On October 15 the Russian Ministry of Justice took steps to begin liquidating 56 non-Russian Orthodox religious organizations. The groups face dissolution, Russian news sources reported, because they failed to file required annual reports on their activities. Those targeted include a range of non-Russian Orthodox organizations and churches but hardest hit were various Christian groups, both Protestant and Catholic. Baptist groups were prominent on the list, but Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Seventh-day Adventist and Pentecostal groups were also included. Well known humanitarian groups such as World Vision and Youth with a Mission were also named, as was the Russian branch of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Non-Christian organizations were also named, including Muslim and Buddhist associations.
According to the Slavic Legal Center in Moscow, many of the organizations believe they are in full compliance with filing requirements and are surprised to be included in the list. They are unsure if the posting is a scare tactic or if the Ministry of Justice indeed intends to pursue liquidations on a massive scale. Anatoly Pchelintsev, an attorney for the Slavic Center for Law and Justice, remarked that “such actions fly in the face of official Russian state policy on the freedom of worship and creed.” Pchelintsev believes the responsible officials are unaware of the complicated international ramifications of their actions and cites the possibility of “chaos and destabilization in church-state relations.” He added that in the case of most of the affected organizations, the threatened punishment goes too far. “In Russia there already are more than a dozen cases in which courts rendered decisions in favor of religious organizations since the punishment for their failure to submit information did not formally fit the crime committed.” Moreover, he added, “liquidation for failure to submit information is equivalent to sentencing a jaywalker to the death penalty. After all, liquidation means that the organization’s life is put to an end.” In addition, said Pchelintsev, “such actions are inconsistent with the policy of the Russian government, which guarantees freedom of conscience and religious confessions for each person. The widespread liquidation of religious associations for petty violations will lead to the crudest infringement of human rights in our country and to the self-isolation of the government.”
Pastor Vitaly Vlasenko, Director for External Church Relations of the Russian Union of Christians-Baptists, had a less dramatic reaction. He warned against undue alarm, suggesting that the action by the Ministry of Justice is a mere “wake-up call.” He reported that thousands of religious organizations were registered during the 1990s, and that because a number of them are now defunct, the Ministry is probably only attempting to clear out organizations that no longer function. In some cases, he noted, registered and actual activities no longer match. For example, he said, in one instance, “a Baptist organization registered in Moscow is active only in Siberia.”
However, according to Joseph K. Grieboski, president of Washington DC’s Institute for Religion and Democracy, “the move to liquidate several organizations can be seen only as a move to limit and control their activity further. Despite recent European Court of Human Rights cases against such activities and registration standards, the Russian Government continues its ongoing tightening of religious activity and continues to threaten free exercise of faith in Russia.”
It is too early to know precisely why the Ministry is threatening dissolution of so many religious groups. Russians are accustomed to a degree of arbitrariness and intimidation as pertains to non-Orthodox religions, but are such threats really necessary? Could not the organizations have been contacted separately and asked to supply needed information for compliance rather than discovering from outside sources that they suffer possible dissolution? According to Pchelintsev, a majority of the organizations named in the list are seriously frightened, if not already in panic mode.
The Ministry of Justice’s action only bolsters the claim by many within Russia that the government is not serious about religious freedom but consistently works in tandem with the Russian Orthodox Church to pester, persecute and eliminate if possible other religions. By most estimates, more than eighty percent of Russians today identify themselves as Orthodox. There is a saying in Russia: “To be Russian is to be Orthodox.” Nevertheless, the restructuring of Russia that began in the late 1980’s was supposed to be about creating a democracy where freedom was ensured for all citizens, and all religions were to have equal standing before the law.
But the Russian Orthodox Church was always a vocal critic of this new policy of religious freedom, and prevailed upon the Duma to pass a highly restrictive new law in 1997 that slowed Russia’s experiment with unlimited religious freedom. This law, which comprehensively regulates church-state relations in Russia, specially acknowledges the unique contributions to Russia’s culture and statehood of several of the nation’s oldest religions––Russian Orthodoxy in particular–but it also discriminates against the Federation’s less traditional religions by requiring special registration procedures and by limiting the scope of the activities in which they can lawfully engage.
Many religious organizations have already been liquidated under this law; frequently it has been used as a tool for officials throughout Russia to remove unwanted religious groups. In the spirit of this sanctioned discrimination, it remains difficult for many religious organizations to buy or even rent property to be used for worship purposes, meet for worship services, conduct schools, disseminate religious literature, or proselytize. “The Russian Orthodox Church is already halfway towards becoming a state church,” the business daily Kommersant wrote recently. Another kind of disquiet was expressed by Anatoly Krasikov, an expert in socio-religious studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, who warned, “if Orthodoxy becomes a new ideology, we’ll be right back to a totalitarian state.”
”if Orthodoxy becomes a new ideology, we’ll be right back to a totalitarian state.”
The Ministry of Justice’s action against 56 religious organizations might be a genuine but harmless attempt to bring the organizations into compliance with law. But many inside Russia doubt whether there is not something more troublesome at play here. It might well be Russia’s latest attempt to elevate Russian Orthodoxy to a position made prominent by reducing and eliminating the competition. Russia must confront the task of how best to treat religion and religious institutions within an emerging democratic order. Given Russia’s history, the Russian Orthodox Church might expect to have a dominant cultural role long into the future, but it is the Russian people, in democratic course, who must ultimately deny the church a preferred legal position. Their decision is key to the advance, or decline, of freedom in the new Russia.
Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D. is Dean of the College of Humanities and Dean of the Graduate School as well as director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the University of Mary Hardin-Baker in Belton, Texas.
The mission of The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Center for Religious Liberty is to advance religious liberty for all persons, in all parts of the world, without regard to their religious, ethnic, gender, racial or national background. Religious liberty is a basic human right that must be nourished and protected by all human societies; it is the cornerstone of modern societies’ efforts to build a more peaceful world. The Center advances this mission by publishing relevant literature, hosting and sponsoring lectureships and conferences, sharing its expertise with media and other public information outlets, and partnering with other persons and groups who share the goal of advancing religious liberty. The web site for the Center can be found at www.umhb.edu/academics/crl
ATLANTA — A federal appeals court on Friday halted the execution of a Georgia inmate convicted in the 1989 killing of a police officer, the third time in 16 months that a stay of execution has been ordered in the case.
The inmate, Troy A. Davis, 40, was scheduled to die by lethal injection on Monday for the murder of Mark A. MacPhail, a Savannah police officer.
In deciding to consider a new hearing for Mr. Davis, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, asked his lawyers to prove that no reasonable person today would find him guilty.
Since Mr. Davis’s conviction in 1991, seven witnesses have recanted their testimony, including two who said they had felt pressure by the police to testify against Mr. Davis and three who said a different man had admitted to the killing. Prosecutors presented no DNA evidence or murder weapon, although they linked bullet casings found at the scene to a gun they said Mr. Davis had used in an earlier shooting.
The case has bounced around the judicial system, appearing before at least 29 judges in seven types of reviews. The Georgia Supreme Court twice denied Mr. Davis a new hearing, and the United States Supreme Courtand the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles have issued stays of execution before rejecting his appeal.
“It’s extraordinary for three stays to be issued in one case,” said Stephen B. Bright, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School and president of the Southern Center for Human Rights. “Clearly, the case has been very troubling to each of the courts that examined it.”
SALT LAKE CITY — Polygamy is never far from the minds of Utahns — even when it occurs in another state.
A raid on a polygamist compound in Texas earlier this year that put more 400 kids in state custody has become one of the biggest issues in the race for Utah attorney general.
Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Democrat Jean Welch Hill both told The Associated Press that the first question they are asked by voters is always about polygamy, even as they try to focus on other issues.
. . .
Polygamy is a legacy of the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who founded Utah and remain its dominant religion. The faith abandoned the practice in 1890 as a condition of statehood, but many self-described fundamentalist Mormons still believe in the principle.
Shurtleff said the Texas raid has made it more difficult for his office to get abused polygamist women to report crimes, and he’s had to reassure polygamist communities that he isn’t prosecuting their religion.
“I think now we’ve convinced them again, ‘That’s Texas. We don’t do that here. We’ll take it a case at a time.’ Ultimately, we have to convince them they have to fear their abuser more than they do us,” he said. “We’re here to serve them, not to judge them.”
For Hill’s part, she said polygamists would never have to fear being prosecuted for their religion. She contends that the state’s bigamy statute is unconstitutional in the wake of the 2003 Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas.
That case struck down a Texas sodomy law, saying it violated the due process clause and that the state has no justifiable interest intruding into the private lives of consenting adults.
“Our bigamy law still stands, but frankly, it’s indefensible based on that ruling,” Hill said. “You can prosecute for forced marriages, but to actively prosecute a polygamist for being a polygamist? You’re not going to succeed.”
Shurtleff disagrees, saying the state’s bigamy laws would be upheld. He’s more concerned about polygamy being legalized under a court ruling in favor of gay marriage than Lawrence v. Texas.
“Once you take it to the next level of marriage and children, marriage and divorce, that’s different than having sex with who you want in the privacy of your home,” he said.
RIYADH – Hit hard by tumbling economy, the world is facing a covert economic war, King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, said Saturday in a meeting with press officials and editors-in-chief of Saudi newspapers in Riyadh.
As the GCC ministers of finance met Saturday in Riyadh to tackle the looming financial crisis, the King warned that the Gulf, which was forging ahead in all fields, was also being targeted.
The King stressed that the interests of religion and nation should be kept first.
Vice Presidential Candidate describes her personal faith in this series of two videos. She seems fairly mainstream in this interview by the Christian Broadcasting Network for the 700 Club.
She also answers questions regarding the federal marriage amendment and her opinions.
With all the talk about Proposition 8 and gay marriage, etc., ReligiousLiberty.TV has found a ballot proposition that it can support. (This may not reflect the views of all the members of the Advisory Panel.)
Bonnie Erbe at US News & World Report gives a good overview of California Proposition 2 which deals with animal cruelty in farming.
Leave it to California to once again lead the way on one of the most important social issues of our time. This time, it’s animal cruelty in factory farming. Next month, Californians will have the opportunity to ameliorate conditions for the millions of factory-farmed animals in that state. At factory (mass production) farms, animals from chickens to pigs and veal calves are crated in tiny spaces where some of them spend their entire suffering lives (more on that later.)
California’s Proposition 2 requires, according to the Los Angeles Times, “that confined cattle, pigs and chickens have enough space to lie down, stand up, turn around freely and extend their limbs. Because there are few veal producers in the state and the largest pork producer here has already said it would eliminate small crates, the initiative would apply to the 19 million laying hens in California.”
Doesn’t sound horrendous, does it, to give an animal enough room to stand up and move around? Can you imagine spending your entire life tied to your bed, unable to get up and move around? Even if you don’t care a whit about animals, consider what type of food animals living in intolerable situations produce. It isn’t pretty. Animals living in horrendous conditions suffer from stress as do we. When their bodies are rife with stress hormones, so is the food they produce. Guess what: animals’ stress hormones are not good for people, either. I have a saying: Animals bite back. If you eat them, they bite back and kill you by raising your cholesterol level and contributing to heart disease.
KABUL: A spokesman for the Taliban claimed responsibility for the death of a Christian aid worker in Kabul on Monday, and the militant group said it had attacked the woman because she was spreading her religion.
The woman, a British citizen, worked with handicapped Afghans and was killed in the western part of Kabul as she was walking to work around 8 a.m., the police said. Najib Samsoor, a district police chief, originally said the woman was from South Africa, but the British government later said she was British.
The gunmen, who were on a motorbike, shot the woman in the body and leg with a pistol, said Zemeri Bashary, an Interior Ministry spokesman. Officials did not release her name.
It is compassionate or controlling, a choice or a conspiracy.
On their respective Web sites, the campaigns for and against Initiative
1000 include point-by-point attempts to debunk the other side in the
debate over physician-assisted suicide, the contentious end-of-life
issue facing Washington voters in the general election.
Most of the arguments relate to the adequacy of safeguards in the
measure, which would allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of
medication if requested by terminally ill patients.
But after dealing with coercion, mental illness, insurance companies,
family notification, physician oaths and other matters, both sides end
their lists by addressing religion.
To contend that giving a terminally ill patient more control over the
dying process is "playing God" -- or is "against God's will" -- is
simply a myth, says Yes on 1000, which prefers to call the initiative
"death with dignity."
The Coalition Against Assisted Suicide disputes the assertion of
supporters that the "only real opposition comes from religious groups."
Still, faith-based groups or individuals are playing a crucial role on
both sides of the battle to make Washington the second state, after
Oregon, to allow physicians to legally prescribe deadly medication --
hardly surprising, since the issue deals with literal matters of life
and death.
Dr. Catherine Kim of Simi Valley, Calif. can’t do it. Her practice as an obstetrician-gynecologist is based on medical science. But her convictions as a born-again Christian sculpt every aspect of her life, from the Bible stories she reads to her kids before bedtime to the prayers she offers people who visit her office.
Because of her beliefs, Kim won’t perform abortions and won’t provide emergency contraceptives that are used after intercourse. She won’t give referrals either because that would be participating in acts she sees as immoral.
“Just like they have the right to choose, I have a right to choose,” she said, suggesting that pushing doctors to mute the influence of faith on their practice is discrimination. “The doctor has the right to act and practice according to his or her convictions.”
Religious freedom experts criticized this week a United Nations anti-blasphemy resolution for most likely hindering Christian evangelism and spreading Sharia law.
“This anti-blasphemy resolution is mostly seen to be putting a ‘chilling effect’ on Christian work and outreach around the world, and that is a very troubling development for us,” said Carol Moeller, president/CEO of Open Doors, according to Mission Network News.
The non-binding U.N. resolution was first introduced by Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the U.N. Human Rights Council in 1999. It was amended to include religions other than Islam, and has since passed every year.
The Ministry of Justice’s action against 56 religious organizations might be a genuine but harmless attempt to bring the organizations into compliance with law. But many inside Russia doubt whether there is not something more troublesome at play here. It might well be Russia’s latest attempt to elevate Russian Orthodoxy to a position made prominent by reducing and eliminating the competition. Russia must confront the task of how best to treat religion and religious institutions within an emerging democratic order. Given Russia’s history, the Russian Orthodox Church might expect to have a dominant cultural role long into the future, but it is the Russian people, in democratic course, who must ultimately deny the church a preferred legal position. Their decision is key to the advance, or decline, of freedom in the new Russia.
Add to Google