Separation of church and state in Russia (1917-1993)

The separation of church and state in Soviet Russia was ideologically based on the Marxist understanding of freedom of conscience, which implied the elimination of political, economic and other ties between the state and the church and the abolition of church ideology as such. Formally, during this period (since 1917), freedom of conscience was proclaimed in the country and the policy of separation of church and state was pursued, but the secularism of the state was not enshrined in any of the constitutions of the Soviet period. In reality, Russia is turning into a state with a dominant atheistic ideology.

As is known, before the Russian revolution Orthodox Church was state-owned. Since the time of Peter I, the church was almost completely subordinated to royal power. Conducting church reform, Peter I abolished the patriarchal rank and replaced it with the Holy Synod. From this time on, “the state controlled the church, and the emperor was legally considered its head. At the head of the highest church body - the Holy Synod - was a secular official - the chief prosecutor... The Church actually lost the possibility of an independent voice. In government affairs and in the life of society, becoming a department for the spiritual part among other government departments, she and her servants merged in the popular consciousness with representatives of the authorities and thus became responsible for all the actions of this government,” S. Yu rightly states . Naumov.

So, until 1917, Russia was a country with a state religion, which led to a crisis in the Russian Orthodox Church itself, which had the opportunity to use police methods of conversion to the Orthodox faith (in 1901, at St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings, Prince S. Volkonsky expressed the following idea : “If church leaders and clergy do not understand the need for separation of church and state, then this only proves the internal weakness of the church, which is forced to cling to outside help and resort to foreign measures in order to replace the impotence of its fading authority”). Until 1917, non-believers found themselves in an unprotected position in Russia, since the passport indicated mandatory to indicate their affiliation with a particular religion, the activities of representatives of religions other than the Orthodox were often prohibited.

The identification of state power and the Russian Orthodox Church in the minds of the people helped the Bolsheviks after the revolution, along with terror, pursue a policy of splitting the Russian Orthodox Church and undermine faith in its teachings. With the loss of people's faith in the tsar, the church immediately lost its former authority, and with his death it found itself beheaded. At the same time, millions of Orthodox believers remained in Russia after the revolution (according to official data - 117 million), many of whom did not turn away from the Russian Orthodox Church and supported it. This fact confirms the assertion that the church is not only clergy, but also numerous lay people. The Bolsheviks had difficult work ahead of them in introducing atheistic ideology, but since they used any means, including mass repression, to achieve their goal (maintaining power), they were largely successful.

The process of separation of church and state in Soviet Russia took place in a unique way. First of all, the clergy themselves made an attempt to reform the church. At the All-Russian Local Church Council, held from June 1917 to September 1918, the Russian Orthodox Church attempted to restore its independent infrastructure. At the Council, a Patriarch was elected, who became Metropolitan Tikhon (Vasily Belavin), the statutes of the cathedral structure of the entire church were adopted - from the patriarch to monasteries and self-governing parishes, with broad initiative from below and an elective principle provided at all levels. The main obstacle that stopped the activities of the Council and made it impossible to implement its decisions was the anti-religious policy of the Soviet state. The first steps in politics were V.I. Lenin on the liquidation of the Russian Orthodox Church and the separation of church and state became the famous Decree on Land of November 8, 1917 and a number of others (for example, the Decree on Land Committees), according to which all Orthodox clergy were deprived of ownership of land, including all church , appanage and monastic. On December 11 (24) a Decree was adopted on the transfer of all church schools to the Commissariat of Education, and on December 18 (31) it was officially canceled church marriage and civilian is introduced. On January 12, 1918, the People's Commissariat for Maritime Affairs adopted the Decree on the democratization of the fleet. It stated that all sailors were free to express and practice their religious views. The decree of December 11, 1917 “On the transfer of the affairs of upbringing and education from the ecclesiastical department to the jurisdiction of the Commissariat for Public Education” transferred to the People's Commissariat of Education not only parochial schools, but also theological academies, seminaries, and colleges with all their property. Thus, the ground was prepared for the adoption of the main decree in the field of state-church relations of that time.

The most important legal act in this area was the Decree of January 20, 1918 on the separation of church from state and school from church4 (the theses of this Decree were published already in January 1918), according to which the Russian Orthodox Church was separated from states. Local authorities could not issue any laws or regulations in this area (limiting or giving privileges to any religion). Paragraph 3 of the Decree established the right to freedom of conscience; it stated that “every citizen can profess any religion or not profess any. All legal deprivations associated with the confession of any faith or non-profession of any faith are abolished.” From this moment on, there was no need to indicate religious affiliation in official acts (previously it was mandatory to indicate religion, for example, in a passport). At the same time, the Decree deprived the church of all property, movable and immovable, and the right to own it, in addition, the church was deprived of the rights of a legal entity. All government subsidies were stopped for church and religious organizations. The church could obtain the buildings necessary for worship only on the terms of “free use” and with the permission of the authorities. In addition, the teaching of religious doctrines was prohibited in all state, public and private educational institutions (clause 9, the school is separated from the church). From now on, citizens could only study religion privately.

The decree of 1918 itself proclaimed the secular nature of the new state and established freedom of conscience. But depriving the church of the status of a legal entity, confiscation of property, real actions Soviet power and further legislative acts indicated that an atheistic state was being built in the country, where there was no place for any faith other than faith in socialist ideals. In pursuance of the said Decree, by decision of the Council of People's Commissars of May 9, 1918, a special department of the People's Commissariat of Justice was created headed by P.A. Krasikov. After the adoption of the Decree, about six thousand churches and monasteries were confiscated from the church and all bank accounts of religious associations were closed.

In the first years of the struggle against the church, the Soviet government, following the teachings of K. Marx about religion as a superstructure of the material basis, tried to take away its material base. Only the help of true believers to the clergy, classified by the Soviet authorities as dispossessed, helped many to avoid starvation. “When by 1921 it became clear that the Church was not going to die out, measures of direct centralized persecution began to be applied.”

It is known that the drought of 1920-1921 led to unprecedented famine throughout the country. In August 1921, Patriarch Tikhon appealed to the heads of the Christian churches outside of Russia. The All-Russian Church Committee for Famine Relief was created, and donations began to be collected.

The Soviet government, under the pretext of helping the starving, is launching a broad anti-religious campaign. Thus, by order of the Government, the All-Russian Church Committee for Famine Relief was closed, and the collected funds were transferred to the Government Committee for Famine Relief (Pomgol). On February 23, 1922, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Decree “On the confiscation of church valuables and bells” was adopted. The Soviet government recognizes this Decree as necessary due to the difficult situation in the starving areas. The true reasons were guessed by Patriarch Tikhon, who noted among them the desire to compromise the church in the eyes of the masses. This is confirmed by Lenin’s “strictly secret” letter to Molotov dated March 19, 1922 regarding the events in Shuya. Here are some characteristic excerpts from it: “For us, it is this moment represents not only an extremely favorable, but generally the only moment when we can have a 99th out of 100 chance of counting on complete success, completely defeating the enemy and securing the positions we need for many decades. It is now and only now... we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with the most furious and merciless energy and without stopping by suppressing any resistance... Than larger number If we manage to shoot representatives of the reactionary clergy and the reactionary bourgeoisie on this occasion, so much the better.” The content of this letter shows the true attitude of V.I. Lenin to the starving. It is clear that he tried to use the distress of the people to further eliminate the church as an institution.

Legislation in 1922 became increasingly stricter. The decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of July 12, 1922 (Article 477), the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of August 3, 1922 (Article 622), and the instruction of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of August 10, 1922 (Article 623) introduced the principle of mandatory registration of any companies , unions and associations (including religious communities) in the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs and its local bodies, which now had the unconditional right to permit or prohibit the existence of such communities. When registering, it was mandatory to provide complete information (including party affiliation) about each member of the community, the charter of the society and a number of other documents. Provision was made for refusal of registration if the registered society or union, in its goals or methods of activity, contradicts the Constitution and its laws. This understandable article in fact left a lot of scope for the arbitrariness of the authorities. The “permissive” principle will become the basis of all subsequent Soviet legislation in this area.

In 1923-1925. the legal basis for existence continued to be formalized religious associations. Thus, on February 26, 1924, the Politburo approved instructions on the registration of Orthodox religious societies. On March 21, 1924, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a resolution “On the termination of the case on charges of gr. Belavina V.I.” . Once free, Patriarch Tikhon begins the fight for the legalization of the central government bodies of the Russian Orthodox Church. He ensures that on May 21, 1924, People's Commissar of Justice D.I. Kursky, having read the statement of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, agreed with the demands of the patriarch. On the same day, the Patriarch, meeting with the Synod in the Donskoy Monastery, decided to formalize the formation Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council and listed the personal composition of both bodies.

Thus, at this stage, the long struggle of the patriarch for the legalization of the Russian Orthodox Church, its governing bodies, its hierarchy, outlawed by the Moscow tribunal in the verdict of May 5, 1922, ended.

During the same period, Catholic communities were also legalized, since the Soviet government had certain hopes for the Vatican’s help in the international arena. On December 11, 1924, the Politburo approved two main legal documents legalizing Catholic organizations: the Statute of the Catholic Doctrine in the USSR and the Basic Provisions on the Catholic Doctrine in the USSR. According to these documents, the Vatican retained the right to appoint clergy, but with the permission of the NKID for each candidate. The Soviet government retained the right of withdrawal, including for political reasons. Any papal messages are distributed throughout the country only with the permission of the Soviet government. All relations between the highest Catholic hierarchs of the country and the Vatican go only through the NKID.

In general, in order to facilitate the task of destroying the Russian Orthodox Church, the authorities sought to secure something like an alliance with other faiths or ensure neutrality on their part. This is confirmed by the fact that some of them were given certain privileges. For example, in 1918 the Commissariat for Muslim Nations Affairs was created. Some denominations tried to turn the current situation to their advantage. Evangelicals and Catholics initially welcomed the consolidation of the separation of church and state, suggesting that nationalization would only affect the property of the Russian Orthodox Church. But in subsequent years, all faiths experienced severe repression and persecution.

Following acts that were quite beneficial for Muslims, such as, for example, the appeal of the Council of People's Commissars of Soviet Russia “To all working Muslims of Russia and the East” dated November 20, 1917, two years later quite harsh measures against Muslims followed. “In 1919, in Central Asia, waqf lands were confiscated, the proceeds from which were used for religious needs (zakat) and for charitable purposes (saadaka), mektebs (comprehensive schools for Muslims) were liquidated, in Eastern Bukhara, with the establishment of Soviet power, mosques were turned into institutions "

In the 1930s, many churches, many Protestant houses of worship were closed, Muslim mosques, then it was closed Buddhist datsan, the only one in Leningrad, created through the efforts of ethnic Buryats and Kalmyks in 1913. “Local people preferred to close the prayer building as quickly as possible, even if breaking the law, than to be accused of being loyal to a religion that was opposed to Soviet power.” The Soviet government did not need any of religious teachings, recognizing only Marxist ideology.

Only on April 8, 1929, at a meeting of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, a resolution “On Religious Associations” was adopted, which regulated the legal status of religious associations in the Soviet Union for 60 years. But this did not at all improve the situation of church organizations in the country. This decree limited the activities of associations to satisfying the religious needs of believers, and the scope of their activities - the walls of the prayer building, which was provided to them by the state (from then on, the priest could not perform ritual actions at home, in the cemetery and in in public places without special permission). “It legislated the exclusion of religious associations from all spheres of civil life and introduced a number of restrictions on the activities of religious societies (over 20 people) and groups of believers (less than 20 people).”

Despite the fact that the church, according to the Decree of April 8, 1929, did not receive the status of a legal entity, all religious associations operating at that time on the territory of the RSFSR were required to register. The registration procedure was very complicated and time-consuming. The decision on registration was given to the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which made it after considering the submissions of the Councils of Ministers of the autonomous republics, regional executive committees, and regional Councils of People's Deputies. In addition, local authorities had the right to refuse registration. If registration was refused, the parish was closed and the church building was taken away from the believers. However, despite the fact that the church was deprived of the status of a legal entity, the Decree “On Religious Associations” of 1929 granted them the following rights: the acquisition of vehicles, the right to lease, construction and purchase of buildings for their own needs (while taxing all these buildings with exorbitant taxes), the acquisition and production of church utensils, objects of religious worship, as well as their sale to societies of believers. From a legal point of view, such a situation is absurd, since an organization deprived of the rights of a legal entity by the state received from it the right to own and partially dispose of property.

In accordance with the adopted resolution, it was prohibited to hold general meetings of religious societies without permission from the authorities (Article 12); engage in charity (Article 17); convene religious congresses and meetings (Article 20). The teaching of any religious doctrines in institutions not specifically designed for this purpose was prohibited (Article 18). The situation with religious education in those years was deplorable, since almost all institutions specially designed for these purposes were closed. Believing parents, by mutual agreement, could themselves teach religion to children under the age of majority, but on the condition that this training did not take the form of a group, but was carried out with their children individually, without inviting teachers. Clergymen did not have the right, under threat of criminal punishment (Article 142 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR), to teach children religion.

Thus, the church was separated not only from the state, but also from the life of society as a whole, which negatively affected the development of many religious associations.

The only positive factor was the very fact of the adoption of this resolution, which replaced the contradictory circulars in force in this area.

The Constitution of 1936 enshrined the same wording that was adopted at the XIV All-Russian Congress of Soviets in May 1929. In Art. 124 of the 1936 USSR Constitution stated: “In order to ensure freedom of conscience for citizens, the church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda are recognized for all citizens.” This Constitution was less discriminatory towards clergy. The article that deprived the clergy of voting rights was excluded from it. In Art. 135 of the Constitution established that religion does not affect the voting rights of a citizen.

The 1977 USSR Constitution also proclaims the separation of state and church. Art. 52 of this Constitution for the first time defined freedom of conscience as the right to profess any religion or not to profess any, to worship religious cults or conduct atheistic propaganda. But this Constitution also prohibits religious propaganda. And for the first time, the Constitution of the USSR contains a new legal guarantee of freedom of conscience: the prohibition of inciting enmity and hatred in connection with religious beliefs. Freedom of conscience, enshrined in the main law of the country, as well as the principle of secularism and many other norms, were largely an empty formality that meant nothing to the authorities. Perhaps this is why the citizens of our country have forgotten how to respect and use its laws.

But the main changes occurred on September 4, 1943, after personal conversation J.V. Stalin with Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai. During this meeting, the following decisions were made: the decision to create a Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (which was supposed to communicate between the government and the patriarchy) and to appoint State Security Colonel G. G. Karpov to the post of its chairman, the decision to convene Local Council and the election of a patriarch who had not been elected for 18 years. I.V. Stalin also stated that from now on there will be no obstacles from the government to the Moscow Patriarchate publishing its magazine, opening religious educational institutions, Orthodox churches and candle factories.

So, in his policy towards the church I.V. Stalin made some concessions. But at the same time, it must be recognized that the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church was created for its total control; its representatives interfered in all internal affairs of the church. It is also characteristic that in the instructions of the Council on the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church for local representatives of the Council dated February 5, 1944, some provisions of the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of 1929 were duplicated. For example, “due to the fact that religious communities do not enjoy the rights of a legal entity, they are prohibited from any kind of production, trade, educational, medical and other activities.”

So, during the Great Patriotic War The position of the Russian Orthodox Church was significantly strengthened, the number of churches increased, the opportunity arose to train new cadres of clergy, its material well-being was improved, and the church was restored as an institution. And yet it was under strict government control.

At the end of the 1950s, a new period of struggle against religious organizations began in the country. “During these years, the Russian Orthodox Church again lost half of the churches, monasteries, and theological seminaries returned to it. The registration of a significant part of religious communities of other faiths was cancelled. Regulatory acts were adopted that undermine the economic basis of the activities of religious organizations: resolutions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated October 16, 1958 “On monasteries in the USSR”, dated November 6, 1958 “On taxation of income of monasteries”, dated October 16, 1958 “On tax taxation of income of enterprises of diocesan administrations, as well as income of monasteries" and others."

In March 1961, by decree of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Council for Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, new instructions were established for the application of legislation on cults. However, the tightened law enforcement practice in relation to religious associations during Khrushchev’s rule did not prevent a certain intensification religious life society.

Some stabilization of relations between the state and religious associations occurred in the 1970s. In July 1975, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR “On introducing amendments and additions to the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR dated April 8, 1929 “On religious associations” was adopted.” Having lifted some financial restrictions, this document also granted religious organizations the following rights: the right to purchase vehicles, the right to rent, construct and purchase buildings for their needs, the right to produce and sell church utensils and religious objects. Thus, the state took another step for religious organizations to obtain the rights of a legal entity, but this was not enshrined in law. Therefore, introducing such changes to the regulations as a whole did not change the anti-church essence of state policy.

The 1977 Constitution changed little. In fact, it only replaced the term “anti-religious propaganda” with the more euphonious “atheistic propaganda.” At this time, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR “On the separation of church from state and school from church” continues to operate unchanged. Real change only began to occur in the mid-1980s. In a legal sense, everything changed with the adoption of two new laws in 1990.

In 1990, the Committee on Freedom of Conscience, Religion and Charity was formed, which was part of the newly elected Supreme Council of the RSFSR, which was entrusted with control and administrative functions in relation to religious associations. It was this body that developed new legislation in the field of state-church relations. In connection with the creation of such a structure, by order of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR dated August 24, 1990, the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR was liquidated.

Already on October 1, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the USSR Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations,” and on October 25, 1990, the Supreme Council of the RSFSR adopted the Law “On Freedom of Religion.” In connection with the adoption of these laws, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of January 23, 1918 “On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church” and the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of April 8, 1929 “On religious associations” were declared invalid.

In fact, the adoption of these two laws served as the first step towards building a secular state in the Russian Federation, since they actually ensured freedom of conscience by removing discriminatory prohibitions and restrictions that offend any believer. The state reduced interference in religious activities to a minimum. The clergy were given equal civil rights with workers and employees of state and public institutions and organizations. And most importantly: religious associations finally received the full legal capacity of a legal entity, and it could be obtained as a result of a simplified procedure for registering a charter religious organization. The law secured full ownership rights for religious organizations, as well as the right to defend their rights in court. All rights of believers were now protected at the level of law, and not by-law. On the other hand, due to the fact that the institution of mandatory registration of a religious association was abolished, and notification of authorities about the creation of a religious organization was declared optional, a stream of pseudo-religious organizations, in modern terminology - totalitarian sects, posing a great threat to society, poured into the country. In general, these laws created normal conditions for the activities of religious organizations.

It is quite difficult to give an unambiguous assessment of the studied material, since the Soviet period until recently was viewed only from the positive side, and now exclusively negative assessments have prevailed. However, the fact is indisputable that the policy of the Soviet state was aimed at building an atheistic state. Confirmation of this is the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of January 23, 1918, adopted at the beginning of the Soviets' coming to power, which deprived religious societies of property and the rights of a legal entity. The first Soviet Constitution was discriminatory towards clergy, since it deprived them of voting rights, which were restored only by the Constitution of 1936. The Law of April 8, 1929 had many restrictions that at the very beginning suppressed the activities of religious organizations. The brutal repression and anti-religious propaganda aimed at eradicating faith in our country speak for themselves. They tried to separate the Church not only from the state, but also from the life of society, to put it on a reservation and wait for it to self-destruct.

In our opinion, the fact of separation of church and state was progressive in that period. The Russian Orthodox Church no longer interfered in state politics. Legal sources of the Soviet period clearly confirm the existence of a process of formation of a secular state. In legislation, starting from the very first Decree “On the separation of church from state and school from church,” the ideas of freedom of conscience were proclaimed. If the state had followed a democratic path of development, then perhaps it would have put these ideas into practice. But their enshrinement in legislation turned out to be only formal.

Legal acts of that time devoted to state-church relations were quite contradictory and of low quality. The very fact that four constitutions were adopted in a short period testifies to their imperfection, although this was largely due to the personal factor and the state policy that changed in connection with this.

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

Separately, but in collaboration

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

It is not difficult to notice that today church-state relations are completely different. They are determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the current law on freedom of conscience.

Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation declares the separation of religious associations from the state. This means that questions of doctrine, worship, internal management in the Church, in particular the ordination of priests and bishops, movement from parish to parish, from pulpit to pulpit, are beyond the competence of the state. The state does not regulate them, does not interfere in the affairs of the Church - and has no right to interfere.

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

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

– state budgetary financing of the activities of the Church, including payments wages clergy from budgetary funds;

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

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

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

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

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

In Europe, only two states define themselves as secular in their Constitution: France and Türkiye.

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

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

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

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

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

What about in other countries?

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

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

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

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

The provision on the secular nature of the French Republic was introduced into the constitution of this country after the Second World War. But earlier, in 1905, a law was passed on the separation of churches from the state (by the way, it served as an example for our Bolsheviks 13 years later; however, they deepened and developed the anti-clerical ideas of this French law). The 1905 law led to conflict with the Catholic Church. As a result of its subsequent settlement, it turned out that approximately 40 thousand Catholic cathedrals, churches, chapels built before 1905 became the property of local authorities (communes) or the state. At the same time, it cannot be assumed, as some believe, that these churches were nationalized. Nationalization took place during the revolution. But before the separation, Catholic parishes and dioceses were in the position of state religious organizations (taking into account the conditions of the Concordat concluded by Napoleon I with the Pope), and after the adoption of the Law of 1905, the Catholic Church refused to create non-state religious associations and accept church buildings into their ownership. They found themselves in the care of the state, but their legal status is different from that which arises during nationalization. Local authorities bear the burden of costs for the protection, repair, restoration, and maintenance of these 40 thousand objects, 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 not at all eager to change the situation.

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

France, despite its secularism, maintains military chaplains in the army, thereby ensuring freedom of religion for military personnel. Public schools do not teach the Law of God, but they do have a course on the basics of religious knowledge. At the same time, we must not forget that in France there is a very powerful system of non-state Catholic schools. They provide a very high level of education and are therefore very popular. So not all French children receive a secular, religiously neutral upbringing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as education is concerned, school in Germany is mainly public, and the study of religion is taught there without any denominational education.

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

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

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

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

There are fewer and fewer countries where religion has state status

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

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

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

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

the federal law

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

Power represents the possibility of some subjects public relations dictate your will and lead other subjects of social relations.

A law is a normative legal act adopted by a representative body of government on the most significant and pressing issues public life.

State

The state is a special form of organization of political power. The state as a special form of organization of political power is characterized by the presence of the following features: the presence of public power institutions (i.e., institutions of power located outside society, separated 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 resolve 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 legal scholars: 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.

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

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

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

— In Russia, no religion can be compulsory

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

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

The main difficulty in reading laws lies in the different understanding of the word “state” - on the one hand, as a political system of organizing society, and on the other, as society itself - the entire country as a whole.

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

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

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

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin

In Russia, the discussion on the topic of philosophy and principles of church-state relations has revived. This is partly due to the need to regulate the legislative and practical foundations of partnership between government, society and religious associations - a partnership for which the need is definitely increasing. Partly - and not to a lesser extent - the ongoing struggle of beliefs associated with the search for a new national ideology. Perhaps the center of the discussion was different interpretations the principle of separation of Church and state, enshrined in the Russian Constitution. Let's try to understand the existing opinions on this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well mannered and unchurched

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

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

Let's start with the definition of “secular.” In Ushakov’s dictionary, the word is defined in two meanings: as “well-educated” and as “unchurched.” We probably need a second definition. The Large Law Dictionary (LJD) defines “secular state” as “meaning the separation of church and state, the delimitation of the spheres of their activities.” From my side, encyclopedic Dictionary“Constitutional Law of Russia” defines a secular state as: “a state in which there is no official, state religion and none of the creeds is recognized as obligatory or preferable.” At the same time, the Law of the Russian Federation “On Freedom of Conscience” of September 19, 1997, in its preamble, recognizes “the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

In turn, the Charter of the CPSU (with additions of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU), in the section “Members of the CPSU, their duties and rights”, in paragraph d) states that a party member is obliged: “to wage a determined struggle against any manifestations of bourgeois ideology, against the remnants private psychology, religious prejudices and other relics of the past.” In the CPSU Program of October 31. 1961, in the section “In the field of education of communist consciousness,” paragraph e) also states that: “The Party uses means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of a scientific-materialist worldview, to overcome religious prejudices, without insulting the feelings of believers. It is necessary to systematically conduct broad scientific and atheistic propaganda, patiently explain the inconsistency religious beliefs that arose in the past due to the oppression of people by the spontaneous forces of nature and social oppression, due to ignorance of the true causes of natural and social phenomena. In this case, one should rely on the achievements modern science“, which’ reveals the picture of the world more and more fully, increases man’s power over nature and leaves no room for the fantastic inventions of religion about supernatural forces.”

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

This is precisely why the state separated the Church from itself in order to convince society to abandon religious prejudices and remnants of the past. It seemed to say - this is unnecessary, we don’t need this, that’s why we tore it away from ourselves, because we want to get rid of it from our lives.

In this context, the meaning of separation is clear and consistent. But let's get back to new Russia

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

Then why separate? It would be more logical to constitutionally declare cooperation between the state and religious organizations in the division of spheres of activity

. Which, by the way, is mentioned in the Big Legal Dictionary. For example, the recently adopted Program of the United Russia party says the following: “ Traditional religions

are the custodians of the wisdom and experience of generations necessary for understanding and solving current social problems. We proceed from such an understanding of a secular state, which means an organizational and functional distinction between the state and religious organizations, and turning to religion is voluntary. At the same time, we are convinced that society should have the opportunity to hear the voice of traditional faiths.” Those. it does not speak directly about separation, but about delimitation of functions

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

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

And then, one of the main tasks of civil society institutions is precisely to control the state, in the person of authorities at various levels, so that they do not get too naughty. And the task of religious organizations is to tell the authorities impartially if they begin to rule not according to their conscience. In turn, the state is obliged to intervene in the affairs of a religious organization if it surpasses itself in terms of totalitarianism. So it’s difficult to talk about mutual non-interference.

Then why can’t a state, being secular, be Orthodox? I don’t see any obstacles to this. If it itself states in its own Law that Orthodoxy played a special role in the formation and development of the spirituality and culture of Russia. Moreover, if Orthodoxy played this role historically, and then for almost the entire last century the party leading the state destroyed Orthodoxy itself and the fruits of its labors, isn’t it logical to turn to the Church again? With a request to help the young state in developing the spirituality and culture of young Russia, which, apparently, does not have any particularly fruitful ideas in this regard. And, on the contrary, which the Church has, taking into account the centuries-old experience of Russian Orthodoxy, the great spiritual heritage of patristic tradition, the spiritual culture of folk traditions.

Moreover, the state of modern Russian society from the perspective of cultural and spiritual health has long required prompt intervention. And, of course, it is necessary to begin with the moral guidance of young souls.

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

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

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

If we take the media space, which today, voluntarily or unknowingly, strictly follows the instructions of Langley experts on the disintegration of Russian society, then it is certainly not a state institution. This means that it can be under the direct guardianship of the Church, and I do not know of any other community today that would be in greater need of this.

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

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

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

How can this effort be created? For this it is necessary moral experience. This is why the union of the state and the Church is necessary. In order for the national body to have moral strength. We have no other teacher and never will have one other than the Orthodox faith and the mother of the Russian Orthodox Church. And if our state, in addition to economic experts, arms itself with such an assistant, you will see that the current rosy plans will seem like a trifle in comparison with the newly opened prospects.

THE FEDERAL LAW ON FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS

Article 4. State and religious associations

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

Article 5. Religious education

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

Cancer