vlad.tribnet.com / Issue #155 / Opinion / Reading article...

I previously submitted a brief statement concerning the ironically named new religious law "On Freedom of Conscious and On Religious Associations." At that time, I said, "I guess it just goes to show you can take the boys out of communism, but you can’t take communism out of the boys." Now that I have stirred up the hornets’ nest so to speak, I should like to offer commentary on the words I wrote and their relation to the new law.

The new religious law has been widely promoted by its backers as a way to combat violence in Russia. Typical of such comments is the statement issued by Metropolitan Kirill, head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Kirill indicated that if it becomes clear that "new" religious groups "do not put bombs in public palaces, do not kidnap children from their parents and do not break up families, then they will have the right to be registered legally." While dining at a friend’s apartment in St. Petersburg this past summer, I watched a television broadcast that promoted this exact image for a well-known religion in North America and western Europe. Certainly the average Russian would not have ever had any contact with this particular faith, and would not be in any position to make an independent judgment. Indeed, it made for a very interesting evening of conversation with my friend. Though not a member of that faith, it appeared to me the television program was totally misleading in every aspect of any importance.

While supposedly implemented to prevent totalitarian sects from ravaging the nation, I believe this is a very disingenuous position. Russia already has in place laws against bombing, kidnapping, and abandonment of dependents. Rather, the new law has every appearance of simply being a crude attempt at eliminating religious competitors. "Foreign cults" are promoted as a destabilizing enemy in a xenophobic way, thereby giving the law a populist appeal. However, it is in fact the various branches of Orthodoxy that are bearing the brunt of repression under this new law. The first victims to be legally shut down under the new law were several congregations of splinter Russian Orthodox groups not loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate, quickly followed by several Ukrainian Orthodox congregations. The biggest potential loser is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with several hundred congregations in Russia.

Preserving civil liberties is one of the most important duties any government can perform for its citizens. Especially important is that minorities also be protected to the same degree as the majority. While average citizens cannot reasonably be expected to be well-informed on all issues, the Duma deputies are paid legislators. It is their job to be well informed on every piece of legislation they pass, and to protect ALL Russia’s citizens. The law, which uses Council of Religious Affairs as a starting point for judging all religions, is a disgrace. Russian citizens belonging to religions not registered under the Soviet regime, and there were plenty that were denied registration by the Council of Religious Affairs, are now faced with having their church property confiscated, and having no rights to publicly congregate, publish or preach. The author of a letter written in rebuttal to my "communist" comment noted that Russia has a history of state involvement into religion preceding the Soviet regime. Indeed, I should like to add that state involvement with religion is generally true of almost every society for the entire recorded history of mankind. Nevertheless, the new law takes its inspiration and form directly from Russia’s more recent attempts at religious repression under the Soviets, not the distant past.

As brevity is the soul of wit, my first comment was necessarily open to wide interpretation by virtue of its terseness. Specifically, I was referring to the legislators and those who worked to pass the law. If there was anyone who opposed to the new law and felt my communist comparison unfairly included them, I apologize to you. If there was anyone who supported the law, and the sting of my words caused a rethinking of positions, I applaud you. And for those who still think the law is a good idea, well, it’s like I said the first time.

Scott Gore
Newark, Delaware
U.S.A.