charge if there was a priest himself and 20 parishioners. But the priest, or his “brethren”, is obliged to maintain this temple and in no case turn to the state for help, since these issues should in no way concern the secular state. Accordingly, you need to pay janitors, cleaners, choristers, for repairs, and so on.

In the matter of cults, real equality really appeared when the Old Believers and Protestants (of Russian origin) ceased to be persecuted and could lay claim to religious buildings if all conditions were met. In general, frameworks were created that were quite adequate for a secular state. It is also worth recalling one characteristic detail that church apologists do not like to recall. In many Protestant countries, where Catholicism previously dominated, monasteries were often liquidated (somewhere completely, somewhere not). But in Soviet Russia, and then in the USSR, monasteries were preserved, temples were preserved. Another thing is that there are fewer of them, because now the rules have changed.

Moreover, what is important, the priests insisted that the Bolsheviks take and cancel the decree on the separation of church and state, that is, they said that they were ready to cooperate, but only if all priestly privileges were preserved. In this regard, the Bolsheviks demonstrated steadfastness, that is, they did not follow their lead.

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

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

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

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

The Council of the Orthodox Church clarified that the decree:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then the clergy began to hold religious processions in order to show their "influence", so that the authorities would come to their senses. It is important to note that each religious procession was sanctioned by the authorities, which allegedly interfered with the activities of churchmen. The most massive religious procession was in St. Petersburg, when the priests turned directly to the Council of People's Commissars, declaring that 500,000 believers would come to the procession. But the priests were then warned that if there were provocations, then it was the clergy who would be held responsible for this. As a result, everything went more or less calmly, and not 500 thousand, but 50 thousand came. In a couple of years, hundreds of people gathered for such events.

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

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

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

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

Although, what is important, with their provocations, they contributed to inciting discord and actually provoked bloody clashes that cost many lives. For the sake of liberation, the patriarch had only to ask for forgiveness from the Soviet authorities. The rest of the “Old Churchmen” then took a loyal position and began to go about their daily business, but their number was significantly reduced, since basically only priests who had higher ranks and wealthy parishes (where a significant number of parishioners remained) could earn money.

On the other hand, there were also more radical groups. For example, the clergy who supported the Whites. There were even their own “Jesus regiments”. Such priests took part precisely in the armed confrontation, and therefore they were often awaited by execution by the revolutionary tribunal. In fact, many of these are today considered "martyrs."

It is also worth noting the priests who simply emigrated, taking with them the jewels of the church. All they had to do was describe the “horrors of the Soviet regime” to foreigners, on which they made good money for decades. Although they emigrated, as a rule, almost immediately, and therefore their descriptions do not differ from those that individual churchmen wrote about Peter I - that is, the Antichrist, the harbinger of the end of the world, etc.

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

But still, to a greater extent, the priests simply left the churches. These people became ordinary workers, since the places in the church where they could still get rich were already occupied, and the Orthodox, of course, will not send a cult for free. Since after Peter I the priests were mostly relatively literate, they could be clerks, secretaries, and so on.

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

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 Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation

1. A state is considered secular in which there is no official, state religion and none of the creeds is recognized as obligatory or preferable. In such a state, religion, its canons and dogmas, as well as religious associations operating in it, have no right to influence the state system, the activities of state bodies and their officials, on the system of public education and other spheres of activity of the state. The secular nature of the state is ensured, as a rule, by the separation of the church (religious associations) from the state and the secular nature of public education (separation of the school from the church). This form of relationship between the state and the church has been established with varying degrees of consistency in a number of countries (USA, France, Poland, etc.).

AT modern world there are states where the official religion is legalized, called state, dominant or national. For example, in England, such a religion is one of the main areas of Christianity - Protestantism ( Anglican Church), in Israel - Judaism. There are states where the equality of all religions is proclaimed (Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.). However, in such a state, one of the most traditional religions, as a rule, enjoys certain privileges, has a certain influence on his life.

The opposite of a secular state is the theocratic, in which state power belongs to church hierarchy. Such a state today is the Vatican.

There are also a number of clerical states in the world. The clerical state is not merged with the church. However, the church, through the institutions established in the legislation, has a decisive influence on state policy, and school education necessarily includes the study of church dogmas. Such a state is, for example, Iran.

2. As a secular state, the Russian Federation is characterized by the fact that in it religious associations are separated from the state and no religion can be established as a state or obligatory one. The content of this provision is disclosed by Art. 4 of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, which states that religious associations are equal before the law.

The separation of religious associations from the state means that 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. The state does not impose on religious associations the performance of the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local governments; does not interfere in the activities of religious associations, if it does not contradict the law; ensures the secular nature of education in state and municipal educational institutions. The activities of public authorities and local self-government bodies may not be 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.

At the same time, the state protects the legal activities of religious associations. It 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 cultural history, as well as in ensuring the teaching of general education disciplines in educational institutions established by religious organizations in accordance with with the legislation of the Russian Federation on education.

In accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state, a religious association is created 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. It does not perform the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local self-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 and other assistance. 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 this does not mean that the clergy cannot be elected to state authorities and local self-government bodies at all. However, the clergy are not elected to these bodies from religious associations and not as representatives of the respective church.

The principle of a secular state in the understanding that has developed in countries with a mono-confessional and mono-ethnic structure of society and with developed traditions of religious tolerance and pluralism makes it possible to allow in some countries political parties based on the ideology of Christian democracy, since the concept of "Christian" in this case goes beyond the confessional framework and denotes belonging to the European system of values ​​and culture.

In multinational and multi-confessional Russia, such concepts as "Orthodox", "Muslim", "Russian", "Bashkir", etc., are associated in the public mind rather with specific confessions and individual nations than with the system of values ​​of the Russian people as a whole . Therefore, the constitutional principle of a democratic and secular state in relation to the constitutional and historical realities that have developed in Russia does not allow the creation of political parties on the basis of national or religious affiliation. Such a prohibition corresponds to the authentic meaning of Art. 13 and 14 of the Constitution in conjunction with its Art. 19 (parts 1 and 2), 28 and 29 (see comments to articles 13, 14, 19, 28 and 29) and is a specification of the provisions contained therein (see Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 15, 2004 N 18-P ).

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

Religious associations in the Russian Federation operate on the basis of their own rules, subject to the law. Such a law regulating these issues is the mentioned Law on freedom of conscience and on religious associations. According to this Law, a religious association in the Russian Federation is a voluntary association of citizens of the Russian Federation, other persons, permanently and on legal grounds residing on the territory of the Russian Federation, formed for the purpose of joint confession and the spread of faith and having the characteristics corresponding to this purpose: religion; performing divine services, other religious rites and ceremonies; teaching religion and religious education of their followers. Religious associations may be created in the form of religious groups and religious organizations.

A religious group is a voluntary association of citizens formed for the purpose of joint confession and dissemination of faith, carrying out activities without state registration and acquiring the legal capacity of a legal entity. The premises and property necessary for the activities of a religious group shall be provided for the use of the group by its members. Religious groups have the right to perform divine services, other religious rites and ceremonies, as well as to carry out religious education and religious education of their followers.

A religious organization is a voluntary association of citizens of the Russian Federation or other persons permanently and legally residing on the territory of the Russian Federation, formed for the purpose of joint confession and dissemination of faith, registered as a legal entity in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Religious organizations, depending on the territorial scope of their activities, are divided into local and centralized. A local religious organization is a religious organization consisting of at least 10 members who have reached the age of 18 and permanently reside in the same locality or in the same city or rural settlement. A centralized religious organization is a religious organization that, in accordance with its charter, consists of at least three local religious organizations.

State registration of religious organizations is carried out by the federal body of justice or its territorial body in the manner prescribed by the current legislation. Re-registration of religious organizations cannot be carried out contrary to the conditions, which, by virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 9 and paragraph 5 of Art. 11 of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations are necessary and sufficient for the establishment and registration of religious organizations. It follows from these norms that the re-registration of religious organizations established before the entry into force of this Law, as well as local religious organizations that are part of the structure of a centralized religious organization, does not require a document confirming their existence in the relevant territory for at least 15 years; such religious organizations are not subject to the annual re-registration requirement before the specified 15-year period; they cannot be limited in legal capacity on the basis of par. 3 and 4 paragraph 3 of Art. 27 (see Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 23, 1999 N 16-P).

Religious organizations have the right to establish and maintain religious buildings and structures, other places and objects specially designed for worship, prayer and religious meetings, religious veneration (pilgrimage). Divine services, other religious rites and ceremonies are freely performed in religious buildings and structures and in the territories related to them, in other places provided to religious organizations for these purposes, in places of pilgrimage, in institutions and enterprises of religious organizations, in cemeteries and crematoria, as well as in residential areas.

Religious organizations have the right to conduct religious ceremonies in medical and preventive and hospital institutions, orphanages for the elderly and disabled, in institutions executing criminal penalties in the form of imprisonment, at the request of citizens staying in them, in premises specially allocated by the administration for these purposes. . The command of military units, taking into account the requirements of military regulations, is not entitled to prevent the participation of military personnel in worship and other religious rites and ceremonies. In other cases, public worship, other religious rites and ceremonies are carried out in the manner prescribed for rallies, processions and demonstrations.

At the request of religious organizations, the relevant state authorities in Russia have the right to declare Religious holidays non-working (holiday) days in the respective territories. Such public holidays announced, for example, the Nativity of Christ, a number of Muslim religious holidays.

Religious organizations have the right to: produce, acquire, exploit, replicate and distribute religious literature, printed, audio and video materials and other religious items; carry out charitable and cultural and educational activities; create institutions for professional religious education (spiritual educational institutions) for the training of students and religious personnel; carry out entrepreneurial activities and create their own enterprises in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation; establish and maintain international relations and contacts, including for the purpose of pilgrimage, participation in meetings and other events, to receive religious education, as well as invite foreign citizens for these purposes.

Religious organizations may own buildings, land plots, industrial, social, charitable, cultural, educational and other purposes, religious objects, funds and other property necessary to ensure their activities, including those classified as historical and cultural monuments. . Religious organizations may own property abroad.

It is prohibited to establish religious associations in government bodies, other state bodies, state institutions and local self-government bodies, military units, state and municipal organizations, as well as religious associations whose goals and actions are contrary to the law.

Religious organizations may be liquidated by decision of their founders or by a body authorized to do so by the charter of a religious organization, as well as by a court decision in the event of repeated or gross violations of the norms of the Constitution, federal laws, or in the event of a religious organization systematically carrying out activities that are contrary to the goals of its creation (statutory goals).

It must be said that certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations have repeatedly served as the subject of consideration by the Constitutional Court. However, each time the Court recognized them as not contradicting the Constitution.

Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted the Ruling of April 13, 2000 N 46-O on the complaint of the regional association "Independent Russian Region of the Society of Jesus" on violations of constitutional rights and freedoms, paragraphs 3-5 of Art. 8, art. 9 and 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Art. 27 of the Law on freedom of conscience and on religious associations * (77).

The Court concluded that the challenged provisions of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, as applied to their effect on religious organizations established before the entry into force of this Law, did not violate the applicant's constitutional rights and freedoms.

Today it is often said that the Orthodox Church interferes in state affairs, and secular authorities influence the position of the Church on various external issues. Is it really? What is the legal content of the provision on the separation of the Church from the state? Does the principle of "secularism" violate the cooperation of the state and the Church in certain areas?

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

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

• State budget financing of the activities of the Church, including the payment of wages to clergy from budget funds;

• Direct representation of the Church in the Federal Assembly. In countries where the merging of the state and the Church has taken place or is being preserved, in one form or another there is a direct, as a rule, legally enshrined right of the Church to delegate its representatives to 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, state bodies listen to the opinion of the Church, take it into account; at the stage of discussing any law, the Church may be consulted. But the Church is not part of the state mechanism and is not endowed with any power functions.

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

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

The French Law on the Separation of Churches and State of December 9, 1905 (fr. Loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Eglises et de l'Etat) was the first law that initiated the process of the complete separation of church and state in socio-economic conditions close to to the life of modern society. The adoption of the law and the ensuing 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 of similar decrees on the secularization of public life in the USSR, Turkey and other countries.

The main points were:

• Guarantee of the right to work without indicating belonging to a particular confession;

• Elimination of funding for cults from the state budget;

• All property of the church and all related obligations were transferred to various religious associations of believers. The priests serving them were retired at public expense;

• With the amendments of 1908, the objects of the "religious heritage" of France (an extensive list of buildings, including about 70 temples in Paris alone), passed into state ownership, and Catholic Church received the right to perpetual free use. This is, in fact, an exception to its own article 2, which prohibits the subsidization of religion (article 19 of the law explicitly states that "monument maintenance costs are not subsidies." The same law established the right of the public to freely visit the buildings listed.

In Soviet Russia, the separation of church and state was proclaimed by a 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 (Articles 1 and 2) freedom to “profess any religion or none” (Article 3), at the same time: 3) banned 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” into 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 inertially find adherents in our country today.

Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, has adopted a formal alienation from the Orthodox Church. However, devoid of politicization due to a distorted understanding of the principle of separation, the relationship between the Church and the state can and should bear 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 Bishops' Cathedral ROC 2013: joint work [State and Church - approx. auth.] “in strengthening harmony in our society, in strengthening its moral core ... This is a response to the living need of people for moral support, spiritual guidance and support.”

1. Article 14 P1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as a state or obligatory one. 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 Law on Freedom of Religion

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

The latest version of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation reads:

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

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

Commentary on Art. 14 KRF

1. The definition of Russia as a secular state means: the absence of legal church authority over state bodies and citizens; the lack of performance by the church, its hierarchs of any state functions; the absence of a mandatory religion for civil servants; non-recognition by the state of the legal significance of church acts, religious rules etc. as sources of law binding on anyone; refusal of the state to finance the expenses of any church and other rules of this kind. By defining Russia as a secular state, the Constitution thereby establishes these provisions. At the same time, the concept of a secular state also includes a number of its other features, directly indicated in several articles of the Constitution or arising from these articles. First of all, this is the establishment of a number of individual and collective rights, freedoms and duties of a person and a citizen: (Art. 28), (Part 2, Art. 19), belonging to religious associations (Part 2, Art. 14), (Part 5, Art. 13), (part 2 of article 29) and (part 2 of article 19), (part 3 of article 29). The secular nature of a democratic state, in which a person, his rights and freedoms, including freedom of conscience, are the highest value recognized, observed and protected by the state, does not contradict the right of a citizen to replace military service with alternative civilian service for religious reasons (part 3 article 59).

One of the important requirements for a secular state is expressed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 in Art. 18: "No one shall be subjected to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice." The state itself must not subject anyone to such coercion and not allow anyone to do so.

The secular character is inherent in many democratic rule of law(USA, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc.). Sometimes this is expressed directly, as, for example, in Art. 2 of the French Constitution: "France is ... a secular ... Republic. It provides equality before the law to all citizens, regardless of ... religion. It respects all beliefs." In the US Constitution, the first amendment (1791) states: "Congress shall not make laws establishing any religion or prohibiting its free worship ..." Turkey was proclaimed a secular state (Article 2 of its 1982 Constitution), where the majority population are Muslims.

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

This is also happening in some countries with a predominance of Orthodox Christians among the population. Thus, the Constitution of Greece, democratically resolving the issue of freedom of conscience and equality of religions, at the same time establishes: "The dominant religion in Greece is the religion of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ" (Article 3). A similar provision is contained in Part 3 of Art. 13 of the Bulgarian Constitution.

In some countries, state religions are established in this way, quantitatively predominating, but not limiting religious freedom other religions. Such, for example, are the Anglican Church in England, the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, both led by the monarch of Great Britain, the Catholic Church in Italy, the Evangelical Church in the Scandinavian countries, the Muslim Church in Egypt, and the Jewish Church in Israel.

In a number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, it is emphasized that if the constitutional equality of believing citizens and religions is observed, then the statement of the quantitative predominance of a particular religion in the Constitution of this country does not contradict human rights and freedoms in this area.

There are states where the state religion reigns supreme. Such, for example, are some Muslim countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

But even where no religion has the legal status of a state, official or even traditional one, sometimes one of the existing churches often shows a desire to create for itself a predominant legal position on a national or regional scale, using the centuries-old tradition of a part of the population and the semi-official support of the authorities.

Italy can serve as an example of a secular state that has overcome such difficulties. According to Art. According to Articles 7 and 8 of its Constitution, the State and the Catholic Church are independent and sovereign in their own spheres, and their relations are governed by the Lateran Agreements. All religions are equal and free, and non-Catholic denominations have the right to create their own organizations in accordance with their statutes, without contradicting the legal order of Italy. Their relations with the state are determined by law on the basis of its agreements with the bodies representing them. Everyone has the right to worship in any form, individual or collective, to spread it, with the exception of rites contrary to good morals (Article 19). Church character, religious or cult goals of a society or institution cannot be a reason for legislative restrictions or fiscal burdens on their creation and activities (Article 20). In accordance with these constitutional provisions in Italy, back in the 50s of the twentieth century. the claims of part of the Catholic clergy to the pre-eminence of their church, based on the fact that 90 percent of Italians are Catholics, were rejected. The prohibition of proselytism (recruiting new members to the church by offering material or social benefits, psychological pressure, threats, etc.) was also abolished.

Part 1 Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation prohibits making any religion a state or obligatory character. Apparently, this also means the inadmissibility of establishing restrictive or humiliating rules for any religion. The historical experience of Russia - in which, along with the traditions of religious freedom and religious tolerance, there was also the state character of the Orthodox religion, and the inequality of religious beliefs and churches, and religious persecution (even of Christian sects, Old Believers, Molokans or other heresies, etc.) , and huge persecution of all churches, terror against the clergy and believers during the communist "militant atheism", and the use of the church and religion by the authorities in their own interests, etc. - convincingly proves the need to preserve and strengthen the secular nature of the state, freedom of conscience, equality of religions and churches.

This problem retains its significance also because sometimes in our time there are attempts to oppose religions to each other, to put some of them in an unequal position contrary to the Constitution and laws of Russia. Such, for example, were the speeches of a part of the Orthodox clergy against the fact that in Moscow, the capital for all peoples and all believers of any religion in Russia, on Poklonnaya Hill in the memorial in honor of all the citizens of our country who died for the Motherland in the Great Patriotic War, most of them non-believers, along with the Orthodox Church, churches of other confessions were also built. Another example is the wishes of some hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchy), based on the fact that it is the Church of the "majority". This statement in itself is hardly true, since the majority remain unbelievers, and even those who traditionally consider themselves Orthodox Christians, from the church point of view, are not always such, because they do not regularly attend church services, do not confess, etc., and the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate - MP) is not the only Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, there is also the Foreign, Old Believer and a number of other Russians independent of the MP Orthodox churches. In addition, in a democratic society and a secular state, the majority is obliged to respect the rights of the minority, as well as the individual rights of the individual. In this sense, any, including religious, majority is equal with every minority and cannot claim to be "more equal" than other religions, denominations, churches.

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

Apparently, with the secular nature of the state, freedom of conscience and religion, equality of religions and churches, as well as with the right of everyone "to profess any religion or not to profess any", to freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs (Article 28), attempts to protect only traditional mass religions from "foreign religious expansion" and proselytism are not entirely consistent, for which, in a secular state, there are hardly any religious grounds.

Sometimes, in connection with this, assumptions are made that the activities of some authorities in Russia and the ROC (MP) manifest a desire to turn this Church into a state church, which is clearly contrary to the Constitution. No aspirations of a clerical nature are incompatible with the secular nature of the state and the constitutional rights of man and citizen.

2. Proclaimed in Part 2 of Art. 14 The separation of religious associations from the state (without mentioning the separation of schools from church and religion) and the equality of these associations before the law are the most important principles of a fully developed legal democratic secular state. They have also been implemented in many other countries.

The separation of religious associations from the state is of great legal importance. First of all, this is mutual non-interference in each other's affairs on the part of religious associations, on the one hand, and the state, its bodies and officials, on the other. The state is neutral in the sphere of freedom of religious beliefs and beliefs. It does not interfere with the exercise by citizens of their freedom of conscience and religion, in the legitimate activities of the church and other religious associations, does not impose on them the performance of any of its functions. Religious associations do not interfere in state affairs, do not participate in the activities of political parties, in elections of state bodies, etc.

But certain forms of interaction between them exist. The state, in accordance with the law, protects the individual and collective rights and freedoms of believers, the lawful activities of their associations. The latter have the right to participate in the cultural and social life of the community.

Even before the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 1993, these social relations were regulated by the former Constitution and the Law of October 25, 1990 "On Freedom of Religion" (Vedomosti RSFSR. 1990. N 21. Art. 240). According to them, the separation of religious associations from the secular state was contradicted by: the organization of worship services in state institutions and state enterprises, the placement of objects of religious symbols in them, state financing of the activities of religious associations, the participation of public officials as such (and not as private individuals, ordinary believers) in religious ceremonies, the construction of temples, etc. at the expense of public funds, attempts to form any attitude towards religion or the teaching of religious disciplines in public educational institutions. In particular, the Federal Law of July 31, 1995 "On the Foundations of Public Service" (SZ RF. 1995. N 31. Art. 2990) prohibited public servants from using their official position in the interests of religious associations to promote attitudes towards them. Structures of religious associations cannot be formed in state bodies. In non-state institutions, enterprises, schools, etc. all this is possible.

The same Law specified the constitutional provision on the equality of religious associations in a secular state before the law. No religion, Church or other religious association is entitled to enjoy any advantages or be subject to any restrictions in comparison with others. Therefore, any manifestations of such tendencies were declared illegal.

Subsequent legislation introduced a number of changes to address these issues. Federal Law of September 26, 1997 N 125-FZ "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" - divided equal, according to Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Constitution, religions and religious associations into unequal varieties: firstly, into traditional and non-traditional and, secondly, into religious organizations that have the rights of a legal entity, the right to engage in publishing and educational activities, to carry out international relations of a religious nature, and much more, and religious groups that do not even have such rights that belong to members of these groups by virtue of the Constitution (Article 29, etc.).

In particular, Art. 5 of the said Federal Law N 125-FZ, it is established that religious organizations, acting in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and their charters, have the right to create their own educational institutions. And in state and municipal educational institutions, their administration received the right, at the request of parents (or persons replacing them), with the consent of children studying in these institutions, and in agreement with the relevant local government body, to teach children religion outside the educational program. Religious groups did not receive such a right.

At the same time, the Law prevents the creation and activities of those religious associations that cause harm to the health of citizens, encourage them to illegally refuse to perform their duties or to illegal actions. For this purpose, mandatory annual re-registration of religious associations has been established within 15 years after their formation; during this time they are prohibited from engaging in many of the above activities. Such a restriction of the rights of religious associations that were not allowed in Russia by the militantly atheistic communist party-state regime, and the recognition of those organizations that for some reason were allowed by this regime, hardly corresponds to the constitutional principles of Art. 14 in a democratic legal society and a secular state.

The Constitutional Court has repeatedly considered these problems, and only complaints from citizens and some religious organizations that were created before the adoption of the aforementioned Federal Law of 1997 N 125-FZ and were not subject to the restrictions imposed by it were considered, if they could not confirm that they had existed for at least 15 years and etc., but in accordance with it they were deprived of many rights that they already had, in particular, in accordance with the Law of 1995. In 1999, there were two complaints filed by the Society of Jehovah's Witnesses (Yaroslavl) and "Christian Church of Glorification" (Abakan), and in 2000 - "Independent Russian Region of the Society of Jesus" (IRROI). The Constitutional Court proceeded from the fact that, by virtue of Art. 13 (part 4), 14 (part 2) and 19 (parts 1 and 2), as well as 55 (part 2) of the Constitution, the legislator did not have the right to deprive these organizations of the rights they already had, because this violated equality and restricted freedom of belief and activities of public (including religious) associations. In Resolution No. 16-P of November 23, 1999, the Constitutional Court recognized the challenged provisions of the 1997 Law as not contradicting the Constitution, since these provisions, as applied to their effect in relation to such organizations, mean that they enjoy the rights of a legal entity in full. Referring to the related Art. 13 (part 4), 14, 15 (part 4), 17, 19 (parts 1 and 2), 28, 30 (part 1), 71, 76 - but not on art. 29 (parts 2, 3, 4, 5), 50 (part 2) and others - the Constitutional Court, based on the legislator's recognized right to regulate the civil status of religious associations, not to grant them this status automatically, not to legalize sects who violate human rights and commit illegal and criminal acts, as well as hinder missionary activities, including in connection with the problem of proselytism.

The constitutionality of these measures against missionary activity and proselytism is highly questionable.

In the Definition of April 13, 2000 N 46-O (VKS. 2000. N 4. S. 58-64). The Constitutional Court recognized that the provisions of the Federal Law of 1997 N 125-FZ appealed by the RRRJ do not violate the rights of the RRRJ, as follows from the aforementioned Decree of 1999. But Judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation L.M. Zharkova delivered a dissenting opinion on this 1999 Determination, making a convincing, in our opinion, conclusion that the contested provisions of the 1997 Law are discriminatory, restrict freedom of religion, violate the constitutional principles of equality of citizens and religious organizations before the law, equality of rights citizens and the proportionality of the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms to constitutionally significant goals and, thus, do not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its Art. 14 (part 2), 19 (parts 1 and 2), 28 and 55 (part 3) and others (VKS. 1999. No. 6. S. 33-36).

In addition, provided for in Art. 14 and 28 of the Constitution (see comments to Article 28) the right of everyone in a secular state to profess any religion or not to profess any religion, to freely choose religious and other beliefs, to have and disseminate them, etc. associated with the establishment in Part 4 of Art. 29 of the Constitution of Russia the right to freely have, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information in any legal way, in this case about any religions. After all, free choice between any religious and non-religious beliefs, programs, etc. is impossible without complete and free information about them. Therefore, restrictions on this freedom raise serious doubts and objections, of course, not related to criminal calls and actions, only disguised as the spread of certain beliefs.

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

• Up