What does freedom of conscience and religion mean? The meaning of concepts in Russian legislation

Home / Rights

Back

Published: November 26, 2019

Reading time: 3 min

854

In order to understand the importance of Art. 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, you must first understand the meaning of the freedoms guaranteed by this article and their significance for a social, secular and democratic state, which is the Russian Federation.

The meaning of the concept of “freedom of conscience”
What is “freedom of religion”
Freedom of conscience and religion in Russian legislation

The meaning of the concept of “freedom of conscience”

Freedom of conscience is a person’s right to self-determination, the formation of beliefs, views and opinions, that is, to adhere to a particular ideological position or religion.

On December 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . This declaration became the basis and model for legislation regulating human rights.

In Art. 18 of the above declaration states that every person has the right to freedom of conscience. Further, this concept is revealed as the opportunity to have, change and preach one’s beliefs or religion, both personally and among like-minded people.

In another way, the concept under discussion can be called freethinking, that is, the inalienable right and ability to think given to a person by nature, without which there can be no talk of human rights and a social state, since without freethinking there can be no democratic choice, and, therefore, and democracy. An attempt to strike a person in his natural right is unacceptable, since it is violence against the individual and goes against the principles of building a social society.

Freedom of conscience is a broad concept that includes freedom of religion, which, in turn, is a very important principle for a secular state.

Parents are responsible for the religious education of children

No one has the right to force religious education on children. Introduction to the school curriculum of lessons on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. possible, but only as additional activities to which the parents themselves agreed:

Federal Law 125, article 5, paragraph 4 on the Consultant-Plus website

“At the written request of parents or persons replacing them, and with the consent of children studying in state or municipal educational organizations, these educational organizations, on the basis of a decision of the collegial governing body of the educational organization, in agreement with the founders, may provide a religious organization with the opportunity to teach children religion outside the framework of educational programs".

While a child is being raised by parents or guardians, they are allowed to decide the religious fate of their offspring, but without undue pressure.

They may well give children an idea of any religion outside of the educational program. However, it is worth remembering that learning is one thing, and participation in worship is another.

There is nothing wrong with teaching children about Christianity. But it’s not worth dragging a child who doesn’t understand anything into ritual activities. There will be no benefit. This must be a conscious choice of a person.

Priest at a Volgograd school: religious instruction is possible with the written consent of parents

What is “freedom of religion”

Freedom of religion is an element of freedom of conscience and the right of a person to both profess and practice any religion and to renounce it and the opportunity to propagate this refusal.

This concept also includes the following elements:

Opportunity to practice religion.
Opportunity to perform religious rites and rituals.
Possibility to change religion.
The right to promote a religious movement.
Opportunity to engage in charitable activities.
Right to religious education.
Equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of attitude to religion.

The right of a person to choose which religion to adhere to or not to adhere to it at all, as well as the equality of people before the law, regardless of the choice made, is one of the principles on which a secular society and the state are built.

A secular society is one in which the church is separated (there is also the term “secularization”) from power, and the government determines the laws and policies of the country based on civil norms, rather than religious views.

It is paradoxical, but it is precisely under such a government system, when the church is separated from power, that freedom of religion is possible.

In theocratic states, one religion prevails and those who profess other faiths or reject them altogether are subject to discrimination, persecution and repression.

Theoretical foundations of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion in the system of human rights and freedoms

Samigullina Nelya Rinatovna, student

Institute of Law, Bashkir State University
Abstract
: A pressing issue of state and society at the present stage in democratic Russia is the problem of human rights and freedoms. Freedom of conscience and human rights is a key universal value, which determines the increased interest in this issue. Theoretical issues of religion in the system of human rights and freedom will be discussed in this article.

Keywords

: Constitution, freedom, conscience, religion, state, declaration, legislation.
First, let's define the concept of freedom of conscience and religion.
Thus, freedom of conscience and religion is a general or private right of people, religious institutions or associations, without state registration and acquisition of legal capacity as a legal entity. Freedom of conscience, in its theoretical meaning, is the right of citizens to choose a religion or completely renounce religion, in accordance with their inner convictions. This freedom is extremely important in countries where the state religion is recognized (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) and, therefore, in these states there is public influence on the adoption of a particular religion.

So, for example, in countries without recognition of a state religion, this freedom serves as protection for atheists, and in totalitarian atheistic states it served as a cover for official anti-religious propaganda and persecution of the church. Thus, freedom of conscience gives the right to freely choose religion or reject it in accordance with personal civic convictions.

Freedom of choice of religion gives the right to choose a religion freely without coercion or pressure, the opportunity to join certain religious societies or not to join at all, to have atheistic beliefs or to be neutral towards various kinds of religious communities.

Freedom to change one's own beliefs implies that citizens can change their religious or atheistic beliefs.

Freedom of action on the basis of their own convictions gives citizens the opportunity to put into practice the norms and rules of the teachings that they adhere to, that is, to join religious or atheistic communities, create their own religious associations, give publicity to attract new like-minded people, and provide charitable assistance.

Freedom of religion means the right of a person to choose a religious teaching and the unimpeded practice of worship and rituals in accordance with this teaching.

Occupying a dominant position among the fundamental human rights and freedoms, the concept of “freedom of conscience” has undergone a number of transformations in its development to its present form. At first it had a purely atheistic content: the materialists of ancient times refuted the thesis that morality, all its categories, including the category of “conscience,” are a product of divine predestination. In their opinion, morality as a regulator of behavior arose as a result of human communication and community life, and conscience is not the voice of God in the soul of a person (as was stated in the public consciousness at that time), but a mechanism for self-regulation of human behavior in society, guided by public opinion , which develops in a particular society. This purely atheistic understanding of freedom of conscience survived the Middle Ages, subsequently being reflected in the works of G. Bruno, G. Galileo and other thinkers, and survived until the French bourgeois revolution. During it, a new, broader understanding of the category “freedom of conscience” was formulated [3, p. 44].

From then until our time, freedom of conscience has been understood as the right of every person to freely profess any religion, or not to profess any. The idea of a rule of law state in Russia has been consolidated at the constitutional level. Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation directly states that our country is a legal state (Article 1), that is, a state “whose power is limited to certain limits” [1, p. 83].

The principle of supremacy is the basis for the establishment of legal statehood in Russia, implying equality between all citizens. Thus, the formation of a rule-of-law state provides the opportunity for firm guarantees of the rights and freedoms of citizens, in which the rights and freedom of the individual come first when creating all the necessary conditions for the formation of personal rights, under the slogan: “everything is permitted that is not prohibited by law.”

It is worth noting the fact that the formation of a rule of law state is aimed at increasing the legal culture of the population and the responsibility of the individual to the state.

Freedom of conscience was the first of the freedoms conquered from the state. So the key victory is the victory of radical sectarianism over the government of England. Soon the principle of freedom of conscience found its recognition in the US Constitution, from where it migrated to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 and the texts of European constitutions.

In the Russian Federation, freedom of conscience was proclaimed by the Bolsheviks after coming to power in 1917, but throughout the history of the Soviet state, anti-religious propaganda was actively carried out, and education was atheistic. Party members were prohibited from performing religious rituals by the charter and party norms, that is, freedom of conscience turned out to be very limited and unacceptable for communists. The religious beliefs of other citizens, although not limited, were not particularly welcomed by the authorities, schools, or public organizations [3, p. 33].

The content of the concept of “freedom of conscience” consists of freedom of religion and freedom of atheism.

But it should be borne in mind that the practice of religion, that is, whether a citizen has certain religious beliefs, remains his personal matter only as long as these beliefs remain in his head. If, following his religious beliefs, a citizen violates any law through his actions, he will be held accountable, including criminal liability, for violating this particular law, and not for his religious beliefs.

For example, members of any religious organization will certainly be held criminally liable if their actions cause damage to the health or property of other citizens, or violate other state laws.

In Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “No religion can be established as state or compulsory” [1].

In religious circles themselves, proselytism is also condemned. Proselytism is the activity of a particular religious denomination, the purpose of which is to “entice” members of other denominations into the ranks of its supporters. Of course, the desire of one or another religious denomination to expand the number of its supporters is an understandable phenomenon and, moreover, completely natural. We are talking about the means that are used. In the struggle of religious ideologies, as well as in the sphere of ideological struggle in general, both “clean” and “dirty” technologies are used [5, p. 41].

Proselytism refers to the “dirty” technologies of religious ideological struggle, since certain promises related to the possibility of acquiring some additional and material benefits are used to lure believers.

Today, during the digitalization of society, freedom of conscience is most often interpreted in complete isolation from moral norms, beliefs, and ethics.

Thus, in modern society, immoral actions are justified by freedom of choice, such as the desecration of monuments and objects of religious beliefs, places of worship of religious communities. Also, one of the immoral shades is the ideology of consolidating the holding of rallies of sexual minorities, and their consolidation of same-sex marriage at the legislative level.

In view of the prevailing interpretations of human rights and freedoms, the legal culture of society and the destruction of legal consciousness are being destroyed, and these aspects are manifested in citizens’ understanding of their rights and a complete lack of understanding of their responsibilities. So, using the example of citizens’ behavior in public transport, this situation can be traced: seats are not given up to elderly people and pregnant women. Moreover, the key motivation for this behavior is the same fare.

An important role in the development of moral behavior is given to the development of the education system among citizens. The history of writing has its origins precisely in the church; it was its ministers who were the centers of knowledge and enlightenment.

At the present stage, it is also worth recognizing the importance of the participation of the church in resolving issues of upbringing and education. With the development of the system of spiritual educational organizations and the creation of Sunday schools for children at churches, anyone can obtain the necessary knowledge about religion and its canons. Interesting and useful, for example, are the Cyril and Methodius readings, timed to coincide with the celebration of the Day of Slavic Literature and Culture and held in many cities of Russia.

An important place in this system is given to freedom of conscience, which influences people's behavior in many areas of everyday life. We can conclude that freedom of conscience is the opportunity provided and guaranteed by the state to freely and independently determine a worldview system and act in accordance with it. It is a necessary condition for the development of a legal secular state. Currently, this concept is being expanded. This is an objective process that organically includes a steady expansion of the real content of freedom of conscience and the consistent normative consolidation of new constituent elements and legal guarantees of their operation [2, p. 25].

Based on the conducted research, it is worth noting the fact that there are changes in the interpretation of freedom of conscience in the religious system, but this is still not enshrined at the legal level.

The Russian Federation faces the task of developing a legal concept of confessional policy, eliminating legal uncertainty from the legal system and clarifying the conceptual apparatus in this area.

Legislation concerning various aspects of the religious life of society should not only contribute to the creation of an effective mechanism for the implementation of the rights of citizens in this area, but also fully protect moral values and comply with changes in social relations, the religious situation and new realities.

Bibliography

1. Constitution of the Russian Federation: adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993 (as amended on July 21, 2014) // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. - 1993. - December 25. 2. Zaikina I.V., Kozlitin G.A. On the issue of the right to freedom of religion in the Russian Empire (XIX-XX centuries) // Human rights: history, theory, practice. All-Russian scientific-practical Conf.: Sat. scientific Art./Southwestern State University. - 2015. - pp. 34-38. 3. Kuznetsov A. O. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion: the problem of distinguishing concepts // Legal Initiative. - 2015. - No. 1.- P.12-57. 4. Zhdanova E. A. “Freedom of conscience” and “freedom of religion”: concept and content // Modern socio-economic processes. Penza. - 2021. - P.105-107. 5. Markova E. N. The problem of the legal definition of religion // Constitutional and municipal law. 2021. No. 11. pp. 34-45. 6. Meshcheryakova A.F. Freedom of conscience as a spiritual basis of civil society // Problems and prospects for the formation of a civil society: collection. Art. based on the results of the International scientific-practical conf. Sterlitamak: AMI. — 2021. — pp. 11-12. 7. Cherkasov K.V., Ivanova O.S., Chalykh I.S. Models of state regulation of the religious component of general education: Russian and foreign experience // Bulletin of Tomsk State University. - 2021. - No. 442. - P. 237-247.

The right to freedom of conscience may be limited in the way it is expressed

The right to freedom of conscience is an absolute right. Most cultural and civilized countries now consider this an axiom. By the fact of his birth, a person can believe in anything, and no one can forbid him from doing so.

But at the same time, the state retains the ability to limit the ways of expressing religious feelings if they infringe on the rights of others. The actions of believers should not pose a threat:

Health;
Order;
Life;
Well-being;
Ecology.

And many other areas protected by state legislation. Animal cruelty also falls into this category. They cannot be used for ritual purposes.

In other words, the right to freedom of conscience exists as long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedom of someone else. Otherwise, this activity is called extremist, and a believer or an entire religious organization is considered a violator of the law.

By leaving a comment, you accept the user agreement

Negative side of the law

The Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience...” also has a negative side. It recognizes as a religious organization only one that has confirmation of its existence in this territory for at least 15 years, which was issued by local authorities; or a confirmation issued by the specified organization about its inclusion in the centralized religious organization. However, not all of them can today prove their existence in this period; it is also necessary to take into account the fact that the country had an atheistic policy until 1991, so many religious organizations arose quite recently. Therefore, there may be certain difficulties in registering a particular religious organization, and, consequently, a new manifestation of bureaucracy. We can also conclude that the law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” actually lobbies for Orthodoxy, since for many years it was the only permitted religion in the country. A situation may arise in which, without recognizing other religious movements, local administration bodies may prohibit them with reference to the clause in it. Thus, it would be advisable to revise the legislation on freedom of conscience, since the Orthodox Church is developing a monopoly influence on society, and this limits freedom of religion. According to many representatives of the human rights movement, as well as a number of religious associations, this law is far from perfect. The Russian Helsinki Group, moreover, advocates its abolition. Its representatives believe that in this way freedom of conscience in Russia is violated.

However, this law, despite this, still operates to this day. The government of the Russian Federation has created and has been working for several years now to analyze proposals for its improvement coming from the regions of the country.

New amendments to the law

On July 24, 2015, new amendments to the Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” came into force. From now on, a religious group is considered a voluntary association of citizens that has notified the Department of the Ministry of Justice about its activities, and also provided information about its leaders, places of worship, and the basics of religion. In the previous version, it was not necessary to report the start of activities. Also, an end was put to the question of whether a license is needed when organizing catechesis courses, Sunday schools, etc. According to the new amendment to the Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations”, religious education and teaching religion are not educational activities, therefore, in the license not necessary.

Definitions of the concept of “conscience”

Conscience in philosophy means an internal criterion of morality when assessing one’s actions, which regulates actions and expressed thoughts, and also limits human freedom to certain moral frameworks. Modern researchers define conscience as the ability of an individual to exercise moral self-control in his actions, to formulate moral duties and values for himself, to demand their fulfillment from himself, and also to evaluate the actions that have been committed. At the same time, the personal, individual principles of each individual person are emphasized.

Insulting the feelings of believers is a violation of the right to freedom of conscience

A lot of noise has been raised about pictures on the Internet that mockingly present other religious traditions.

Most often, the law is interpreted not correctly, but in a way that is convenient.

In fact, it is lawful to recognize as a violation those actions that fall under the following description:

Federal Law 125, Article 6, paragraph 3 on the Consultant-Plus website

“Obstruction of the exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, including those involving violence against the individual, deliberate insult to the feelings of citizens in connection with their attitude to religion, propaganda of religious superiority, destruction or damage to property, or the threat of such actions , is prohibited and prosecuted under federal law. Holding public events, posting texts and images that offend the religious feelings of citizens near objects of religious veneration are prohibited.”

As you can see, an important condition must be met: the rights of believers can be violated only near objects of religious veneration (temple, sacred place, relic).

However, Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation expands this list by introducing the concept of “public actions”:

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 148. Violation of the right to freedom of conscience and religion on the Consultant-Plus website

“Public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed with the aim of insulting the religious feelings of believers.”

Obvious disrespect is one that cannot be interpreted in two ways (for example, a person may not have intended to offend, but simply joked about a religious topic). Otherwise, it is implicit and does not fall under the clause of insult.

It is also fair to note that a public place is a platform, officially registered media, etc. The following do not fall into this category:

Material from a private page on a social network;
Oral or written personal opinion;
Jokes and anecdotes on religious topics;
Religious controversy;
Preaching within your own religious tradition;
Professing views alternative to someone's religious dogmas.

Heresy is not persecuted by the state.
For example, God the Father among the Cathar sect is considered evil, and the law gives the right to express any opinions (fresco in the Vladimir Cathedral in Kiev). Let's say, the Cathars are a heretical sect. They are convinced that the God of the Old Testament is an evil and cruel being named Jaldabaoth. The Orthodox Church has no right to ban their texts, although Christians find such views unpleasant.

But this is a difference in religious dogmas and beliefs. And the right to freedom of conscience allows the Cathars to speak negatively about Jaldabaoth and adhere to their own interpretation of the Old Testament.

The same is true for Satanists who oppose themselves to the Christian tradition. This is their right. And if the state began to defend the rights of the Orthodox Church, fighting those who criticize its dogmas, this would be a violation of the rights of Satanists.

What then is a violation of rights? This is for example:

Come to someone else's temple and paint icons with graffiti;
Disrupt someone else's religious ceremony;
Discourage the procession of Christians or the harinama of Hindus;
Announce through the media (for example, on TV) that, say, Zoroastrians are lost pagans.

But at the same time it will not be a violation:

controversy with an Orthodox priest on the website of the Russian Orthodox Church;
voicing alternative views to dogmatic ones (for example, Christ had a wife, Judas was not a traitor, Jesus was not the Messiah, etc.).

Procession of Satanists in the USA.
Such religious organizations have the right to exist if their activities do not violate the law. Only one thing is important - that a person’s activities do not prevent others from practicing their faith, do not cross the line of their private life (it is the responsibility of the media that they cross this line). If someone blocks the entrance to the temple, this is a real obstacle, and if he curses at priests on his private page, this is his own business, no one obliges him to go there.

Alas, in our country everything is turned upside down, and therefore laws are often interpreted in favor of the more influential party, bypassing logic, which violates paragraph 3 of Article 125 of the Federal Law.

Positive trend

One of the positive trends in the development of the religious situation in our country is the protection of the rights of believers, as well as the continued improvement of laws. In particular, in pre-perestroika times there were many violations, but the courts and the prosecutor's office did not consider cases related to religion. From the 90s of the 20th century to the present day, many such cases have already been considered. In addition, the opportunity arose to amend the 1997 law through the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The court has already returned to it several times and made appropriate decisions.

Thus, legislation is currently in the process of improvement. There are requests from human rights organizations and individual believers to amend the articles or to cancel them. True, there is a tendency that comes from some representatives of religious and public organizations and government agencies to revise the principle of the Constitution about the inadmissibility of an officially recognized church or religion in the country. We are talking, of course, about Orthodoxy. Some representatives of the clergy define him as “dominant” in the state. They point to a spiritual mentality, a large number of believers, and the construction of chapels and temples in state, and not just independent, institutions. Of course, there are problems, and solving them is the most important task facing society and the state.