The Russian Federation is a secular state. What does it mean: “The church is separated from the state The church is separated from the state constitution article 14

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

• In all secular public schools... the teaching of the Law of God... is obligatory both in 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 a secular nature 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, the decrees big cities especially not 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. Russian Federation- 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.

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 N 18-P dated 12/15/2004.

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. bodies of public (political) power, have no right to interfere in the legitimate activities of religious associations, to entrust them with the performance of the functions of bodies state power and local governments; religious associations, in turn, have no right to interfere in the affairs of the state, participate in the formation and perform the functions of state authorities and local self-government bodies, 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 agitation and public support of certain political parties or individual candidates. This does not prevent adherents of a particular religion, including clergymen, from participating in the expression of popular will by voting on an equal basis with other citizens. Supporters of a particular religion have the freedom to choose and express their political beliefs and political interests, make decisions and carry 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-partisan and non-political, while a party, by virtue of its political nature, cannot be a religious organization, it is supra-confessional, non-confessional...

The Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes 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 various nationalities and religions, united by a common destiny and preserving the historically established state unity, the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Preamble) took place.

Therefore, 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 (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, it goes far beyond the confessional framework and denotes belonging to the European system of values ​​and culture), cannot be automatically applied to the Russian Federation...

On 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 a national or religious basis would inevitably be oriented towards upholding the rights of the corresponding national (ethnic) or religious groups. The competition of parties formed along national or religious lines, which is especially acute in the pre-election struggle for voters, can lead, instead of consolidating society, to stratification of the multinational people of Russia, opposing ethnic and religious values, exalting some and belittling others, and ultimately - to giving dominant value not to national values, but to any ethnic ideology or religion, which would be contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its

The Russian Federation is a secular state

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

The secular state presupposes the absence of any ecclesiastical authority over the organs of the state; inadmissibility of performance by the church, its hierarchs of any state functions; the absence of a mandatory religion for civil servants; non-recognition by the state of the legal significance of church acts and religious rules as sources of law binding on anyone; refusal of the state to finance the expenses of any church or religious organization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary on Art. 14 KRF

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

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

The secular 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. These are, for example, Anglican Church in England, Presbyterian - in Scotland, both headed by the monarch of Great Britain, Catholic - in Italy, Evangelical - in the Scandinavian countries, Muslim - in Egypt, Jewish - 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. 7 and 8 of its Constitution, the state and Catholic Church independent and sovereign in their respective spheres, and their relations are governed by the Lateran Accords. 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 a state character of the Orthodox religion, and inequality religious beliefs and churches, and persecution on religious grounds (even of Christian sects, Old Believers, Molokans or other heresies, etc.), and persecution of all churches, enormous in scope, terror against the clergy and believers during the communist "militant atheism", and the use by the authorities of the church and religion 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- with another. 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 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 Articles 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 the 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. interrelated articles 13 (part 4), 14, 15 (part 4), 17, 19 (parts 1 and 2), 28, 30 (part 1), 71, 76 - but not on article 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 legal status of religious associations not to grant them this status automatically, not to legalize sects that violate human rights and commit illegal and criminal acts, as well as to 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

the federal law

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

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

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

State

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