Activities of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR in 1988

History and functions

The Council for Religious Affairs was created in December 1965, at the end of Khrushchev's anti-religious campaign as a result of the merger of two bodies subordinate to the Council of Ministers of the USSR - the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church

(formed on September 14, 1943) and
the Council for Religious Affairs
(formed on May 19, 1944). The main goal of the new institution was “the consistent implementation of the policy of the Soviet state regarding religions, monitoring compliance with legislation on religious cults”[1].

The Council made decisions on the registration and deregistration of religious associations, on the opening and closing of houses of worship and houses, and liaised between the USSR government and religious organizations. He had authorized persons subordinate to him locally. All ministers of worship in the USSR were required to have Council registration to carry out their professional activities. Despite the formally declared non-interference of government bodies in the affairs of religious organizations, the Council tried to control their governing bodies, in particular the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. Deputy Chairman of the Council V. Fursov, reporting to the Central Committee of the CPSU for the period 1974 - early 1975, stated: “The Synod is under the control of the Council. The issue of selecting and placing its... members was and remains entirely in the hands of the Council... Responsible employees of the Council carry out systematic educational and explanatory work with members of the Synod, establishing confidential contacts with them”[2].

In the late Brezhnev years, the Council was significantly strengthened: in 1976, its Commissioners were equated in terms of material and household support and service with official cars to “the heads of the main departments under the Council of Ministers of the union republic, the heads of departments of the autonomous republic, the heads of independent departments of regional executive committees and regional executive committees,” and in In 1980, the staff of the Council was increased by 40%[3]. In 1980, it was established that the Commissioner is appointed by the Council, but on the proposal of local authorities: councils of ministers of union and autonomous republics, executive committees of regional or regional councils of people's deputies[4]. At the same time, in the 1970s, a parallel republican body was created - the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR[4]. Relations between the two Soviets were by no means smooth. On February 24, 1977, the Union Council even adopted a special resolution in which it criticized the Ukrainian council for underestimating indicators of offenses among the clergy and for unfounded refusals to register religious communities[5].

The changes in Soviet society caused by the policies of perestroika and glasnost had a significant impact on the activities of the Council for Religious Affairs. In 1991, the Council was deprived of registration, administrative and control functions. The purpose of the Council was to ensure “the right of citizens to freedom of conscience, their equality regardless of their attitude to religion, the equality of all religions and denominations before the law, compliance with the principles of separation of church and state and school from church, as well as strengthening mutual understanding and tolerance between religious organizations of different faiths within country and abroad”[6].

By a resolution of the State Council of the USSR dated November 14, 1991, the Council for Religious Affairs was abolished.

Alexey Zhamkov: Vladimir Sergeevich, how did your journey in the Council for Religious Affairs begin?

Vladimir Pudov: I came to the Council for Religious Affairs quite late, in 1987, four years before its closure. The departments in the Council were small. In our department - the department for the affairs of Protestant churches, the Jewish religion and sects (which included Jews, Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Mennonites, Hare Krishnas, "Children of Moon" and many others who belonged to us) - there were four of us in total: the chief departments and three inspectors. Each had its own directions. I had Lutherans, Adventists, Mennonites - these are the main ones. I really had to do everything. You understand, three people. Someone got sick, someone went on vacation. Willy-nilly we had to replace it.

A.Zh.: Vladimir Sergeevich, did you join the Council of your own free will?

V.P.: By distribution. I graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, it was 1987. It has become fashionable to invite literate people; orders have come to our Faculty of Philosophy that there is a vacancy. I was recommended. In our department of four people, three graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University and one from the Institute of History and Archives.

A.Zh.: Weren’t you afraid that you were going to a body that had a bad reputation among believers?

V.P.: To be honest, I had vague ideas about the Council for Religious Affairs, although my mother is an Orthodox believer. They offered me a good job and a good salary. There was a choice. They offered to go to MADI to teach philosophy, but the salary there was 120 rubles or so. The Council for Religious Affairs immediately offered me 180 rubles. And I didn’t really see myself as a teacher. I thought this proposal was more interesting. I didn’t hear anything bad about the Council and, when I came to it, I didn’t see anything bad. Rumors about him are greatly exaggerated.

A.Zh.: How long did you work there?

V.P.: I worked on the Council almost until its closure. It was closed at the end of December 1991, I left at the end of October. Almost didn't work for a month. I didn't wait. The question was already clear: they knew they would close it. They burned papers, cleaned up files, and put some things in the archives. We already realized that we were closing. We also had a lot of personal documentation, personal archives - unofficial, working ones. I created some reference materials for myself. A lot of unnecessary things accumulated. When I was working, I tried to keep abreast of how my students lived, I tried to track trends. There was a tradition in the Council for Religious Affairs - any conversation, any meeting was subsequently recorded. If it was an official meeting, we prepared an official note, which we presented to our management for review, or simply wrote it down for ourselves, for memory. I worked for four years - a lot accumulated, and there were also people who worked for 20 years or more.

A.Zh.: Tell us about the last years of the Council’s work. Were there any changes when K. Kharchev left?

V.P.: I entered under Konstantin Mikhailovich Kharchev. Then, when Yu. Khristoradnov arrived, closing was already approaching. There was a little over a year left. To be honest, I remember almost nothing about Yu. Hristoradnov; I hardly know him. When I left, he continued to work.

There is an idea that the Council for Religious Affairs is an organization that was created in order to torture believers, that we had basements where we drove them and tortured them. It was as if they were deliberately creating problems for believers. Those who had enough to create problems without us, we tried to solve them. Both then and now - after so many years - I am not ashamed to look into the eyes of any believer. But let's start from the very beginning: was such an organ needed then? Is it needed now?

Here's an example. In Soviet times, could a registered religious community exist without such a body? Yes, there were certain serious restrictions for religious organizations, but they also had their own rights. Do you know the legislation of 1929? Much was for official use. Believers had to live by those rules that were established for official use and which could not be shown to believers. Religious organizations existed in a particular society. What does it mean to be in a society that is initially hostile and negative towards you? Who is the official on whom much depends? Now I went to the store and bought whatever materials I wanted. Then there was a planned economy, funds. Money, strictly speaking, was not so important. Funds were exactly what was needed. For example, it was very difficult to buy a car back then, and clergy bought cars through the Council for Religious Affairs. Any materials for repairing churches - through funds. Everything was done through the Council for Religious Affairs. Imagine if there were no Council, where would they get all this? Religious organizations were integrated into society through the Council for Religious Affairs. If the priest had simply come to the chairman of the executive committee and said: “I need a brick.” The chairman would have looked at him with frightened eyes and thought: “What will happen to me then? I’d rather not give it to you.” But if the priest applied through the Council for Religious Affairs, through an authorized representative of the Council and his request was supported, that’s a different matter. He came with instructions; The official who released the brick had nothing to do with it. This applied not only to religious organizations; everyone lived like that then. And we sent Hare Krishnas on pilgrimage, but at that time it was impossible to just go abroad, you needed permission to leave. In 1988, the Council registered them, and they immediately decided to go on a pilgrimage to India. No one was allowed in yet: neither Orthodox Christians, nor Muslims, but only 70 Hare Krishnas. We had to coordinate everything with all organizations and buy tickets in advance. It was difficult with hotels in the Soviet Union, but we had a Council of Ministers reservation. If some religious figure was traveling somewhere, he would come to us, and we would book him a hotel and tickets. The council thus performed not only a supervisory, but also an organizational function. Back then it was completely impossible without this, this was the way of life. Everything was clearly planned: so much goes there, so much goes there, so much goes to religious organizations that submitted their applications in advance, which were also included in the distribution plans. This was not advertised, but it happened. The Council for Religious Affairs is a government body that, in principle, acted not entirely as an intermediary, but rather independently made decisions. Now there are departments under the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, under the Government, which mainly perform an advisory function.

Although there are still many problems that are difficult to solve without such a body. Nowadays, would we, Lutherans, be able to build a church in Moscow, even if we had the means? And not only in Moscow, but also in other cities? It’s easier for the Russian Orthodox Church, it has more opportunities - they will agree. Take another denomination - everything is different. I worked in the Lutheran Church of Saints Peter and Paul on Starosadsky Lane for quite a few years, and before it was handed over to us, I came to the big boss in the Department of Non-Residential Premises and began to talk about the Lutheran Church, how it had suffered. In Soviet times, it suffered greatly; not a single temple remained on the territory of the Russian Federation! All clergy were repressed. At a time when, after the death of Stalin, clergymen began to be released, only three pastors remained alive. This is out of almost 1.5 million Lutherans who lived in Russia before the revolution. The blow was dealt a terrible blow. I told him about this, and he answered me: “We have the Russian Orthodox Church, why do we need any other churches?” This means that the person doesn’t care, that’s his position. It is still difficult for us to decide on the rental of premises for the Church of the Archangel Michael. The 10-year period has expired and needs to be extended. Do you know how much work it costs to renew a contract? The Moscow Committee for Relations with Religious Organizations made its recommendations, but these are only recommendations, and they may not be heeded. If the Council of Religious Affairs made a decision, it was binding on everyone.

As for the publication of religious literature, it did not go through Glavlit, but only through the Council. Lutherans and Adventists came to me, brought their magazine, a book that they would like to publish, I sat and read it. When I read it, I told them what was not good, what was impossible, needed to be removed, and what could be left. Sometimes we argued with them. There were especially many stumbling blocks with the Adventists. I won’t say that there were fundamental differences between what they served us and what came out, but the sharp corners had to be smoothed out. After reading, I signed. They stamped my signature and took it to the printing house. After me, no one re-read it, I was the last authority.

A.Zh.: Vladimir Sergeevich, how did the Council control the activities of theological schools in your time?

V.P.: I sometimes had to do this myself. Adventists had their own seminary, Zaokskaya. I was not involved in the Orthodox. The decision to create an Adventist seminary was made by the Council on Religious Affairs. He also dealt with issues of land allocation and analyzed educational programs. We looked through everything, everything was approved through us. And literature from abroad was imported through us. Before importing, they sent us a copy, we analyzed it. Then we sent a letter to customs, and customs, based on our conclusion, allowed the cargo with literature, as well as all other cargo, through.

A.Zh.: Roughly speaking, you did not carry out selective selection of students in those years, in order, for example, not to admit students with higher education?

V.P.: No, I didn’t have to do this, it was already 1987. This may have been the case before, but it was not practiced in 1987. I haven't encountered anything like this.

A.Zh.: Everyone remembers the events of August 1991. How were they received by your Council?

V.P.: In different ways, some even with joy. I remember Mikhail Alexandrovich Ivolgin, first deputy chairman of the Council. In those days, I came to him about some issue, and he was happy, satisfied, and said: “Well, now they’ll put things in order.” I replied: “Mikhail Alexandrovich, you shouldn’t be rejoicing, they won’t, and not because I think it’s bad, but because this either should have been done earlier, or later, when the people understand what they’ve gotten themselves into, but now the people still won’t accept it.” Personally, I have never considered myself a democrat and I don’t consider myself now. I believe this was a great grief for our country. If we take religious issues, then everything was going well. We talked with representatives of the Churches and they all said then that there was one problem in the Soviet Union - they had a bad attitude towards religion. Let, they say, everything be like in the Soviet Union, but only so that the attitude towards religion becomes different.

Now they say that back then we treated all Churches equally. It is not true. Let's take statistics. How many Orthodox churches were there in the Soviet Union? Seven thousand. And the Baptist ones? Four thousand. And what, they want to tell me now that there were as many Baptists as Orthodox? Of course, under Stalin there was one thing. Then under Khrushchev, when more churches were closed than in the 1920s and 1930s. - completely different. There were no such repressions when they were shot, but regarding the closure of churches and monasteries, Nikita Sergeevich outplayed everyone. Regarding this, I have my own explanation - an bureaucratic one.

Here is an official saying: “We are building socialism, communism, we rely on the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin.” And it says: “As a communist society is built, religion will die out.” And also that religion is the opium of the people. For the same Marxists, religion is not something imposed on society from the outside, but society itself, in which religion is used by a person to forget about the hardships and troubles of the world. If everything was getting better for us, then the number of churches had to decrease. Khrushchev said that we are not far from the goal of building a communist society. Then, according to the theory, there should have been fewer churches. But this did not happen. What was there left for the official who was supposed to report to the top to do? There was a law according to which if twenty people gathered and submitted an application, they must be registered. If they are not registered, then the community is operating illegally. But it is not allowed to act illegally, and there is no desire to register - the statistics are spoiled. When we went on business trips, we prepared in advance, looked at statistics, not only for Lutheranism, but also for other Churches, contacted other departments of the Council, found out what problems they had in this or that area. We saw that local authorities and commissioners tried to hide unregistered communities. The Commissioner shows his statistics, and we show ours: we have data that in such and such a locality there is an unregistered community. The question immediately arises: why is it not marked with you, and what is being done to register it? And so it was.

It is very easy to liquidate the activities of the Orthodox community. They told the priest: “That’s it, the church is closed - and the Orthodox will not gather.” Try to liquidate the activities of the Baptist community. Local authorities came to them and said: “You have no right to gather.” They: “Why?” In response: “You are not registered.” And they: “We want to register.” They did not want to register them, since they spoiled the statistics, although according to the law the authorities were obliged to register. These are not Stalinist times - the late 60s - early 70s. Well, the local authorities swooped in, accused me of illegal collection, and imprisoned someone. But they didn’t stop gathering - you can’t imprison everyone. That's why they started registering them. It's better, less headache. Almost 90% of Baptist communities were registered. But the Orthodox didn’t send a priest - they don’t gather, so they sit at home.

A.Zh.: In 1986, the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR was formed - republican, headed by Chairman L.F. Kolesnikov. Archival documents testify to the difficult relations between the union and republican Soviets. On January 17, 1989, an inspection came to the Republican Council from the Union Council. The results of the audit shocked the chairman and employees of the Republican Council. They even held a special meeting at which they criticized the inspection team and K.M. Kharcheva. Is it so?

V.P.: You know, relations between the Union Council and the Republican Council were very difficult. In practice, they really didn’t exist. The parade of sovereignties began. When the union law on religious organizations came out, a law of the Russian Federation was immediately prepared - in defiance of the union law. The Republican law turned out to be completely ill-conceived. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation worked according to the Union law. Relations were also difficult with the Ukrainian Council for Religious Affairs. There, too, they were unfriendly to those who came from Moscow. Relations within the Council were good. When I came to work, they assigned me a mentor - L.A. Tsybulsky, who was previously the head of the department. We went on business trips together, but I did not work with him for long: he was seriously ill, suffered a stroke, and could no longer walk.

We came as an inspection authority, with an audit. The Commissioners were officials of dual subordination: they were appointed on the proposal of the regional executive committee, the candidacy was approved by the Council. Salaries and apartments were received on the spot. Usually, religious issues were entrusted to the deputy chairman or secretary of the regional executive committee. Religious issues were often in 10th to 20th place for him. They always tried to label the commissioner with atheistic propaganda. When we arrived, they carefully checked all the documents. If a combination of the words “atheistic propaganda” was encountered, then comments were made to the Commissioner of the Council. The tasks of the Council for Religious Affairs were not to engage in atheistic propaganda. It was impossible to work with religious organizations and at the same time engage in atheistic propaganda. It was impossible to establish any working or trusting relationships here.

A.Zh.: Leonid Fedorovich proposed creating a Council for Religious Affairs in each union republic, limiting the powers of the union council and transferring them to the republican ones. The Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR would remain only a coordinating body. But this didn’t work out...

V.P.: Well, it didn’t work out! It worked out very well. You see, the entire Union was destroyed.

A.Zh.: Maybe bad relations became one of the factors according to which the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR was abolished?

V.P.: Not only. Remember the law of 1990: whoever wants, does what.

A.Zh.: It seems to me that the Republican Council did not imagine that they were about to be closed. In mid-August 1990, meetings were still being held, and there was a long-term work plan. And is August 24th all ?

V.P.: We somehow didn’t particularly touch the Republican Council, we didn’t intersect with it, at least at my level.

A.Zh.: But they complained that first from their Council they go to the regions of the Russian Federation for inspection, and after them from yours, the union. It is so?

V.P.: Yes, this happened, and it happened the other way around. There was duplication. Here's an example: when we went to Ukraine on a business trip, we first agreed with the Ukrainian Council. But I don’t remember that before a business trip to Russia I coordinated it with the Russian Council. There were the same departments in both the Union and Republican Councils.

A.Zh.: And Galustyan E.S. was your colleague in the Republican Council?

V.P.: Yes, even before leaving for the Republican Council, he worked in the Union, in the legal department, but when we had any problems, we went to our departments.

I would also like to say that we dealt with different issues. For example, (I don’t remember exactly now) in one of the regions of the Black Earth Region, an Adventist was cleaning a roof in the winter and fell to his death. Local authorities immediately drew up a conclusion: he was drunk and so on. To whom did Adventists come? To us. “Vladimir Sergeevich, can you imagine a drunk Adventist?” “No,” I say, “I can’t.” Adventists are very strict in this regard: they not only do not drink, but even take communion with grape juice. We helped organize a re-examination. The children were given a pension, everything is as it should be.

Sometimes we could not help, especially when everything was done according to the law, but in essence the result was a mockery of people; all that remained was to appeal to the conscience of the local authorities. For example, at the age of 18 a young man was drafted into the army. As a rule, among Baptists many refused. Some walked, some didn't. He refused and was imprisoned for three years. In law? In law. They didn’t object: they got it and served their time. But he got out of prison, six months or a year passed, he was called up again and imprisoned again. That's when a person begins to protest. He’s already married, has a family, has a child (they didn’t take two). There were cases when some were imprisoned three times—that’s up to 28 years.

Here’s another example: one day a young man from the Rostov region, a Baptist, came to me, he’d served two terms in prison, and was being dragged back to prison. He shows me letters of gratitude from the colony about how he behaved there. We tried to help him, saying, have a conscience, the man has already served two terms. And they: “That’s the way it’s supposed to be by law.” There's nothing you can do about it. When the law was violated locally, we could protect, and when it was not violated, and there was only mockery, there was only one thing left to do - appeal to conscience. This was also done. The life of any religious organizations passed through us. Moreover, the further south you went, the more difficult it was to come to an agreement with the local authorities. In general, religious organizations and collective farms did not fit into the Soviet state system.

A.Zh.: Vladimir Sergeevich, there are accusations against you that you caused a schism in the Lutheran Church of Russia. The brochure you presented contains a phrase about what a true Christian Church should be. Do you know that now in Russia there are a dozen Churches whose official names contain the word true?

V.P.: We do not consider ourselves the only true Church. These words belong to M. Luther, this is his quote. We do not believe that there is no salvation in the Church of Ingria, the Church of ELKRAS and others. And in Orthodoxy there is salvation. In the Lutheran Church there is a definition of which Church is true. This is the doctrinal position expressed by M. Luther.

O. Konstantin Andreev: This is a provision about the universal invisible nature of the Church. This is a fundamental point for us. M. Luther fundamentally argued that he did not organize a new Church, but created a movement within the Church. He knew little about the East - mostly F. Melanchthon, he corresponded with the Patriarchs of Constantinople. M. Luther tried to correct the abuses that existed in the Church, and not to create a new one. We do not consider ourselves as the only true Church, unlike some Protestant movements, which, as they believe, receive some new revelations, which for them are fundamental and cross out everything else. We do not cross out anything, we respect all traditions, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church. All the sacraments that are performed there are all saving, all true. Due to the current historical circumstances, we try to follow the traditions that we have received. We do not insist that in order to receive salvation a person must come to us.

V.P.: If the sacraments are performed correctly, if the Word of God is taught correctly, then this Church is true. The rest, strictly speaking, is not so important.

O. Konstantin: We under no circumstances rebaptize people who come to us from Orthodoxy.

V.P.: In general, the Lutheran Church is built from below: communities delegate rights to higher authorities, and not vice versa. I understand that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches do not completely agree with us on this.

A.Zh.: At the Local Council of 1917 - 1918. a proposal was made that the believing people, the clergy of the diocese, should take part in the elections of the ruling bishop. This was used, for example, in the Petrograd diocese, where Metropolitan Veniamin was elected its head.

V.P.: By the way, I studied at the Moscow Theological Academy for two years and remembered something there. Many things shocked me: some positions of the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches coincide or differ little. But in practice it turns out differently.

O. Konstantin: In the Orthodox Church the principle of conciliarity was from the very beginning. Unfortunately, it was subsequently lost. Luther's idea is a return to conciliarity. If two or three are gathered in the name of Christ, they choose a presbyter, and the presbyter chooses a bishop. Now the reverse process is happening in our Lutheran Churches. In the Siberian Lutheran Church this generally took on an exaggerated form, on the verge of sectarianism. The Catholic Church has strict centralized power: the pope delegates some of his powers to the cardinals, they to the bishops, and so the Church is built from above. It is important for us that the Church is built from below.

A.Zh.: Vladimir Sergeevich, we know your appeal to believers and non-believers. What inspired you to write it?

V.S.: In fact, at a certain time I was a worldly person and very far from the Church. When I came to Church, I did not immediately become a believer. I worked in the Council for Religious Affairs and supervised the Lutheran Church. I developed an excellent relationship with Bishop Harald Kalnisch, the first head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the USSR. He had no one in Moscow, and the community in Moscow urgently needed to be registered. His only acquaintance and close friend in Moscow was me. When he died, I was the only Russian citizen at his funeral in Riga. Kalnish asked in 1991 to help him register a Lutheran community in Moscow. I was still working on the Council at that time, but it was on the verge of closure. In fact, I began to create the Lutheran community of Saints Peter and Paul in Moscow, and I stayed there.

Now they say that there should be freedom of choice in teaching religion; they insist on the secularity of education, since we live in a secular state. When I was at school, I don’t remember that there was any special atheistic propaganda, there was simply no mention of God. At the university there was a subject Theory and history of atheism. Again, everything is scientific, from different points of view, and not simply that there is no God. And I thought that children should not be taught religion in school. Then he changed his mind: “How can I, a Christian, advocate for prohibiting the teaching of religion in school, because the Constitution does not allow it!” Read the portal Kredo.Ru, it says that teaching religion is a private matter. Even among our communities there is a perception that religion is a private matter.

O. Konstantin: This is largely the influence of the position of Sergei Ryakhovsky and those Protestants who group around him: if we are not allowed into schools, then let no one be allowed.

V.P.: Let's approach this honestly. Sergei Ryakhovsky believes that only in their Church is the truth. If Orthodox Christians teach at school, but they are not true, then it is impossible. This is theology. But we believe that in the Orthodox Church there is truth, salvation. Why should I oppose Orthodox Christians teaching? Just because they won't talk about Lutheranism? Why, students will hear about God! And what kind of believer am I then? People are saved in Christ, not in the Lutheran Church. There are different traditions, different Churches, different understandings. They say that the Orthodox will come, “tighten the screws,” and begin to remember the year 1937, the persecutions. Why talk nonsense? This is inadequate self-awareness. The world is so intertwined now. Should we really think about this: teaching - not teaching? Our girls only think about how to become prostitutes and sell themselves at a higher price, but we are afraid that they will hear the Word of God.

A.Zh.: Vladimir Sergeevich, you write that now Christianity is losing ground to other faiths, isn’t it?

V.P.: So it’s losing because we say “it’s impossible” and “the most important thing is human rights.” Take our democrats, including the so-called Christian ones. What's most important? Human rights. What are these human rights? Whatever a person wants, he can do. Law is morality. Everything that is prohibited in the law is prohibited, and if it is not written that it is prohibited, then it is possible.

O. Konstantin: The paradox is that even the Orthodox in Russia today are significantly influenced by European preachers of the 16th century, in particular, Erasmus of Rotterdam with his humanism.

V.P.: There are no more Christians left in Western Europe than here. I mean real Christians who live by this. Even among those who go to church, an understanding of human rights like that of Erasmus of Rotterdam prevails. Recently, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided to officiate same-sex marriages; pastors can be gay people. And such nonsense is officially prescribed! There are several Lutheran Churches in America, and the one we have mentioned is the largest of them. It is divided into a conservative wing, of which there is a minority, and ultra-liberals. The Churches are splitting in this regard.

A.Zh.: Do people do such evil deliberately?

V.S.: That’s the trouble, they don’t perceive evil as evil. For them, this is a human need. The most important thing is love. God is love, and if so, then we will love everyone in any manifestation. It is one thing to be exposed to sin, another thing to pass off sin as virtue and spread it around oneself.

A.Zh.: There is an opinion that since 1988 the Russian Orthodox Church has not used its chance, has not shown itself in such a way that people would join it, so that they would have a need to live in God. Can you comment on this somehow?

V.P.: I was at one Adventist meeting, around 1990. Some of them said that the economic situation in the country is bad, people are really feeling bad, and we must now recruit a flock while people are feeling bad. When things are good, they will forget about God. The troubled 1990s passed, when illusory prosperity began, people began to forget about God. In Europe they are forgetting about God, and this process has been going on for a long time. What is Christmas? Cultural tradition. We need to congratulate relatives, go to church, but the real Christian content of the holiday is no longer in our minds. Maybe Marx was right in this regard: the better people live, the less they will think about God. Now there is another crisis, again worse, which means people will go to church again. This is how man is made.

O. Konstantin: I would like to object to the statement that the Church did not use its chance. Often, when we talk about the Church, blaming it, we think about a separate social entity, that there is a certain Church. The Church is us. She couldn't do more. She did as much as she could, because the Church is me, you, him, and what we do shows the level of our consciousness in God.

V.P.: In my address, I pointed out that value guidelines in society have changed. It is very difficult to confront the challenges of our time. Everyone can see who is successful now. Anyone who has no conscience lives well. Try, talk to him about God, about morality. What morality? What's the moral? How can a girl achieve success now? Nothing other than losing shame and conscience. The Christian world is also deteriorating.

A.Zh.: Vladimir Sergeevich, which employee of the Council for Religious Affairs do you remember most?

V.P.: The entire department where I worked. I had friendly relations with many.

We are often reproached that we were a department of the KGB. This is not true at all. I cannot say whether there were full-time or part-time KGB employees in the Council for Religious Affairs, I will only say about myself. No one has ever offered me to be a full-time or non-staff KGB employee. You know, it’s even a shame, when you listen, everyone around you was recruited, but there was no interest in you. You feel like an inferior person.

But this does not mean that we did not work with them. We were involved in the same organizations. We are open, they are behind the scenes. Willy-nilly, we often had to cross paths. This does not mean that we always had the same point of view. For example, when the Hare Krishnas were registered, the KGB was categorically against their registration. Until the very last against. Despite their position, the Hare Krishna Council registered. We collected our evidence, they collected theirs.

It was like this: K.M. Kharchev was planning to fly to the USA; it was 1987. All the newspapers wrote about the Hare Krishnas, they scolded them more, they say, CIA agents, it’s a sin, they didn’t write anything. K. Kharchev called the head of our department, E.V. Chernetsov and said: “Evgeny Vasilyevich, I’m going to fly to the States. One of the questions will be about the Hare Krishnas. I want to really know what this organization is.” For a long time, our department dealt exclusively with Hare Krishnas. There were rumors that their diet was unhealthy. We took their diet and sent it for examination to the Institute of Nutrition. They also said that they do not belong to Eastern religions at all. We contacted the Institute of Oriental Studies, the Institute of the USA and Canada, traveled and met. There was an opinion that Hare Krishnas destroy families. We went to the Hare Krishnas themselves. With their permission, we visited the families and places of work of 10 to 20 people of our choice. It turned out that it was not faith that destroyed families, but a lack of understanding of each other. Everything needed a documented conclusion. When a whole “scientific treatise” was formed, we submitted our conclusion to the Central Committee. They made the final decision. The KGB provided its conclusion, we provided ours. The Central Committee withdrew, then the Council for Religious Affairs made an independent decision: to register. From the standpoint of a secular state, we did the right thing. We have not found evidence that they violate their health and the health of their children with their diet, or that their mantras have a destructive effect on the psyche. And the examination confirmed this.

I’ll tell you a little secret: after the registration of the Hare Krishnas, they planned to entrust our department with the registration of the Uniates. We have already collected extensive material about them. True, the Soviet Union collapsed, which is a pity. Religious issues were getting better.

Finally, I want to say that without the Council for Religious Affairs at that time, it was impossible for religious organizations to officially operate.

Interviewed by third-year student of the Moscow Theological Academy Alexey Zhamkov

Chairmen of the Council

• Georgy Grigorievich Karpov (Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church; 1943-1960)
• Ivan Vasilievich Polyansky (Council for Religious Affairs; 1944-1956)
• Alexey Alexandrovich Puzin (Council for Religious Affairs; 1957-1965)
• Vladimir Alekseevich Kuroedov (Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church; 1960-1965)
• Vladimir Alekseevich Kuroedov (1965-1984)
• Konstantin Mikhailovich Kharchev (1984-1989)
• Yuri Nikolaevich Hristoradnov (1989-1991)

Notes

1. Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR // Atheistic Dictionary / Under the genus. M. P. Novikova. - M.: Politizdat, 1985. - P. 414.
2. Makarova D. Yu. Church policy in the USSR in 1964-1982. (based on materials from the Kursk region) // Bulletin of Tambov University. Series: Humanities. - 2011. - No. 10 (102). — P. 270
3. Belyakova N. A. Religious politics in the republics of the late USSR: Center and regions (using the example of Ukraine) // Petersburg Studies. - 2011. - No. 3. - P. 293-294
4. ↑ 12
   Belyakova N. A. Religious politics in the republics of the late USSR: Center and regions (using the example of Ukraine) // Petersburg Studies. — 2011. — No. 3. — P. 294
5. Belyakova N. A. Religious politics in the republics of the late USSR: Center and regions (using the example of Ukraine) // Petersburg Studies. — 2011. — No. 3. — P. 295
6. [www.libussr.ru/doc_ussr/usr_18655.htm On approval of the Regulations on the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Cabinet of Ministers]: Resolution of the USSR Cabinet of Ministers of April 26, 1991 No. 209.

Reformer in the chair of an official

1988 A representative of the Moscow Kremlin Museum and Metropolitan of Rostov Vladimir (Sabodan) sign the act of transferring Orthodox relics to the ownership of the Russian Orthodox Church. In the center in the background is K.M. Kharchev. Photo from the archive of Anatoly Leshchinsky

The problems of the relationship between religion and society, religion and the state in Russia remain quite acute - this is evidenced by their regular discussion in the media. The question is periodically raised: doesn’t our country need a state body for religious affairs? In Soviet times, such a body existed. It was the Council for Religious Affairs (CRAD). This year marks the 65th anniversary of the creation of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, which was later transformed into the SPDR. In this regard, the executive editor of NG-Religions met with the former chairman of the SPDR, Konstantin Kharchev, an interview with whom we offer our readers.

– Konstantin Mikhailovich, allow me to introduce you. You were the ambassador of the Soviet Union to Guyana, then the chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR with the rank of minister, and finally the ambassador to the UAE. You tried to become a reformer of the Church while sitting in an bureaucratic chair, which in itself is very difficult and even contradictory. I took the risk of presenting you as a reformer. Do you agree with this?

– In my opinion, the word “reformer” obliges a lot.

– I remember that you were one of the participants in the “Church and Perestroika” conference.

– I would not call myself a reformer personally. Almost everything that the Council for Religious Affairs did in my time was the complex, painstaking work of all its employees. Our work can hardly be called reformism. Rather, it was not reformation, but the implementation of a new state policy towards the Church. That’s how, in any case, I understood my purpose and my task when I came to work for the Council. There was perestroika, and it consisted (we believed in it!) in the revival of democratic principles in all spheres, including in the field of relations between the Church and the state. Our goal was not to reform the Church - this is not the business of the state, on behalf of which the Council acted. We simply tried to formulate and implement a new state policy regarding religious organizations. The task was set to reform the life of the entire Soviet state and society, and this could not but affect religious life in the country.

– When you talk with the former head of the government agency for religious affairs, you involuntarily remember your namesake Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the man who carried out the policy of the Russian Empire in the Church. Did you feel like you were a conductor of certain influences, or did you have any ideas of your own or attempts, if not to reform the Church, then at least to breathe a new spirit into the life of religious organizations of the Soviet period?

– I don’t know how appropriate such a comparison is, but Pobedonostsev, like the Council for Religious Affairs, at one time implemented the state’s policy towards the Church. And this is the similarity between our work and his. After all, the state is interested in believers being citizens of their country, so that they understand and accept the tasks of the state, and support it. If a believing citizen sees that the state is suppressing the Church and treats the faith and the believers themselves with disdain, then, of course, he will not trust the state and make efforts to support it. In this regard, our goal was the same - for the believers of our country to feel like full citizens, to feel protected, and to have the opportunity to freely practice their faith.

– In this case, the question arises: was it necessary to protect the believing citizens of the USSR at the time when you became chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs? And if protected, then from what?

– First of all, from violations of the constitutional foundations of relations between the Church and the state, from attacks on freedom of conscience proclaimed by the Constitution.

– Was legislation in the field of religion backward and out of step with the spirit of the times?

– Of course, it did not comply not only with international legal acts, but also with the Constitution of its country. Having come to the Council for Religious Affairs from the diplomatic service, I considered it quite natural that the basis of relations between the Church and the state should be based on approaches generally recognized in international practice.

– Simply put, you had to somehow resist the rabid atheistic line of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU Central Committee) in order to defend the interests of believing citizens...

– I would say – a ley line. It must be admitted that there were attempts to “influence” the work of the council, especially on the part of some workers of the CPSU Central Committee. But the time was different! We were captured by the ideas of perestroika, and we wanted, of course, to bring a new, fresh spirit to our work, to state-church relations.

– Which of the ideologists of perestroika at that time spoke out in favor of the state protecting the rights of believers? Who was against it?

– Everything that we managed to do in a fairly short period, namely: registering almost two thousand religious organizations, transferring religious buildings and property to them, streamlining the regulatory framework, canceling outdated and odious circulars, opening monasteries - Danilov, Tolgsky, Optina Pustyn, church schools - all this could not be accomplished without the corresponding decisions of the CPSU Central Committee. The leadership of the Politburo, represented by the secretaries, did not provide us with much support in this matter.

But we must take into account that in the Central Committee itself, two directions were fighting: perestroika and conservative. Such confrontation took place at the middle and lower levels.

Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, who at that time headed the ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee, provided us with great help and support. Only with his assistance the council made a decision to open Optina Pustyn. This was the first time that the Council of Religious Affairs gave permission to open a monastery, making an unprecedented decision in this regard. During the preparation of the law on freedom of conscience and religious organizations, Valery Legostaev (assistant to Politburo member Yegor Ligachev) provided us with serious support. But, for example, the Secretary of the Central Committee Vadim Medvedev or the Deputy Head of the Central Committee Department for Ideological Work Alexander Degtyarev, on the contrary, in every possible way hindered our ideas and were opponents.

I must say that it was quite natural. During the years of Soviet power, a whole layer of atheistic figures was raised who literally lived by atheism. Enormous state money was then allocated for atheistic propaganda, and these figures, if religion and atheism had been equated, would have lost not only their ideological positions, but also their material well-being.

– All critics of the perestroika period say that the council performed the same functions as the State Security Committee, persecuted and controlled believers, and limited the freedom of religious life. Some even believe that the council was simply a branch of the KGB.

“Maybe it was like that once.” But in the 80s the situation was already different. It should be borne in mind that the KGB, as a government agency, carried out the policies of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and implemented the relevant directives. True, directives can be executed in different ways. Many KGB officers at the highest level during the perestroika period did everything possible to streamline relations between the Church and the state. Yes, we had serious disagreements with the KGB on issues of principle. However, it is, of course, not worth blaming the KGB workers for the difficult relations between the Church and the state. In this regard, I would remember with the kind words of such leaders of the Fifth Directorate of the KGB as Bobkov and Abramov...

– Let us explain to readers that the fifth directorate dealt with religious problems in the KGB. And it was supervised by one of the deputy chairman of the committee, Army General Filipp Denisovich Bobkov.

– By the way, he comes from a simple working family. He was a sergeant and became an army general. With his own head, with his service to the Motherland, he achieved everything. And I dare to say that without the assistance of people like Philip Denisovich, we would not be able to resolve many issues.

– I would like to check the truth of some of the messages that I heard. Namely: they say that the KGB sometimes even raised before the Council for Religious Affairs, before the Central Committee of the party, the question of... the need to publish the Bible in the USSR. They say that border guards report that foreigners often smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union illegally. However, the Bible itself is neither a Soviet nor an anti-Soviet book, but is a monument of culture and religious thought. In this regard, the KGB allegedly came up with an initiative: why don’t we, Soviet citizens, publish it in a certain edition so that at least believers would have it? And it had an impact. In particular, the Moscow Patriarchate published several editions of the Bible, and the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christian Baptists also published books of the Holy Scriptures. How true is this?

- This is true. Moreover, in matters of publishing religious literature, we acted together with both the clergy and the KGB. For example, the Institute of Bible Translations in Stockholm, with donations from Christians in Northern Europe, published 60 thousand copies of the three-volume edition of the “Explanatory Bible” edited by A.P. Lopukhin. This was a gift to the Christians of our country in connection with the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus'. So, without the consent of the committee, we simply would not be able to transport this literature across the border.

Almost 20 years have passed since the Council for Religious Affairs ceased to exist. This time is enough to look back a little, cool down and learn from what happened and how it happened. The period of the 80s requires fundamental research that will put everything in its place. They will also clarify the role of the KGB at the perestroika stage. In any case, this was an important milestone in the life of our country and in state-church relations, which was marked by celebrations dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', which took place in 1988 not only in Moscow and Kiev, but also in other cities of the country.

- Let's go back to the 1940s. After all, the very creation of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943 was initiated by the NKVD, as evidenced by the transcript of the conversation between Stalin, Beria, Molotov and NKVD Colonel Karpov, who was specifically responsible for church and religious issues.

– I dare say that this is an exaggeration. The political decision was made by the country's leadership. But the preparation and supervision of this issue was entrusted to the NKVD. In particular, as General Pavel Sudoplatov testifies, the NKVD, represented by the Main Directorate of State Security, taking into account the patriotic role of the Russian Orthodox Church during the war, approached the country's leadership with a proposal to legalize the Church, expand its activities and elect a Patriarch.

– The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, according to Stalin, was supposed to bring to fruition the government’s ideas regarding religious life, and this concerned not only the Russian Orthodox Church, but also other religious organizations. For which purpose, by the way, the Council for Religious Affairs was subsequently created, and then these structures merged. All this, in my opinion, quite convincingly indicates that the state in the period before Khrushchev tried to normalize religious life in the country.

– There is one nuance here. Today we are not discussing the question of why Stalin made such decisions. Apparently, the decision to normalize relations between the Church and the state was based on purely political objectives. Of course, this was the most difficult time for the state. This was the height of the war, when it was not yet clear who would win, when it was necessary to mobilize all forces. This was a kind of counterbalance to Hitler’s church policy, which played on the shortcomings and omissions of the Soviet government and began to flirt with the Russian Orthodox Church, opening churches in the occupied territories... But today we are not talking about motives. Today we are talking about results. We recognize that the right decision was made at that time. The Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church was created at one time as a guarantor of the implementation of legislative norms. It was a kind of buffer between the Church and the government. This concerned not only the Russian Orthodox Church, but also other religious organizations. Indeed, it was under Stalin that the Council for Religious Affairs was organized, headed by Polyansky.

– What can you say about the Khrushchev period? Why did the role of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church begin to change?

– It’s difficult to talk about this today without having the relevant Politburo documents at hand. Based on the available materials, it seems that Khrushchev, against the background of exposing the cult of personality and the activities of Stalin, sought to show that under Stalin everything was bad. He looked for mistakes and easily found them; this also affected Stalin’s policy towards religion.

– This is probably the darkest period in the life of the Council for Religious Affairs? When the council had to perform the functions no longer of protecting believers, as was the case from 1943 to 1957, but rather of a punitive body of an atheistic state...

– Such a change in policy was not reflected anywhere in the documentation. Moreover, if all this were enshrined in law, then, as they say, God be with him, this is state policy. But here this state policy was hidden, and its implementation, without any legislative basis, was entrusted to the Council for Religious Affairs. That is, the council became a tool for “tightening the screws,” not in the hands of the government, but in the hands of the party leadership.

Indeed, without a legal basis, the Council for Religious Affairs at that time began to implement the directives of the Central Committee, which became mandatory for everyone. And thereby actually created lawlessness. Therefore, during the period of perestroika, when we began to pursue a balanced policy, we were forced to revise all departmental acts adopted in the previous period - for example, regarding whether parents are required to have a passport with them when baptizing their children, whether it is possible to ring bells for more than two minutes and at what time.

After this, we made many ill-wishers for ourselves, including among the clergy. Let's say we allowed the baptism of children and adults to be carried out without entries in the church books of the passport details of the baptized or their parents. (Very often the fact of baptism became known at the place of work or study of citizens, and they were subjected to discrimination.) It would seem that the Church should have welcomed this. But some of the clergy made this decision without enthusiasm - because, by circumventing this requirement, they received remuneration from believers, which was illegal. We opened new churches - and again we met resistance from part of the clergy. Why? The fact is that previously the Church had income from a certain number of parishes; when new churches opened, money had to be distributed for their restoration, for staff maintenance, etc. As a consequence, the income of parish priests decreased.

– You mentioned finances, financial problems. Today it is clear that the state allocates funds for the restoration of certain church monuments and partly subsidizes church education. Large businessmen also actively support the Church. In Soviet times, the church fund was formed from private donations from parishioners. But what can be said, for example, about the restoration of the St. Daniel Monastery? Was the church budget involved here or did the state allocate money?

– Let’s remember what the economy was like then? Planned. Nails, logs, cement, roofing iron, even if you had money, could not be obtained without an order. Whose construction organizations were they? State. And who restored the Danilov Monastery? State restorers. The state and the Church acted together.

– During your time, there was no budgetary funding for religious organizations?

- No.

- Then let's go back to the past. In 1961, the Russian Orthodox Church became a member of the World Council of Churches and a number of other international religious organizations. After all, there she had to pay membership fees...

“And it was church money.” The church was a self-sustaining organization. In financial matters, the Church was separated from the state.

– In the World Council of Churches or in the Conference of European Churches, Soviet rubles were not perceived as a full-fledged currency...

– Rubles were exchanged for foreign currency at a preferential rate. The US dollar at that time was worth 60 kopecks.

– The Russian Orthodox Church also sent its delegates and representatives abroad, they received travel allowances. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church who worked abroad for five or even more years also received salaries. How much money did they live on abroad?

– Money was transferred to them from the USSR. The state exchanged approximately $2 million for rubles annually to religious organizations to support their work abroad.

– That is, the state itself did not pay any money or subsidies?

- No. The principle of separation of Church and state was strictly observed.

– It is known that the SPDR was involved in the personnel policy of religious organizations. There is no doubt that you coordinated all issues with the CPSU Central Committee. Did the Central Committee actually have any priorities? Which of the hierarchs did they like best? Who would they like to see as Patriarch?

– Before the meeting of the Synod members with Gorbachev in 1988 in the Kremlin, members of the Politburo did not officially meet with the hierarchs. Later, we were often asked to introduce ourselves to one or another high-ranking hierarch. And then the favorites appeared, possible candidates for the patriarchal throne... Then the opinion of the Central Committee about the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church was formed based on information from both the KGB and the council. And if the two points of view coincided, then a decision was made. All Patriarchs were chosen very simply: each bishop knew in advance who to vote for, and they talked to him in advance. Local council representatives were responsible for this. This was the case until the death of Patriarch Pimen. Then they decided to give the hierarchs complete freedom - let them choose themselves. The first free elections were held, in which Metropolitan Alexy (Ridiger) won.

– We have traced the activities of the Council for Religious Affairs step by step. Is there a need for such a government body today?

– I think there is. The relationship between the Church and the state, which can be traced through historical examples, plays a very important role in strengthening the state and stabilizing civil society. After all, we are talking about masses of believers holding on to their religious beliefs, who unite around the Church or community. The state should not be indifferent to whether their rights are respected, whether their freedoms are guaranteed... This means that some kind of supervisory body is needed!

– So, what you are getting at is that the Church and religious organizations are left without control?

– The point is not to control the activities of the Church, but to control the implementation of legislation on freedom of conscience and religious organizations. And there must be a body, such as the Ministry of Justice, that monitors the implementation of this legislation.

– So, perhaps the activities of the Ministry of Justice exhaust this control function?

- No. The Ministry of Justice deals with both political parties and public organizations. The religious sphere is much broader than that of public organizations; it has its own specifics. The state must have a body that will not only monitor the implementation of legislation relating specifically to religious organizations, but also implement state policy in relation to religious organizations. In addition, laws must adequately reflect and take into account this policy and be improved - and this should also be done by a special body. The Council for Religious Affairs was just such a body. Its analogues have survived today in many former republics of the USSR, even in a number of regions of the Russian Federation (for example, in Tatarstan), and in practice they justify their existence.

– Konstantin Mikhailovich, what would you finally like to say to our readers?

– Taking this opportunity, I want to appeal through your newspaper to all believers who survived the years of communist power. On behalf of all the employees of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, all my predecessors as chairman, I want to ask their forgiveness for the fact that the previous government was, for the most part, unfair to them. Because it limited their religious life and caused great grief to many of the believers. Today, together with you, I am glad that this is already a thing of the past, but I am even more glad that I and my employees have brought this present time closer as best we could.

Links

• Stanislav Minin.
  Chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR (1988-1990) • President of the USSR (1990-1991)

  [/td]

  Individual head of the USSR
  Bodies under the head of the USSR	Defense Council of the USSR (1955-1991) • Vice-President of the USSR (1990-1991) • Presidential Council of the USSR (1990) • Security Council of the USSR (1990-1991) • Federation Council of the USSR (1990-1991) • State Council of the USSR (1991) • Political Advisory Council under the President of the USSR (1991)

  	Central Executive Committee of the USSR (1922-1938) • Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (1936-1991) [/td] Executive
  	Republican Bodies†
  	Local authorities
  	People's Commissariat of the USSR • Ministry of the USSR • State Committee of the USSR • State Agency of the USSR • Supreme Economic Council of the USSR • Departments under the Government of the USSR [/td] Sectoral and functional bodies
  Republican Bodies†	government of the republic of the USSR • government of the autonomous republic • supreme council of the national economy
  Local authorities	executive committee • national economic council • trust
  Supreme Court of the USSR (1923-1992) • Special judicial presence of the Supreme Court of the USSR [/td] Courts of general jurisdiction Specialized Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR • military tribunal • Supreme Arbitration Court of the USSR (1990-1992) • State Arbitration of the USSR (1974-1990)
  Republican Bodies†	supreme court of the republic of the USSR • court of an autonomous republic
  Local authorities	regional court • regional court • autonomous region court • district court • people's court • people's judge • comrades' court • military tribunal
  Emergency authorities State Defense Committee (GKO, 1941-1945) • State Committee for the State of Emergency in the USSR (GKChP, 1991) • Special Committee on the Use of Atomic Energy
  †Including the republics of the USSR and the autonomous republics within them.

Excerpt characterizing the Council for Religious Affairs

During the first time of his stay in St. Petersburg, Prince Andrei felt his entire mindset, developed in his solitary life, completely obscured by those petty worries that gripped him in St. Petersburg.
In the evening, returning home, he wrote down in a memory book 4 or 5 necessary visits or rendez vous [meetings] at the appointed hours. The mechanism of life, the order of the day in such a way as to be everywhere on time, took up a large share of the energy of life itself. He did nothing, didn’t even think about anything and didn’t have time to think, but only spoke and successfully said what he had previously thought about in the village. He sometimes noticed with displeasure that he happened to repeat the same thing on the same day, in different societies. But he was so busy all day that he didn’t have time to think about the fact that he didn’t think anything. Speransky, both on his first meeting with him at Kochubey’s, and then in the middle of the house, where Speransky, face to face, having received Bolkonsky, spoke with him for a long time and trustingly, made a strong impression on Prince Andrei. Prince Andrei considered such a huge number of people to be despicable and insignificant creatures, he so wanted to find in another the living ideal of the perfection for which he was striving, that he easily believed that in Speransky he found this ideal of a completely reasonable and virtuous person. If Speransky had been from the same society from which Prince Andrei was, the same upbringing and moral habits, then Bolkonsky would soon have found his weak, human, non-heroic sides, but now this logical mindset, strange to him, inspired him with respect all the more that he did not quite understand it. In addition, Speransky, either because he appreciated the abilities of Prince Andrei, or because he found it necessary to acquire him for himself, Speransky flirted with Prince Andrei with his impartial, calm mind and flattered Prince Andrei with that subtle flattery, combined with arrogance, which consists in silent recognition his interlocutor with himself, together with the only person capable of understanding all the stupidity of everyone else, and the rationality and depth of his thoughts. During their long conversation on Wednesday evening, Speransky said more than once: “We look at everything that comes out of the general level of inveterate habit...” or with a smile: “But we want the wolves to be fed and the sheep to be safe...” or : “They can’t understand this...” and all with an expression that said: “We: you and I, we understand what they are and who we are.” This first, long conversation with Speransky only strengthened in Prince Andrei the feeling with which he saw Speransky for the first time. He saw in him a reasonable, strictly thinking, enormously intelligent man who had achieved power with energy and perseverance and used it only for the good of Russia. Speransky, in the eyes of Prince Andrei, was precisely that person who rationally explains all the phenomena of life, recognizes as valid only what is reasonable, and knows how to apply to everything the standard of rationality, which he himself so wanted to be. Everything seemed so simple and clear in Speransky’s presentation that Prince Andrei involuntarily agreed with him in everything. If he objected and argued, it was only because he deliberately wanted to be independent and not completely submit to Speransky’s opinions. Everything was so, everything was good, but one thing embarrassed Prince Andrei: it was Speransky’s cold, mirror-like gaze, which did not let into his soul, and his white, tender hand, which Prince Andrei involuntarily looked at, as they usually look at people’s hands, having power. For some reason this mirror look and this gentle hand irritated Prince Andrei. Prince Andrei was unpleasantly struck by the too much contempt for people that he noticed in Speransky, and the variety of methods in the evidence that he cited to support his opinions. He used all possible instruments of thought, excluding comparisons, and too boldly, as it seemed to Prince Andrei, he moved from one to another. Either he became a practical activist and condemned dreamers, then he became a satirist and ironically laughed at his opponents, then he became strictly logical, then he suddenly rose into the realm of metaphysics. (He used this last tool of evidence especially often.) He transferred the question to metaphysical heights, moved into the definitions of space, time, thought, and, making refutations from there, again descended to the ground of dispute. In general, the main feature of Speransky’s mind that struck Prince Andrei was an undoubted, unshakable belief in the power and legitimacy of the mind. It was clear that Speransky could never get into the head of that usual thought for Prince Andrei, that it is still impossible to express everything that you think, and the doubt never came to mind that whether everything I think and everything is nonsense. , what do I believe? And this special mindset of Speransky most of all attracted Prince Andrei. During the first time of his acquaintance with Speransky, Prince Andrei had a passionate feeling of admiration for him, similar to the one he once felt for Bonaparte. The fact that Speransky was the son of a priest, whom stupid people could, as many did, despise him as a party boy and priest, forced Prince Andrei to be especially careful with his feelings for Speransky, and unconsciously strengthen it in himself. On that first evening that Bolkonsky spent with him, talking about the commission for drafting laws, Speransky ironically told Prince Andrei that the commission of laws had existed for 150 years, cost millions and had done nothing, that Rosenkampf had stuck labels on all articles of comparative legislation. – And that’s all for which the state paid millions! - he said. “We want to give new judicial power to the Senate, but we have no laws.” Therefore, it is a sin not to serve people like you, prince, now. Prince Andrei said that this requires a legal education, which he does not have. - Yes, no one has it, so what do you want? This is a circulus viciosus, [a vicious circle] from which one must escape through effort. Source - ""

Categories:

• Subordinate bodies of the USSR government
• Religion in Russia
• Religion in the USSR
• Religion and Law
• History of the Russian Church
• Council for Religious Affairs

Hidden category:

• Articles with links to missing files

Why do we need a commissioner for the protection of freedom of conscience?

At a joint meeting of the standing commissions of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights and the Council for Interaction with Religious Associations under the President of the Russian Federation on October 16, we made a proposal to establish the post of Commissioner under the President for the protection of citizens' rights to freedom of religion.
Why suddenly? The idea of ​​a commissioner did not come out of nowhere. The main reason: freedom of conscience in our country is under serious threat. It is no coincidence that our idea was warmly supported by representatives of various religious organizations, Protestant and Muslim leaders who participated in the meeting. Perhaps for the first time in our memory, they spoke with such fervor about state pressure on believers, which has noticeably increased recently.

There is every reason to be concerned. It is probably possible to state a certain discrimination against non-Orthodox believers, expressed, in particular, in the following.

1. Lack of conditions for performing divine services and other religious rituals. In Moscow, for example, where a program to build 200 Orthodox churches within walking distance is being implemented, there are only four mosques, and this is despite the presence of at least one and a half million Muslims. In many regions, evangelical Christians are not only prevented from building meeting houses, but are often prohibited from praying together. When they gather for prayers in a residential building or in rented premises, they are fined for this under the pretext of misuse of the land. The right to “jointly profess” one’s religion, enshrined in the Constitution, which is fundamentally important for almost all religions, is lost.

2. Difficulties in the dissemination of religious beliefs, the imposition of fines at the slightest provocation for allegedly illegal missionary activity under the “Yarovaya Law,” which was adopted to counter terrorism, but turned out to be a bureaucratic weapon that hits Russian Protestants. Law enforcement agencies and courts see the presence of missionary activity in virtually any religious activity of citizens and religious associations.

3. Inability to receive religious education, unjustified revocation of educational licenses from Baptist and Pentecostal religious educational institutions. As a result, about 5,000 registered Protestant religious organizations will be forced to train clergy underground or abroad, as was the case during the Soviet Union.

4. Difficulties in working in prisons with fellow believers, where clergy from among religious minorities are practically not allowed.

5. The threat of criminal punishment for so-called extremism, which, according to current legislation, includes “affirmation of religious superiority.”

All this gives rise to citizens' distrust in the fairness of the rule of law and justice. As a consequence of religious discrimination, in recent years there has been a forced emigration of believers to European countries and the United States. At the same time, as a rule, large families, conscientious workers who do not have bad habits leave.

It seems symptomatic that the proposal to create an institution of commissioner did not pass by the Russian Orthodox Church. As noted by Vakhtang Kipshidze, Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Department for Relations between the Church and Society and the Media, this issue requires study, since the protection of the rights of believers is a pressing issue for the state. This may mean that the “titular” majority of believers understand that this could happen to their fellow believers, depending on how their relations with the authorities develop in a particular region.

Russian Protestants, after all, also realized a real threat only through the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses (an organization recognized as extremist in Russia), who were brought to criminal charges everywhere for virtually the religious activities (an organization recognized as extremist in Russia), from which they had recently disowned.

We understand perfectly well that our proposal will raise many questions: why is a new body needed, why are those that already exist not enough? But we are not proposing a new body, but the position of a commissioner for the protection of citizens’ rights to freedom of conscience, who will be entrusted exclusively with human rights functions. This is in no way about the creation of some kind of state body that will perform any kind of administrative or control functions in relation to religious organizations, and certainly not about the restoration of the notorious Council for Religious Affairs.

We are talking about a kind of mediator in the relationship between the state and religious organizations. About who will contribute to the formation of state policy towards religions and directly participate in its implementation. And, finally, about who can reach law enforcement officers. Believers themselves are unable to do this.

Today, state policy in this area has been left to the security forces. On the one hand, in some ways this is correct, there is a legal framework. But the legislation on freedom of conscience is so contradictory and confusing that law enforcement agencies and courts in typologically similar circumstances make diametrically opposed decisions. It is no coincidence that the head of state, Vladimir Putin, instructed the Supreme Court to analyze the practice of applying this law. However, the recently released review of judicial practice in this category of cases, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, turned out to be incomplete and ignored many issues, which further aggravated the situation. Believers cannot find protection either administratively or in court, where a formal selective approach is often manifested.

It is also abnormal that issues important for believers, and primarily those related to changes in relevant legislation, are discussed in government agencies without a wide range of religious figures and without scientists. For all this, a separate authorized person is needed.

Finally, there are foreigners who stay in Russia legally. According to the law, they enjoy the right to freedom of religion on an equal basis with Russian citizens, but in reality, those who apply migration legislation decide what a religious foreigner can do and what not. Finally, there is some need to protect the rights of Russian believers outside Russia.

Now believers often have nowhere to turn when their rights are violated. There is no one really interested in protecting the right to freedom of religion.

Previously, these issues were within the sphere of interests of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, but now they are not. That is why similar precedents attracted our attention, because, along with the position of ombudsman, we have the positions of commissioners for children’s rights and for the protection of the rights of entrepreneurs. At the same time, the rights of citizens related to the implementation of their constitutional right to freedom of religion remain outside the scope of activity of these human rights institutions.

We should not forget that there are also non-believers; they also need to protect their rights, taking into account the fact that we live in conditions of some clericalization and incessant attempts to establish a unified religious ideology. According to Article 28 of the Constitution, freedom of religion includes the right to profess, individually or in community with others, any religion or not to profess any. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proposed position of commissioner will be associated exclusively with the protection of the rights of believers, as with some specially designated subject. After all, the rights of non-believers can also be violated by imposing or forcing them to follow any religious rules.

What powers might the new ombudsman have? Here is an approximate list of them: freely visit state authorities and local governments; receive the necessary information from them; participate in on-site inspections of religious organizations; apply to the court in defense of the violated rights to freedom of conscience of believers and non-believers, in particular with a statement to invalidate decisions of state and municipal bodies, appeal against court decisions that have entered into force; without special permission, visit accused and convicted believers in places of detention and institutions executing criminal punishments; send proposals to the president and the government to repeal or amend regulatory legal acts on freedom of conscience.

We believe that the emergence of a new official in the state with human rights functions will help correct the current situation, because freedom of religion has not yet become a value for modern Russia.

Navigation

Personal tools

• To come in

Navigation

• Home page
• Index A - Z
• Featured Articles
• Random article

Coronavirus (COVID–19) in Russia 2020

Tools

• Links here
• Related edits
• Special pages
• print version
• Permanent link
• Page details
• Quote page

Coronavirus (COVID–19) in Russia 2021