Posted on 11/04/2009 2:21:16 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Moscow (AsiaNews) - The Russian Ministry for Justice has proposed amendments to the law on "Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations" that, if adopted, will introduce stronger restrictions on the activities of Evangelicals in the country. The community is on alert: If the proposal becomes law, among other things the evangelicals can no longer pray freely without a permit and people with a “criminal record” will not be allowed become members of their communities. The latter condition, which also concerns other religious groups because it would clear the path for state interference in the individual freedom of conscience.
The document that first appeared in mid-October at the Ministry for Justice - later reported by Gazeta.ru - contains, for the first time, a precise definition for "evangelical activities"; the text speaks of 'activities of a religious association aimed at spreading its confessional beliefs among people who are not members with the intent to attract these people to the association itself. "
The evangelical communities are known for their aggressive proselytizing in war zones and even at the risk of their own life. In Russia, on the other hand, the Orthodox Church has always been very careful to protect its sphere of influence, and opposed to all forms of proselytizing.
According to the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, only the leaders of evangelical organizations will have the right to preach. All the others (for the evangelicals every believer is also a priest, ed) will need a permit from the authorities. Even foreigners will be required to have written authorization to spread their teaching. The document prohibits preachers, both Russian and foreign, from leading prayers in churches and monasteries of other communities, offering material or social benefits to potential new recruits and the use the use of force, psychological pressure or manipulation of consciences.
If the amendments are adopted, in the declaration to register as a religious community, information about leaders must be provided to authorities. A fundamental requirement is the exclusion of persons from the community who are convicted of inciting religious or ethnic hatred and other crimes of extremist nature. "The problem is that you may not know the criminal background of all the faithful - says Deacon Andrei Kuraev, professor at the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy - nor on the other hand can you close the door on him." "In this way - complains Kuraev - the state will decide who is entitled or not to belong to a religious organization".
Penalties for any offenders are mostly financial: those who involve children in religious activities without parental consent, must pay a fine of between 2 and 5 thousand rubles. Evangelical worship without authorization will cost up to 7 thousand rubles. Those who, despite a criminal conviction for extremism, continue to preach will be fined from 7 to 10 thousand rubles. Those who allow evangelical activities to take place in the churches of other communities, hospitals or government buildings will be sanctioned with fines of up to 15 thousand rubles.
Ping to read later
Well, if Russia doesn’t work out the Evangelicals can try going to the Vatican and warning the Pope of his wayward ways.
What part of freedom of speach and religion do these people not understand?
The communist controlled Moscow Patriarchate also uses laws like this - and plain thuggery - on Orthodox Christians who don’t accept the government/KGB/FSB-run hierarchy.
Don’t expect any less, but the Persecution of the Church only makes’ their faith stronger, and builds it!
They don’t understand the same part here in the US which prohibits free exercise of religion in public schools.
“What part of freedom of speach and religion do these people not understand?”
Why should an Orthodox Christian country allow the preaching of heresy? Is there a reason to allow the preaching of other than the Christianity of The Church, Judaism or Islam in a country like Russia? If so, why? To the extent that Russians are already Christians, of the Orthodox or Roman or Oriental Orthodox churches, why should these “evangelicals” be allowed to sow confusion among the people and preach some new gospel unknown to The Church?
The “evangelicals” would do better to try to convert the heathen, like here in America or Western Europe or the Mohammedan countries.
***What part of freedom of speach and religion do these people not understand?***
Why do you think that Russia wants to allow many of the things that are failing the US into it’s own lands? There is no freedom of speech and religion, as practiced by the ACLU in Russia.
***Why should an Orthodox Christian country allow the preaching of heresy?***
Because the children of the Reformation want it. And they know better since Christianity is a recent invention, yet suppressed for 1500 years.
***Is there a reason to allow the preaching of other than the Christianity of The Church, Judaism or Islam in a country like Russia? ***
The Amelia Earharts of the Evangelistic movement need foreign shores to fuel their dreams.
***To the extent that Russians are already Christians, of the Orthodox or Roman or Oriental Orthodox churches, why should these “evangelicals” be allowed to sow confusion among the people and preach some new gospel unknown to The Church?***
See comment #1.
***The “evangelicals” would do better to try to convert the heathen, like here in America or Western Europe or the Mohammedan countries.***
The Orthodox are not quite as handy with their swords as are the Muslims.
Freedom of speach includes the right to preach heresy. If the Orthodox don’t want to listen to Protestant preachers, they don’t have to. They of all people should value freedom of speach and religion, given that the Communists who ran Russian until recently thought of Orthodoxy and all religion as heresy from Communist dogma.
You are right. They also don't have to allow them to preach heretical nonsense at all.
“They of all people should value freedom of speech and religion, given that the Communists who ran Russian until recently thought of Orthodoxy and all religion as heresy from Communist dogma.”
That doesn't follow, US. Russia is not a state founded on Enlightenment philosophy nor rooted in the theology or sociology of the Reformation. Russia's social and theological roots are found in the Eastern Roman Empire. restricting heresy in such a culture isn't even remotely unusual. As for the Communists, well, they were an aberration following a distinctly western philosophy.
Because, if they don't, they would become evangelicals.
***That doesn’t follow, US. Russia is not a state founded on Enlightenment philosophy nor rooted in the theology or sociology of the Reformation. Russia’s social and theological roots are found in the Eastern Roman Empire. restricting heresy in such a culture isn’t even remotely unusual. As for the Communists, well, they were an aberration following a distinctly western philosophy.***
The West doesn’t really believe this; they think of Communism as an Oriental thing. The dissociation between Communism and Marx / Engels is immense. They may know about the individuals, but do not think of them as Western.
So much for the universal applicability of human rights. Why shouldn’t Russians enjoy freedom of speech and religion as much as anyone else? Not everything about the Enlightenment was bad. Even if there is an established religion, people have the right to freedom of conscience, speech and religion, and to be free of coercion in matters of religion. And why can’t truth in religion confidently stand on its own two feet without relying on the government to shut up any dissenting voices? It hasn’t worked well in the West. Frankly, I think the Catholic Church is much better off without a state that suppresses opposing voices. And Communism has never been a western ideology in practice. It is only in the East that it was ever put into practice, to brutal effect.
***And Communism has never been a western ideology in practice. It is only in the East that it was ever put into practice, to brutal effect.***
Disagree.
It was put into effect in the Agriculture Department during the 1930s. As well as the infrastructure efforts.
The entire Agricultural policy since then, Social Security, and every welfare program is a direct result of Communist policy. Every government program that is not expressly stated in the Constitution has come out of Communist influence. I would posit that every gun victim in the large cities of the US are direct victims of Communism; simply because of the inability to protect themselves, due to Communist direction of the loss of gun rights.
“So much for the universal applicability of human rights.”
Right. I think that saying that our conception of “human rights”, whatever that is these days (does it include “gay marriage”?, is universally applicable is demonstrable nonsense. Ever been to a place that might as well be Jupiter for all the resemblance it has to here? The world is full of those places, US.
“Why shouldn’t Russians enjoy freedom of speech and religion as much as anyone else?”
When and if Russians decide they want to run their society with those concepts, they should. Right now, it looks like they prefer another system.
“And why can’t truth in religion confidently stand on its own two feet without relying on the government to shut up any dissenting voices?”
That’s not the issue in Russia, or so I am told. What is happening is an assault by evangelical Americans and some Western Europeans on Russian society and culture, which is distinctly Orthodox. These people bring a foreign culture with them that the Russians don’t want. Can Orthodoxy, or Judaism or Islam survive the assault of a bunch of blow dried bible thumpers? Of course they can. They survived 70 years of genocidal communism. That, however, is no reason to allow an assault on Russia culture by Western outsiders preaching distinctly western ideas.
“And Communism has never been a western ideology in practice.”
Its all through Western Europe and has been for many years, even in countries like Greece which had a very unfortunate history with communism. To this day communist parties contest parliamentary seats throughout much of Europe.
“It is only in the East that it was ever put into practice, to brutal effect.”
True. Though that may be more due to the power of American arms than anything else.
I believe Russia is a member of the United Nations Charter and the the various UN human rights covenants, so I don't buy it that Russia has not signed onto basic human rights. And also, just because people are now trying to create false rights to gay marriage, therefore freedom of speech and religion have NO value? That doesn't follow at all. There are minorities all around the world, including in Russia, and they have a right to freedom of speech and religion that the majority should not be allowed to infringe. And if the Russians don't want to hear Evangelists, then the DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THEM! You sound like those French that complain about American "cultural imperialism" in movies. No one is holding a a gun to any Frenchman's head to see an American movie, and if there were no market for them, they wouldn't be shown in France. Same with Evangelists in Russia -- if there were no market for what they have to say, then no one would listen. And what about Russian Protestants, of which there are some. Are they to have no civil liberties or rights? I find it very arrogant and unChristian not to allow freedom of religion and speech to fellow Christians. Protestants are heretics, to be sure, but not all they preach is heresy and their love of Christ and knowledge of Scripture sometimes puts Catholics and others to shame. And if they want to start in on the "Whore of Babylon" and the like, the solution is argue against them with apologetics, not to have the state shut them up.
Rights are given man by God--as is stated explicitly in the Declaration of Independence. So I'm curious as to where God gave anyone the right to teach heresy.
I don’t think either Jefferson or Madison would have believed that the freedom of speech and religion in the First Amendment do not include a civil right to preach heresy.
US, it seems to me that the Russians have a right to be left alone with their religious beliefs, no matter what the UN Declaration of Human Rights says. Soon enough the UN will be telling us its a hate crime to show disdain for Mohammedanism.
“You sound like those French that complain about American “cultural imperialism” in movies. No one is holding a a gun to any Frenchman’s head to see an American movie, and if there were no market for them, they wouldn’t be shown in France. Same with Evangelists in Russia — if there were no market for what they have to say, then no one would listen.”
Such a materialistic analogy, US. There’s a “market” for kiddie porn; that doesn’t mean that we don’t have any right to restrict it...even here.
“I find it very arrogant and unChristian not to allow freedom of religion and speech to fellow Christians.”
Why? Should heretical preaching be allowed, should the cleverly baited hook be allowed to snag the unwary or the innocent in the interests of some 18th century secular Western political philosophy. In a place like the 1st world West, where “God is (all but) dead”, even heretical preaching from ecclesial Christian groups is better than the poisonous worldview the “world” teaches. But in a country whose identity is defined by its Orthodox/Byzantine culture, there is no need of it, or at least no reason to insist on its tolerance.
Claud, btw, poses and interesting question. How does one have a God given right to preach heresy?
What next? Will you be telling us that Russia is "majority" Christian? How many are members of the various Orthodox congregations? Less than 10%? Less than 5%?
So all, others than those who you identify with, whom you approve of, should be shut out by the powers of the State?
I welcome you to get out of my nation.
It's obvious you don't know a whit about this nation, and how and why it arose. You are unworthy to be in America. Leave for your "distinctly orthodox" paradise of pure religious faith you are wishing to protect.
You blaspheme the underlying principals of this State.
Go ahead. Hit the abuse button. All I've done, is turn your own medicine back upon you. Only more *honestly* and directly than you have been doing, in the games you've been playing here, for the last months on the religion forum pages of FreeRepublic.
The freedom of religion can be in conflict with national welfare and in the case of Russia it probably is. Russia is a country that is still sick, after near a century of brutal dehumanizing militant atheism. While the Orthodox Church in Russia is growing, my estomate is that over half of the population has no faith at all or have atheistic beliefs. Of those who are Christian many had no religious education whatsoever.
The country is poor by Western standards, the atmosphere of defeat can be felt everywhere. People drink heavily, work is scarce and unsatisfying, addiction to public sin such as gambling and promiscuity is rampant. Marriage as an institution is falling apart; those who against all odds are married cannot afford children.
Massive amounts of Russian citizens come from culturally Muslim background but are not practicing any religion. The last thing that country needs is those people developing an interest in Islam.
Protestant religion, when presented by happy, mentally well-adjusted, upbeat American preachers presents a challenge on an elemental level rather than on a theological level. It will be seen in Russia as another component of prosperity and modernity, along with denim jeans, rock’n’roll, and Hollywood glamor. It is like giving candy to hungry children instead of bread and milk.
A luckier society that has a robust well formed faith, like the Orthodox countires of the Balkans could probably shake anti-Orthodox propaganda off. A society with a solid tradition of freedom of speech, such as the US, will be prepared to debate and win. Russia is neither; it is a country that barely survived a cultural death. I think, freedom of religion is a luxury they cannot afford.
Let us not forget that the Catholic principle here is “obey your bishop”, and related to that is that the religion of the monarch dictates the religion of the populace. A mix of religions and an open debate is a fun thing, but it is not the only model, and is certainly not the one easiest to keep going.
The nation in question is Russia, not the US.
Wow.
I have never encountered this level of naked hostility from any of the Orthodox before. Nasty.
Sadly, your characterization of the Russians (and others in the former Soviet republics) as “...already Christians, of the Orthodox or Roman or Oriental Orthodox churches..” is quite ill informed. Soviet inspired atheist indoctrination has left its mark. Most of the people are like the sad shell people in Europe and increasingly in American cities and suburbs. Few are militant atheists, but the obvious majority in the urban centers are materialists and skeptics, with scant hope for this life and none for the next.
There is, thank God, a significant reawakening going on there, with increased interest in the faith and restoration of the churches and monasteries, etc. Proportionate to the whole population though, believers amongst the former Soviets are far fewer than in America. I can’t say with regard to Europe - probably comparable.
I’m certainly glad you are not on the Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience is fundamental to the foundation of this country. Society is NOT the same thing as the Church. People have liberty of conscience — all people everywhere, even people in Russia who are not of the majority religion. This is fundamental. And given the growing militant atheism in the West and the devastation of all religion under Communism, which was not a brief aberration but a totalitarian tyranny of more than seven decades, all religious believers should be particularly careful about using the state to infringe freedom of speech and religion. I can’t believe the totalitarian sentiments being expressed here at “free republic”? Did the struggle of freedom against Communism for nothing? Have you ever even read the American founding documents? I just find the contempt with which freedom of speech and religion is treated here to be beyond belief. Human rights is not only applicable to western countries. Having lived in China, I can state full well that the non-universality of human rights is an excuse used by totalitarian regimes to stifle the liberty of their subjects.
By your reasoning, it is perfectly acceptable for Saudi Arabia to outlaw Christianity and impose Shariah law. It's up to their government, after all. Who are we to argue for freedom of religion and impose our "enlightenment" ideals of freedom?
With specific application to Russia, and other formerly Leninist states, I pretty much agree with your summaries in post 23.
There was a very real concern with “pass the hat” style “evangelical” shakedowns as well, for the economic chaos and imbalances a Swaggart/Baker/Crystal Cathedral/Roberts media blitz could create.
I found I could discuss my faith freely (Baptist) with various Russian government and clerical people. This was incidental to conversation however, not proselytizing or lecturing.
Wonderful people with a rich tradition, in very difficult circumstances. I was last there 14 years ago.
“I welcome you to get out of my nation. “
What? Whose nation? You think this is “YOUR” nation?
“It’s obvious you don’t know a whit about this nation, and how and why it arose. You are unworthy to be in America. Leave for your “distinctly orthodox” paradise of pure religious faith you are wishing to protect.
You blaspheme the underlying principals of this State.”
I’m a member of the SAR. Are you? My first ancestor came to this country in 1623, to Cape Ann in Massachusetts. How about yours? Members of my family have fought in every war and “police action” this country has been in except Korea. How about yours? My family and families like it gave you and other provincial loudmouths like you this country.
“Go ahead. Hit the abuse button.”
You didn’t think I’d do that did you? Seriously.
I’ll tell you what, when you can discuss religion and theology and not fall into a sort of pathetic and aggressive yahooism, come on back. We’ll talk.
“Who are we to argue for freedom of religion and impose our “enlightenment” ideals of freedom?”
Do you think we should “impose” our ideals on the Saudis? I don’t. I also don’t think we should subsidize them, but that’s a different matter entirely.
Who also have a long history of being torn between east and west culturally, delusions of becoming a world power through conquest of their neighbors, and a slavish devotion to authoritarian government.
The world would be better off with a weak Russia. As they depopulate, maybe the Chinese can saw off half the country.
I wish them well. Russia has created far less mischief for us than western Europe, and cost us far less.
I am sickened to see the resurgence toward a quasi-Soviet state.
When the Russian people threw off the communist yoke, and Yeltsin approached us for a fresh start, the Gorbachev supporting G.H.W. Bush treated him as shabbily as BHO treats the United Kingdom. It went downhill from there.
The lost opportunity of a century.
But then . . . there is my tagline.
Democracy and human rights are not an “imposition”. They are about allowing people and individuals to speak and believe as they wish. Liberation is not an imposition. You spout the same ludicrous talk that Democrats do who think it just the worst thing possible to allow democracy to be set up in Iraq. I certainly would hope that freedom would sprout in Saudi Arabia, and would welcome them to have the freedom to convert to Christianity, whether it be Catholicism, Protestantism, or, yes, maybe even Orthodoxy, without fear about being put to death for apostasy.
Western Europe never practiced expansionist militarism in the recent past.
I wish my ancestral enemies something that rhymes with "well."
“I’m certainly glad you are not on the Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment.”
US, what does my opinion about freedom of speech or religion in Russia have to do with the same rights here?
“Society is NOT the same thing as the Church.”
Many societies and cultures are defined by the Church. It is in the churches that the culture is preserved. US, that was true in this country, in broad sweeps, until maybe 60 years ago. Its still true in many countries, even in Europe.
“Did the struggle of freedom against Communism for nothing?”
You ask a Greek that? More people died in the Greek civil war with the communists than in WWII. The atrocities of the communists exceeded anything the Nazis did. US, they smashed the heads of babies on the rocks in the town square of my maternal village. The daughter of one of my cousins, 5 months old, was killed that way. US, look at my about page. I know “a little bit” about what they did, and to a lesser extent still are, in Indochina. I don;t need you to remind me about communists and communism.
“Have you ever even read the American founding documents?”
You’re not serious are you?
“I just find the contempt with which freedom of speech and religion is treated here to be beyond belief.”
You find questioning the applicability of our constitutional rights to a country whose roots are in a completely different world than ours, contempt of those rights? US, that’s bizarre, about as bizarre as arguing that we should impose those rights on the Russians so American evangelicals can preach heresy there. If and when the Russians want those rights, they certainly can have them. We haven’t kept them a secret.
Jefferson was a Deist and would have been on the receiving end of any heresy trial so probably not.
But I frankly don’t see how one can avoid this conclusion. If rights come from God, then how can God give us a right to teach error about Him? That makes no sense.
A newcomer I see. My first European ancestors in this country arrived in Jamestown, as indentured servants.
My Cherokee ancestors were a bit more settled.
“Democracy and human rights are not an “imposition”.”
US, you are the one who used the word “impose”. Did you misspeak?
“Liberation is not an imposition.”
Are you proposing we “liberate” Saudi Arabia? Militarily?
“I certainly would hope that freedom would sprout in Saudi Arabia, and would welcome them to have the freedom to convert to Christianity, whether it be Catholicism, Protestantism, or, yes, maybe even Orthodoxy, without fear about being put to death for apostasy.”
So do I. Its a demonic Mohammedan country. Hoping, however, is rather different from imposing or liberating.
“Western Europe never practiced expansionist militarism in the recent past.”
I suppose that depends upon the definition of recent.
Rumor has it that WWII was a bitch.
“My first European ancestors in this country arrived in Jamestown, as indentured servants.”
Depending on which ship, you may well have me beaten.
“My Cherokee ancestors were a bit more settled.”
I’m told my Iroquois great great grandmother always said the Cherokee were parvenus. :)
I’m talking about the past 10 years.
If rights come from God, then how can God give us a right to teach error about Him?
A bit like buggery, drunkeness or murder?
He gives us freedom, with the obligation to use it wisely or suffer the consequences.
“My first European ancestors in this country arrived in Jamestown, as indentured servants.”
Depending on which ship, you may well have me beaten.
“My Cherokee ancestors were a bit more settled.”
I’m told my Iroquois great great grandmother always said the Cherokee were parvenus. :)
LOL - something tells me that through the generations our ancestors have crossed tomahawks and sabers for a long time. Now it is down to emails. I would call that improvement!
The US constitutional rights are relevant since the US is a beacon of liberty to the world, and yes, even to Russia. And yes, I believe that human rights are universal. And the cavalierness with which you treat our fundamental values of freedom of speech and religion just makes me think that you do not really understand or appreciate the greatness of our country and our constitutional system. And obviously you missed the whole point of the Cold War if you don’t think it was about freedom against Communist totalitarianism. Why should the government or the majority anywhere dictate what the minority can and can’t say or how they can worship? That makes no sense, especially in a society where an atheist government has suppressed religious freedom and expression for so long. What is the Orthodox Church afraid of? So some Russians are Baptists. So what? Are they to be treated as second class citizens because of their religion? I very much doubt they’re going to convert the majority in Russia to Evangelical Christianity. And although I am Catholic, I have always found the witness of Evangelicals to Christ and their detailed knowledge of Scripture to be admirable, and feel that some Catholics could learn from their enthusiasm and Scriptural knowledge. Why are you so threatened? The Orthodox, of all people, should be embracing religious liberty, in their own best interests if for nothing else. Or is the Russian Orthodox Church so blinded by Erastianism that it will support any government, no matter how totalitarian, even a Stalinist dictatorship, so long as it has the crumbs of official recognition and monopoly of cult?
“I would call that improvement!”
Absolutely no doubt about it...and far more comfortable too!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
First of all, civil society is different from the Church, so there may be things allowed in civil society that would not be allowed within the Church. Heresy is an ecclesiastical concept, about which people will disagree. Within civil society, the fundamental dignity of human beings, created by God, demand that they have freedom of conscience. It is called free will. God gives us the grace to believe, but not all will accept the grace, or they may get sidetracked or confused in the search for the truth. Therefore, it is perfectly consistent that rights coming from God include the right to express one’s conscience in ways that are erroneous.
***The US constitutional rights are relevant since the US is a beacon of liberty to the world, ***
It may formerly have been; it is not. For example, even though I have two acres of property, I cannot build a shed unless my association gives me leave. I cannot shoot firearms on my two acres. My children must sit quietly in their schools and on the school buses. My 5 year old was recently punished by the school for some sort of misdemeanour on the bus, but although I was notified of the incident, I was not notified as to what the incident was and I am not allowed to see the writeup.
My friend lives in the neighbouring city. He cannot under pain of escalating fines display an American flag. We recently had a class given by our company in which it was explained that discrimination and harassment is not in the eye of the active person; it is in the eye of, not necessarily the receiver, but any passerby that happens to witness the event. Anybody.
Wanna tell me about freedom in the current USofA? You are so very wrong. You don’t think that every other country sees this? And condemns us for it? And will fully resist our attempts at implementing it in their country?
As a final argument, let us consider the OJ Simpson case. Every country in the world saw the slow speed chase. Every country in the world saw him fake the gloves. Every country in the world saw him get away with murder. Which country would want that implemented in their own justice system?
I made no such proposal. I merely state that the lack of freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia is wrong, just as the lack of freedom of religion in Russia would be wrong. I am at least consistent. You are stating that Russia can suppress freedom of religion all it wants, but Saudi Arabia shouldn't.
Exactly. We are endowed by our Creator with rights. Now where or when did Our Creator give us the right to teach heresy?
Also, people seem to be forgetting here that the 1st Amendment only forbade the national government from establishing a church. Many of the states continued to have state churches well after ratification, and some even had religious tests for office. Catholic Mass was flat out illegal during most of English colonial history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.