Religious Freedom Summary* (1997)


The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government respects this right in practice. The Constitution also provides for the equality of all religions before the law and the separation of church and state. However, in practice the Government does not always respect the provision for equality of religions. In December 1990, the Soviet Government adopted a law on religious freedom designed to put all religions on an equal basis. (After the breakup of the Soviet Union, this law became part of the Russian Federation's legal code.) The law forbade government interference in religion and established simple registration procedures for religious groups. Registration of religious groups was not required, and some evangelical and other religious groups have continued to operate while choosing not to register officially with the Government. By registering, however, groups obtained a number of advantages; for example, the ability to establish official places of worship or benefit from tax exemptions. The Government does not designate religion on passports or national identity documents.

Over the past several years the sharp increase in the activities of well-financed foreign missionaries has disturbed many sectors of society, particularly nationalists and those in the Russian Orthodox Church, some of whom advocated limiting the activities of what they termed "nontraditional" religious groups and what were sometimes termed "totalitarian sects."

In October the Government enacted a new, restrictive, and potentially discriminatory law on religion, which raised questions about the Government's commitment to international agreements honoring freedom of religion. Passage of the law prompted concern in the international community because, for the first time since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia had adopted legislation that could abridge fundamental human rights. This law replaced the progressive 1990 religion law that had helped facilitate a revival of religious activity.

The new law was ostensibly targeted at so-called "totalitarian sects" or dangerous religious cults. However, the intent of some of the law's sponsors appears to have been to discriminate against members of less well-established religions by making it difficult for them to manifest their beliefs through organized religious institutions.

The law is very complex, with many ambiguous and contradictory provisions. Supporters and critics of the law differ as to its potential impact; each side can cite language in the law to support its interpretation. The law's most controversial provisions center on the creation of various categories of religious communities with differing levels of legal status and privileges. The law draws distinctions between religious "groups" and "organizations" and creates two categories of organization: "regional" and "centralized." A religious group is a congregation of worshipers that does not have the status of a juridical person, meaning it cannot open a bank account, own property, issue invitations to foreign guests or publish literature, among other things. Individual members of groups will presumably retain these rights. For example, a member of a religious group could buy property for the group's use, and invite personal guests to engage in religious instruction, and import religious material. In this case, however, the group would not enjoy tax benefits and other privileges extended to religious organizations.

Groups that have been in existence for 15 years have the right to obtain the status of "local religious organizations." Similarly, congregations that existed for 15 years when the new law was enacted will also be eligible for registration as an organization. Organizations, both local and centralized, are juridical persons, enjoy tax exemptions, and are permitted to establish religious schools and to host foreign religious workers. Acentralized religious organization" can be founded by a confession that has three functioning "local organizations" in different regions. A centralized organization apparently has the right to establish affiliated local organizations without adhering to the 15-year rule.

Under the new law, representatives of foreign religious organizations are required to register with state authorities, and are barred from conducting liturgical and other religious activity unless they have acquired the status of a group or organization."

Critics of the law have claimed that it violates the Constitution's provision of equality before the law of all confessions. In particular, many religious groups criticized the law's requirement that religious groups be in existence for 15 years before they can qualify for "organization" status. Also, many groups feared the consequences of the law's provisions limiting the actions of foreign religious missionaries. Representatives of some religions, such as the Mormon Church and some Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian groups, have said that their activities in Russia could be halted under the law. Critics of the law have also expressed concern that local authorities could abuse the new law by interpreting and implementing it more strictly than intended by the Federal Government.

President Yeltsin and high-ranking officials have consistently stated that the law would be applied in a liberal, tolerant manner, thereby preserving religious freedom and the equality of confessions. No mainstream religion already operating in Russia, they insist, would see its activities curtailed as a result of the new law. Though formally in force at year's end, the full effects of the law were not yet apparent as implementing regulations had not been promulgated. The full effect of the law may not be clear until the end of 1999, the time before which organizations registered under the old law are required to obtain new registration. Since its adoption, in fact, no religious group has completely ceased operations in Russia as a result of the law.

However, there were numerous instances of obstruction of religious groups' activities by local authorities who cited the new law, and more significantly, two reported instances of punishment for religious belief or activity. For example, on October 2, police in Moscow detained followers of the Orthodox Society of True Believers and committed them to a psychiatric hospital for treatment (see Section 1.c.). The policemen attributed their actions to the new law. In October a mayor in Yamalo-Nenetskiy autonomous okrug wrote a letter informing a local judge that the latter could no longer carry out his official duties because he was a member of a "sect" (the Pentecostal Church).

In another case, local authorities citing the new law canceled the registration of the Evangelical Lutheran mission in the town of Touim in the autonomous Republic of Khakasiya. The registration was reinstated, reportedly after intervention by the authorities in Moscow. However, in November the chief procurator of Khakasiya informed the mission of his intention to seek judicial approval of his efforts to cancel the mission's registration. Similarly, the pastor of an independent Pentecostal congregation in the town of Semnadtsat, about 25 miles west of Moscow, said that local authorities had cited the new law to him when informing him in August that his group would no longer be able to rent a classroom for Sunday worship. On October 12, the head of the Moscow oblast regional administration refused to reissue an authorization to a Pentecostal group to rent a community center for religious services. Many towns in Russia have virtually no facilities available for worship services that are not government-owned.

Furthermore, since 1994, 22 out of 89 regional governments have passed restrictive laws and decrees intended to restrict the activities of religious groups. The Federal Government has not sought to challenge the constitutionality of these restrictions. Enforcement is uneven, but there are reports that some local governments prevented religious groups from using venues, such as cinemas, suitable for large gatherings. As a result, in some instances denominations that do not have their own property effectively have been denied the opportunity to practice their faith in large groups. In Kursk, for example, authorities declined to renew agreements with the Catholic community granting it access to the Church of the Assumption (a Catholic church confiscated by the Bolsheviks and converted into a House of Culture); the congregation has reportedly resorted to meeting in the street outside. Similarly, Belgorod authorities refused to register the Catholic community there on the grounds that Catholicism is a "foreign" religious organization, and refused to return the Catholic Church of Saints Peter and Paul to the Catholic community. Instead, city authorities reportedly plan to turn the building into an Orthodox museum. A Catholic priest was reportedly told that he could not conduct mass, even in a private apartment.

These and other actions in certain regions have given rise to concern, but there are positive notes as well: the governor of St. Petersburg vetoed restrictive legislation on the grounds that its principles were unconstitutional and that the strictures imposed on religious groups were not within the power of the city's government to establish. While the local legislature passed, and the governor of Sverdlovsk oblast signed, a restrictive religion law in October 1996, executive branch officials have refused to enforce the law, citing fear of lawsuits by minority faiths, vagueness in the law's provisions, and the belief by officials that some of the provisions of the law were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya struck down a 1996 republic law restricting freedom of religion.

Despite constitutional provisions for equality of religions, in many areas of the country it appeared that the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and, in some regions, Islam, had privileged positions, particularly in the pace of return of previously nationalized religious properties and in the allocation of public funds for restoration and construction of church properties.

Property disputes are some of the most frequent complaints cited by religious groups. For the most part, synagogues, churches, and mosques have been returned to communities to be used for religious services. In certain cases churches have not yet been returned. Moreover, the Moscow Patriarchate has claimed and taken possession of properties owned by other branches of orthodoxy. On October 9, local officials filed a petition in Penza oblast court to evict the Russian Orthodox Free Church from a church building that it had been using for several years. The Moscow Patriarchate openly supported this action and the property was returned to them. Similarly, at the request of the Russian Orthodox Archbishop of Vladimir and Suzdal, the Ministry of Culture and the State Property Committee ordered the Russian Orthodox Free Church community in Vladimir oblast in mid-October to relinquish its church to the Moscow Patriarchate. In some property disputes, religious buildings have been "privatized," and local authorities often refuse to get involved in property disputes, which they contend are between private organizations. Even where state or municipal authorities still have undisputed control of properties, a number of religious communities continue to meet significant obstacles when they request the return of religious buildings, or when they seek to acquire land and necessary building permits for new religious structures. Some Protestant faiths have suggested that the Russian Orthodox Church influences the Government regarding land allocated for churches of other sects.

Although Jews and Muslims continue to encounter prejudice and societal discrimination, they have not been inhibited by the Government in the free practice of their religion. In some areas of the country, other religions, including Buddhism, various minority Christian faiths, and Shamanism are practiced in accord with local traditions.

*Source: County Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1997, U.S. Department of State