 |
 |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Freedom of religion – test for democracy and the dominating religious
community (1st part) At a look, it might seem that the freedom of religion is not a burning issue nowadays as Lithuania has lived independently for eleven years already and the Soviet Union, a giant of communistic atheistic ideology, is the past, a ruined empire among other empires of the world that are no more. In the modern Western world, into which Lithuania is so willing to integrate wholly, democracy is the dominant political ideology and humanism is one of the pillars of the Western society interwoven with the Christian values, which are the foundation of both Europe and the United States. So, naturally, one might think that the freedom of religion, which was once trampled and became non-existent during the Soviet period, should nowadays be fully restored and truly regarded one of the fundamental freedoms and values. At this point it should be noted that the freedom of faith is not the product of social contracts, human laws or ideologies, though it has been gaining an increasing value thanks to the development of the human civilization, tolerance and democracy. The right and freedom to have faith have much deeper roots. They stem from the covenants between God and man. This freedom has its origin in the sacred covenant between God and His people. Social contracts (and laws) are merely agreements between people. Freedoms granted by social contracts may not be fully trusted because they may be not only violated but also used to establish superiority of one group over another. Tyrants or institutions set by people may neglect covenants but this neither abolishes nor derogates the truthfulness of the agreement between God and believers. When leading his people out of Egypt, Moses addressed the Pharaoh in the name of the almighty God, saying: “Let my people go, so that they could serve Me!” Such reference to God as the supreme authority has been echoed throughout the human history, not only by followers of Judaism but other religions as well. The freedom of faith has always been and will always remain among major challenges, whatever the epoch, dominant political or social ideology or system of rule. The freedom of religion tends to be the main freedom and a means of protection against violation of other freedoms and rights. Catholicism in Lithuania Participants of the conference Religion and Right in a Civil Society put a special emphasis the relation between religion and law. The conference was divided into nine sessions devoted to nine topics and there were speakers from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Spain and the United States. They reviewed the currently effective legal standards regulating the status of religion in their countries and the international standards applicable to countries which want to become or already are members of international organizations (such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of European Cooperation and Development, etc.) The first session was devoted to the issue of Religion and State in the Baltic Countries. The situation in Lithuania was reviewed by Petras Plumpa, an adviser of the Government on religious issues. He made comments on Articles 26 and 43 of the Constitution of Lithuania as well as on a number of articles of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations. These two are the main legal acts in Lithuania setting forth the principle of religious freedom and expressing the position of the state with regard to the religious communities existing in our country. Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania reads: Article 26. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion shall not be restricted. Every person shall have the right to freely choose any religion or faith and, either individually or with others, in public or in private, to manifest his or her religion or faith in worship, observance, practice or teaching. No person may coerce another person or be subject to coercion to adopt or profess any religion or faith. A person's freedom to profess and propagate his or her religion or faith may be subject only to those limitations prescribed by law and only when such restrictions are necessary to protect the safety of society, public order, a person's health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Parents and legal guardians shall have the liberty to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. Article 43 (par. 1). The State shall recognise traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations, as well as other churches and religious organisations provided that they have a basis in society and their teaching and rituals do not contradict morality or the law. Law on Religious Communities and Associations reads: Article 2. Right of Freedom of Religion Lithuania does not have a state religion. Every individual within the Republic of Lithuania shall have the right to choose freely any religion or faith, and to also change his choice individually or with others, to profess it privately or publicly, to perform religious rites, to practice his faith and to provide instruction thereof. No one may force another person, nor himself be forced to choose or to profess any faith or religion. The human freedom to profess or propagate religion or faith may not be limited by any other means, than by law alone and only when the security of society, public order, people's health and morality, as well as of other fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals must be guaranteed. Parents and guardians shall not be restricted in providing for the religious, and moral upbringing of their children and charges, in accordance with their own convictions. Article 3. Equality among People Regardless of their Religion All individuals, regardless of the religion they profess, their religious convictions or their relationship with religion, shall be equal before the law. It shall be prohibited to limit their rights and freedoms directly or indirectly, or to apply privileges. Article 5. Traditional Religious Communities and Associations of Lithuania The state recognises nine traditional religious communities and associations existing in Lithuania, which comprise a part of the historical, spiritual and social heritage of Lithuania: Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran, Evangelical Reformed, Russian Orthodox, Old Believer, Judaistic, Sunni Muslim and Karaite. Article 6. Recognition of other Religious Associations Other (non traditional) religious associations may be granted state recognition as being a part of Lithuania's historical, spiritual and social heritage, if they are backed by society and their instruction and rites are not contrary to laws and morality. State recognition denotes state backing of the spiritual, cultural and social heritage of religious associations. The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania shall grant state recognition. Religious associations may request state recognition following the elapse of a period of no less than 25 years from the date of their initial registration in Lithuania. If request is denied, it may be resubmitted, following the elapse of 10 years, from the day request was denied. There is no need analyze these statements thoroughly to notice their inconsistency. Provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution clearly contradicts those of par. 1 of Article 43 and Article 5 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations, while the latter is incompatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the same Law and, of course, Article 26 of the Constitution. The mere labeling of some of the religious communities “traditional” and “recognized by the state” is an evidence of religious discrimination, dishonor of the freedom to choose a religion, and violation of the principles of democracy and equal rights, promoting religious intolerance and denying the freedom of conscience. There are numerous cases when religious communities that do not fall within the group of the selected nine have faced the consequences of such division. This fact was mentioned by representatives of “non-traditional” religious groups during discussions at the conference. Even a reverend of the Evangelical Reformed community, which is among the recognized religious communities, expressed his concern that the status of this community was far from being the same as that of the Catholic church. The governmental adviser strongly advocated the above statutory provisions pointing out that “differentiated treatment of religions and cultures within a state is based not on differentiated treatment of people but of the religions and cultures, which are the national heritage of each state. Cosmopolitan attempts to level the religions and cultures forcing upon the nations laws that erase their identity would mean depreciation of these cultures and religions, and, consequently, nations themselves.” According to the speaker, “ Articles 26 and 43 of Lithuania’s Constitution supplement each other and guarantee to each citizen the freedom of cultural and religious expression and, at the same time, honor and protect the religions which have served as the existential foundation of the Lithuanian people and have constituted a part of the basic historical, spiritual and cultural heritage. The term “traditional church (religion)” indicates the historical, social and cultural inheritor. […] The provision of par. 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution, which states that Lithuania has traditional churches and religious organizations, is the constitutional basis for defining a status of traditional churches and religious organizations different from that of other churches and organizations.” (quotations from the delivered presentations). These statements hardly justify attribution of a lower status to thousands of Lithuanian citizens, regarded, according to the law, as “non-traditional” and “not recognized by the state” in religious and even cultural aspect. By not legalizing the “cosmopolitan leveling of religions” Lithuania has preserved, by means of legal acts, its Catholic authenticity but it curtails the freedom of its citizens to choose religion and disregards the authenticity of the world outlook of an individual. In addition, it fails to ensure the freedom of religious expression. The result of the traditional and non-traditional churches having different statuses is that these “nontraditional” ones are titled “sects”, libeled in most intolerable ways and discriminated by other laws. Their members are considered potential criminals engaged in secret intelligence activities and smuggling and seeking to take public posts thus posing a great threat to the state and the society. The speaker, as s rule, mentioned that “many complaints have been received from people saying that sects break families, children are prejudiced against their parents, there are cases when members of sects have been taken to hospitals for mentally ill or have attempted suicide”. In another session of the conference, the division of religious communities in Lithuania into traditional and non-traditional was commented by historian Irena Vaišvilaite. She said that the division of communities established in the Law on Religious Communities and Associations has been determined not by a legal but a historical principle. This means that a religious community is recognized or not by the state on the basis of its historical-social and cultural heritage and input. Such statement however raises the same question: could the principle of differentiation on historical grounds justify the violation of the statutory principle of equal rights. The speaker had to answer a similar question and she admitted that the Law on Religious Communities and Associations is discriminating from the legal point of view. Democratic Europe Before providing a brief review of the presentations of the other participants of the conference, I would like to remind that the first draft of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations did not divide religions into traditional and non-traditional. However, when a representative of the Catholic church was appointed the leader of the working group drafting the law, the things changed radically. In Estonia the Law on Religious Communities does not provide for such a division and therefore the speakers of the conference mentioned this country as a benchmark of religious tolerance for the rest of Europe. Speakers from other European countries emphasized in their presentations the necessity to guarantee the freedom of religion and religious tolerance in the laws. Religious freedom was mentioned as the basis for the well-being of society. In Sweden the Lutheran Church is the state religion, but other religious communities have the same rights as the state church. For instance, Pentecostal religious groups exist as free parishes and even do not have to get registered. Spain, officially considered a Catholic country, applies the following principles:
|
Test for democracy and the dominating religious community (1st part) Test for democracy and the dominating religious community (2nd part) |
||||||||||||||
|
Test for democracy and the dominating religious community (1st part) Test for democracy and the dominating religious community (2nd part) |
|||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
|
e-mail
us: webmaster: |
|||||||||||||||
Freedom
of Religion
Test
for democracy and the dominating religious community (I)