1. Russian Federation- Russia is a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government.

2. The names Russian Federation and Russia are equivalent.

Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen is the duty of the state.

1. The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.

2. The people exercise their power directly, as well as through state authorities and local self-government bodies.

3. The highest direct expression of the power of the people is the referendum and free elections.

4. No one can appropriate power in the Russian Federation. The seizure of power or the appropriation of power is punishable under federal law.

1. The sovereignty of the Russian Federation extends to its entire territory.

2. The Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws shall have supremacy throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation.

3. The Russian Federation ensures the integrity and inviolability of its territory.

1. The Russian Federation consists of republics, territories, regions, cities of federal significance, an autonomous region, autonomous districts - equal subjects of the Russian Federation.

2. The republic (state) has its own constitution and legislation. A krai, oblast, federal city, autonomous oblast, autonomous okrug has its own charter and legislation.

3. The federal structure of the Russian Federation is based on its state integrity, the unity of the system of state power, the delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the bodies of state power of the Russian Federation and the state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the equality and self-determination of peoples in the Russian Federation.

4. In relations with federal government bodies, all subjects of the Russian Federation are equal among themselves.

1. Citizenship of the Russian Federation is acquired and terminated in accordance with federal law, is uniform and equal, regardless of the grounds for acquisition.

2. Every citizen of the Russian Federation has all the rights and freedoms on its territory and bears equal obligations stipulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

3. A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deprived of his citizenship or the right to change it.

1. Russian Federation - welfare state whose policy is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of a person.

2. In the Russian Federation, labor and health of people are protected, a guaranteed minimum wage is established, state support is provided for the family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood, disabled and elderly citizens, a system of social services is developed, state pensions, benefits and other guarantees of social protection are established.

1. The unity of the economic space, free movement of goods, services and financial resources, support for competition, and freedom of economic activity are guaranteed in the Russian Federation.

2. In the Russian Federation, private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership are recognized and protected in the same way.

1. Land and other natural resources are used and protected in the Russian Federation as the basis for the life and activities of the peoples living in the respective territory.

2. Land and other natural resources may be in private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership.

State power in the Russian Federation is exercised on the basis of division into legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative, executive and judicial authorities are independent.

1. State power in the Russian Federation is exercised by the President of the Russian Federation, the Federal Assembly (the Federation Council and the State Duma), the Government of the Russian Federation, and the courts of the Russian Federation.

2. State power in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is exercised by the bodies of state power formed by them.

3. The delimitation of the subjects of jurisdiction and powers between the state authorities of the Russian Federation and the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is carried out by this Constitution, the Federal and other agreements on the delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction and powers.

The Russian Federation recognizes and guarantees local self-government. Local self-government within its powers independently. Local self-government bodies are not included in the system of state authorities.

1. Ideological diversity is recognized in the Russian Federation.

2. No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory.

3. Political diversity and multi-party system are recognized in the Russian Federation.

4. Public associations are equal before the law.

5. It is prohibited to create and operate public associations whose goals or actions are aimed at forcibly changing the foundations of the constitutional order and violating the integrity of the Russian Federation, undermining the security of the state, creating armed formations, inciting social, racial, national and religious hatred.

1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as a state or obligatory one.

2. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation has the highest legal force, direct effect and is applied throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation must not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The phrase that the Church is separated from the state has recently become a kind of rhetorical commonplace, used as soon as it comes to the participation of the Church in public life, as soon as representatives of the church appear in a state institution. However, the citation of this top in the dispute today speaks of ignorance of what is written in the Constitution and the "Law on Freedom of Conscience" - the main document describing the existence of religion on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Firstly, the phrase "the Church is separated from the state" is not in the law.

So firmly remembered the line about the separation was preserved in the minds of the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 (Article 52): "The church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church." If we make a brief extract from the chapter of the "Law on Freedom of Conscience" on the relationship between the Church and the state, then we get the following:

No religion can be compulsory in Russia

- The state does not interfere in church affairs and does not transfer its functions of state power to religious organizations,

— The state cooperates with religious organizations in the field of preservation of cultural monuments and education. Schools can teach religious subjects as an elective.

The main difficulty in reading laws lies in the different understanding of the word "state" - on the one hand, as a political system for organizing society, and on the other - directly to society - the whole country as a whole.

In other words, religious organizations in Russia, according to the law, do not perform the functions of state power, religion is not imposed from above, but cooperate with the state in those matters that concern society. “The separation of church from state means the separation of governing functions, and not the complete removal of the church from public life,” Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, Chairman of the Synodal Department of the Moscow Patriarchate for Relations between Church and Society, said today at a round table held as part of the work of the Center for Conservative Studies of the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University.

We invite the reader to familiarize themselves with several important texts that exhaustively cover this problem:

The separation of the state from the Church should not exclude her from nation-building

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin

In Russia, the discussion on the topic of philosophy and principles of church-state relations has revived. This is partly due to the need to regulate the legislative and practical foundations of the partnership between the authorities, society and religious associations - a partnership, the need for which is definitely growing. Partly - and no less - by the ongoing struggle of beliefs associated with the search for a new national ideology. Perhaps the focus of the discussion was various interpretations the principle of separation of the Church from the state, laid down in the Russian Constitution. Let's try to figure it out existing opinions on this account.

In itself, the legitimacy and correctness of the principle of separation of the Church and the secular state is unlikely to be seriously disputed by anyone. The danger of “clericalization of the state” today, although more illusory than real, really cannot but be perceived as a threat to the order of things that has developed in Russia and the world, which generally satisfies the interests of both believers and non-believers. An attempt to impose faith on people by force secular power, to entrust purely state functions to the Church can have extremely negative consequences for a person, and for the state, and for the church organism itself, as convincingly evidenced by the Russian history of the XVIII-XIX centuries, and the experience of some foreign countries, in particular, those with an Islamic form of government. This is well understood by the absolute majority of believers - Orthodox and Muslims, not to mention Jews, Buddhists, Catholics and Protestants. The only exceptions are marginal groups, for which calls for the nationalization of religion are more a means of acquiring scandalous political fame than a designation of a real task.

At the same time, a considerable number of officials, scientists of the Soviet school (whom, by the way, I respect more than other "new religious scholars"), as well as liberal intellectuals, interpret the separation of the Church from the state as the need to keep it within the walls of churches - well, maybe even within the framework of private and family life. We are often told that the presence of religious lessons in secondary schools on a voluntary basis is a violation of the Constitution, the presence of priests in the army is a source of massive inter-religious conflicts, the teaching of theology in secular universities is a departure from the “religious neutrality” of the state, and budgetary funding of educational and social programs of religious organizations is almost undermining the social order.

This position is supported by arguments both from the Soviet past and from the experience of some countries, primarily France and the United States. At the same time, however, they forget that most of the states of Europe and the world live by completely different laws. We will not take the examples of Israel and successively Muslim monarchies or republics where the political system is based on religious principles. Let's leave aside such countries as England, Sweden, Greece, where there is a state or "official" religion. Let us take Germany, Austria or Italy, examples of purely secular states typical of Europe, where religion is separated from secular power, but where this power nonetheless prefers to rely on the social resources of the Church, actively cooperate with it, and not distance itself from it. And let's note in the margins that the local model is increasingly being adopted by Central and Eastern Europe, including the CIS states.

For the governments and citizens of the countries mentioned above, the separation of the Church from the state does not at all mean the exclusion of religious organizations from active public life. Moreover, there are no artificial barriers to the work of theology faculties in the largest state universities, to the teaching of religion in a secular school (of course, at the free choice of students), to the maintenance of an impressive staff of military and embassy chaplains, to the broadcast of Sunday services on national television channels and, finally, to the most active state support for charitable, scientific and even foreign policy initiatives of religious organizations. All this, by the way, is done at the expense of the state budget - either through a church tax or through direct funding. By the way, I personally think that in an economically weakened Russia, the time has not yet come for a massive allocation of state funds to religious communities. But why didn’t anyone think about a simple question: if budget money flows like a river to sports, cultural and media organizations, which are also sort of separated from the state, then why can’t religious organizations even hint about this money? After all, they ask not for missionary work and not for the salary of priests, but mainly for matters of national importance - for social, cultural and educational work, for the restoration of architectural monuments. In addition, with all the understanding of the weakness of financial discipline in modern Russian religious associations, I would venture to suggest that the funds given to them reach ordinary people still, to a greater extent than the money of other funds and public associations allocated from the budget for very specific projects.

Europe cherishes the principle of separation of church and state no less than ours. Moreover, it is understood there quite definitely: religious communities should not interfere in the exercise of secular power. Yes, they can call on their members to support or not support any political program, to act in one way or another in parliament, government, political parties. But the actual exercise of power is not the business of the Church. This has begun to be realized even in countries with a state religion, where the leadership of, for example, Lutheran churches now itself refuses to register acts of civil status and from the right to distribute budget funds that are not related to church activities. The process of "denationalization" of religion is really under way. However, no one in the same Germany and in a nightmare will not dream of imposing on the country the Soviet model of state-church relations, the French ideology of laicite (emphasized secularism, anti-clericalism) or the American "privatization" of religion. By the way, let's move across the ocean. There, unlike in Europe, the reverse trend has been observed for several years. The change in the demographic composition of the US population not in favor of white Christians is increasingly forcing politicians to talk about the need for state support for religion (but not only Christian). Long before the arrival of George W. Bush, the House of Representatives of the US Congress approved a bill allowing direct allocation of federal budget funds to churches for their social work (indirectly they were allocated anyway). At the local level, this practice has existed for a long time. The new president is going to significantly expand the scope of its application. Let's also not forget that there have always been state-paid military and embassy chaplains in America, and there is no need to even mention the scale of Washington's foreign policy support for Protestant missionary work.

In a word, any responsible state, except, perhaps, hysterically anti-clerical France and the last bastions of Marxism, is trying to develop a full-fledged partnership with leading religious communities, even if it firmly stands on the principle of separation of religion and secular power. Oddly enough, supporters of preserving in Russia the rudiments of Soviet theory and practice of state-church relations do not want to notice this reality. In the minds of these people, for example, the Leninist norm about the separation of the school from the Church is still alive, which, fortunately, is not in the current legislation. On a subconscious level, they consider religious communities to be a collective enemy, whose influence must be limited by inciting intra- and inter-confessional contradictions, preventing religion from entering any new areas of public life, be it the education of youth, pastoral care for military personnel or international peacekeeping. The main concern of these figures is "no matter what happens." In a country where there is only one fairly large religious minority - 12-15 million Muslims - they frighten the people with inter-religious conflicts that will supposedly arise if, for example, Orthodox theology is allowed into a secular university. These people are completely indifferent to the fact that in Armenia and Moldova - countries that are not much less "poly-confessional" than Russia - full-fledged theological faculties of leading state universities have long been opened, and no Bartholomew nights followed. Neo-atheists do not allow (or are afraid of) the idea that in Russia both Orthodox, and Muslims, and Buddhists, and Jews, and Catholics, and even a significant part of Protestants can find a modus vivendi that allows them to be proportionately present in higher and secondary schools, science, culture, and national media.

However, it is useless to argue further. The course of the public discussion shows that views on church-state relations have been substantially divided. The religious revival does not cause any "popular protest". However, a small but influential part of society has taken a position of rigid opposition to the development of partnership between the Church and the state, to the strengthening of the place of religion in the life of the country. Two models, two ideals collided: on the one hand, the construction of a powerful "buffer zone" between the state and the Church, on the other hand, their close interaction for the sake of the present and future of the country. My opponents will probably not be convinced, although I have tried to do this many times. Therefore, I will try to analyze their motives.

Firstly, the Soviet religious studies school, which has undeniable achievements, was never able to overcome atheistic stereotypes, enrich itself and renew itself through dialogue with other worldviews. Time is running out, influence remains only in some corridors of the old apparatus, which means that changes in society are perceived as dangerous and undesirable. Secondly, the liberal intelligentsia, which was the leader of public opinion in the late 80s and early 90s, is not one today and is terribly complex about this. This social stratum needed the Church only as a fellow traveler, obediently following in the wake of its ideological constructions. When she had her own position and her own influence on the minds, she turned into an enemy, whose role should be limited in every possible way. This is how the “new godlessness” arose. Finally, thirdly, and most importantly, in Russia it has not been possible to form a national idea either on the basis of the values ​​of private life (“the ideologeme of local development” by Satarov’s team) or on the basis of the priorities of a self-sufficient market (“economic centrism” of Gref’s doctrine). Society is looking for higher and more "exciting" goals, looking for the meaning of both individual and collective existence. Not being able to fill the ideological vacuum, Russian thinkers see nothing better than preserving this vacuum until better times. At the same time, "clearing the site" from everything incomprehensible and uncalculated.

The Church and other traditional religions have the answer to many questions still facing the country and people. I would venture to suggest that this answer is expected by millions of citizens of the country, who continue to be in worldview confusion. The authorities should not impose religious and moral preaching on people. But it still should not prevent the Russians from hearing it. Otherwise, the only feeling that unites citizens will be hatred for Caucasians, Jews, America, Europe, and sometimes even for the government itself. There is only one alternative, in my opinion: a renewed commitment to the ethical values ​​of Orthodoxy, Islam, and others. traditional religions, as well as a reasonable, open humanism, even if agnostic.

Do not be afraid of ultra-conservative religious radicalism, the neophyte fuse of which is gradually fading. By the way, it is strong precisely where there is no scope for a genuine religious revival, combining loyalty to tradition and openness to the new, patriotism and dialogue with the world. This revival, and therefore the revival of Russia, must be helped. For this, the Church and the authorities do not need to merge in a stormy embrace. They just need to do a common thing, to work together for the benefit of people - Orthodox and non-Orthodox, believers and non-believers.

Well educated and non-church

Mikhail Tarusin, Sociologist, political scientist, publicist. Head of the Social Research Department of the Institute of Public Design.

In Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in paragraph 1 it is written that “the Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as a state or obligatory one.” Paragraph 2 in the same place adds: "Religious associations are separate from the state and are equal before the law." It seems to be intuitive, but still I would like more clarity.

Let's start with the definition of "secular". In Ushakov's dictionary, the word is defined in two meanings: as "well-bred" and as "non-church". We probably need a second definition. The Big Law Dictionary (LLC) defines "secular state" as "meaning the separation of church and state, the delimitation of their spheres of activity." From my side, encyclopedic Dictionary"The constitutional law of Russia" defines a secular state as: "a state in which there is no official, state religion and none of the creeds is recognized as obligatory and preferable. At the same time, the Law of the Russian Federation "On Freedom of Conscience" of September 19, 1997 in the preamble recognizes "the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture."

In our opinion, there is much that is unclear here. The constitution denies religion as a state or compulsory religion, but says nothing about the preference for one religion over others. Constitutional law seems to add a denial of preference for any religion. The Law "On Freedom of Speech" speaks of the special role of Orthodoxy, while stating that it was thanks to Orthodoxy that Russia acquired spirituality (!). There is a clear preference for Orthodoxy, denied by constitutional law, but not directly denied by the Constitution. Paradox.

In addition, the LUS interprets the secular state as signifying at the same time department Churches from the state and demarcation their areas of activity. Agree, the delimitation of spheres is possible only with joint activities, when the parties are united common goal. Separation does not imply anything joint at all - a divorce and a maiden name.

Why is there so much ambiguity in this whole topic? In our opinion, for this it is necessary to go back a little, to our, either bright, or damned past.

Contrary to popular belief, the Soviet state did not declare itself as atheistic. The 1977 Constitution of the USSR states in Article 52: “Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess any religion or not to profess any, to practice religious cults or conduct atheistic propaganda. Incitement of enmity and hatred in connection with religious beliefs is prohibited. The church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church.

Pay attention, by the way, that the Orthodox Church is clearly singled out here as the main subject of separation. It is just right to think that a mosque, a pagoda, a prayer house and a satanic temple are not separated from the state.

Of course, this article contains deliberate cunning - it is hardly possible to put an equal sign between the opportunities to "profess religion" and "to conduct anti-religious propaganda." But in general, the article looks quite decent. Then where is the state atheism? It turns out that it is hidden deep. The USSR Constitution of 1977 says nothing about state atheism, but Article 6 states that “the leading and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.”

In turn, the Charter of the CPSU (with additions of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU), in the section "Members of the CPSU, their duties and rights", in paragraph d) states that a member of the party is obliged: "To wage a resolute struggle against any manifestations of bourgeois ideology, against the remnants of private property psychology, religious prejudices and other remnants of the past." In the CPSU Program of 31.10. 1961, in the section “In the field of education of communist consciousness”, paragraph e) also states that: “The party uses the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of a scientific-materialistic worldview, to overcome religious prejudices, not allowing offending the feelings of believers. It is necessary to systematically conduct broad scientific-atheistic propaganda, patiently explain the inconsistency of religious beliefs that arose in the past on the basis of the oppression of people by the elemental forces of nature and social oppression, due to ignorance of the true causes of natural and social phenomena. At the same time, one should rely on the achievements of modern science, which reveals the picture of the world more and more fully, increases the power of man over nature and leaves no room for the fantastic inventions of religion about supernatural forces.

Like this. The state itself is obviously secular, but since the CPSU, which ideologically professes atheism, is the guiding force of society and state organizations, the state also uses the constitutional right to atheistic propaganda.

This is precisely why the state separated the Church from itself, in order to convince society to abandon religious prejudices and remnants of the past. It seemed to be saying - this is superfluous, we don’t need it, that’s why we rejected it from ourselves, because we want to get rid of it from our life. In this context, the meaning of separation is clear and consistent.

But back to new Russia. Which declares itself as a secular state, but specifically in Article 13, paragraph 2 specifies that: "No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory." In other words, we do not need any "guiding and guiding force". Fine. But then why did they take and blindly drag the provision on the separation of religious organizations from the state from the Soviet Constitution? The Bolsheviks needed this in order to conduct systematic atheistic propaganda and at the same time systematically destroy the Church as such. The current government does not intend to do either.

Then why separate?

It would be more logical to constitutionally declare cooperation between the state and religious organizations in the division of areas of activity. Which, by the way, is mentioned in the Big Legal Dictionary.

Here, for example, the recently adopted Program of the United Russia party says the following: “Traditional religions are the keepers of the wisdom and experience of generations necessary for understanding and solving urgent social problems. We proceed from such an understanding of the secular state, which means the organizational and functional separation of the state and religious organizations, and the appeal to religion is voluntary. At the same time, we are convinced that society should be able to hear the voice of traditional confessions.”

Those. does not directly refer to separation, but to delimitation of functions is an example worthy of legislative imitation.

Finally, it should be understood that the concept secular does not mean separation or alienation from the concept religious th. I, for example, am a secular person, not in the sense of being well brought up, but in the sense of not serving in the church, not a priest and not a monk. But I consider myself Orthodox. The President is a man of the world. But he is also Orthodox, was baptized at the age of 23 of his own free will and now lives church life, i.e. participates in the sacraments of Confession and Communion. Is the prime minister a secular person? Yes. Orthodox? Certainly. A significant part of modern Russian society is secular. And Orthodox at the same time.

It may be objected that the concept of separation of just something means non-interference of the state in the affairs of the Church and vice versa. But then why such an honor to religious organizations? Why is the separation from the state of the voluntary society of firefighters and, in general, of all public organizations (the so-called NGOs) not indicated in the Constitution?

And then, one of the main tasks of civil society institutions is precisely to control the state, represented by authorities at various levels, so as not to be too naughty. And in the tasks of religious organizations - it is impartial to tell the authorities if they start to rule not according to their conscience. In turn, the state is obliged to intervene in the affairs of a religious organization, if it surpasses itself in terms of totalitarianism. So it's hard to talk about mutual non-interference.

Then why the state, being secular, cannot be Orthodox? I don't see any barriers to that. If it itself claims in its own Law that Orthodoxy has played a special role in the formation and development of the spirituality and culture of Russia. Moreover, if Orthodoxy played this role historically, and then for almost the last century, the ruling party of the state destroyed both Orthodoxy itself and the fruits of its labors, is it not logical to turn to the Church again? With a request to help the young state in the formation of the spirituality and culture of young Russia, which, apparently, has no particularly fruitful ideas on this score. And, on the contrary, which the Church has, given the centuries-old experience of Russian Orthodoxy, the great spiritual heritage of patristic tradition, the spiritual culture of folk traditions.

Moreover, the state of modern Russian society in terms of cultural and spiritual health has long required the most prompt intervention. And, undoubtedly, it is necessary to begin with the moral nourishment of young souls.

Here, by the way, there is one subtle point. In the Soviet Constitution, it is not for nothing that there is a strange clarification: “The Church in the USSR is separated from the state and school - from the church". Why was it necessary to add this “school from the church”? Wasn't everything in the Soviet country state-owned? Yes, but the Bolsheviks were well aware that the construction of a new world should begin with the education of a new person, the school for them was one of the most important components of the communist construction. Therefore, the most terrible was the very thought of the hateful Church penetrating there. Hence the addition.

So. But why then today are the numerous hysterics about the introduction of religious disciplines into schools? Or are we still continuing to build the "bright world of communism"? It seems not.

And the arguments themselves speak more about their spokesmen as legalists than as atheists. Chief among these refers to the fact that schools are de government institutions, thus separated from the church. And then teaching them the basics of religion is a violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. But schools today in the country are municipal institutions, and municipalities are local government structures that de jure cannot be considered part of the state system.

If we take the media space, which today, voluntarily or without knowing it, strictly follows the instructions of Langley experts on the decomposition of Russian society, then it is certainly not a state institution. This means that it can be under the direct guardianship of the Church, and I do not know of any other community today that would need it more.

Finally, the institutions of civil society, although they received a wise leader in the person of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation and its regional clones, do not show due enthusiasm in connection with this appointment. On the other hand, the noticeable development of the social initiatives of the Church just means the real formation of this very civil society, on the basis of mercy and compassion familiar to our mentality.

Finally, it is necessary to create an atmosphere of a moral state in the entire public space, when not benefit and good, but shame and conscience drive a person’s actions.

Simple observations show that we are today overly involved in the quasi-ideology of economism. The plans built for the future are rosy and promising, but for some reason it is not possible to take the first step. Make the first obvious breakthrough, unwind the flywheel of creative movement. Why is this? And because, when you need to make a physical movement, it is necessary, first of all, to apply moral an effort.

And how to create this effort? This requires moral experience. This is why the union of the state and the Church is necessary. In order for the national body to have moral strength. We have no other teacher and never will be, except for the Orthodox faith and the mother of the Russian Orthodox Church. And if our state, in addition to economic experts, is armed with such an assistant, you look, and the bright plans of the current will seem like a trifle compared to the newly opened prospects.

THE FEDERAL LAW ON FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS

Article 4 State and religious associations

1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as a state or obligatory one. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.
2. In accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state, the state:
does not interfere in the determination by a citizen of his attitude to religion and religious affiliation, in the upbringing of children by parents or persons replacing them, in accordance with their convictions and taking into account the child's right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;
does not impose on religious associations the performance of the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local self-government bodies;
does not interfere in the activities of religious associations, if it does not contradict this Federal Law;
ensures the secular nature of education in state and municipal educational institutions.
3. The state regulates the provision of tax and other benefits to religious organizations, provides financial, material and other assistance to religious organizations in the restoration, maintenance and protection of buildings and objects that are monuments of history and culture, as well as in ensuring the teaching of general education disciplines in educational institutions established by religious organizations in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on education.
4. The activities of public authorities and local self-government bodies are not accompanied by public religious rites and ceremonies. Officials of state authorities, other state bodies and local self-government bodies, as well as military personnel are not entitled to use their official position to form one or another attitude towards religion.
5. In accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state, a religious association:
creates and carries out its activities in accordance with its own hierarchical and institutional structure, selects, appoints and replaces its personnel in accordance with its own regulations;
does not perform the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local governments;
does not participate in elections to state authorities and local self-government bodies;
does not participate in the activities of political parties and political movements, does not provide them with material and other assistance.
6. The separation of religious associations from the state does not entail restrictions on the rights of members of these associations to participate on an equal basis with other citizens in the management of state affairs, elections to state authorities and local self-government bodies, the activities of political parties, political movements and other public associations.
7. At the request of religious organizations, the relevant state authorities in the Russian Federation have the right to announce Religious holidays non-working (holiday) days in the respective territories.

Article 5 religious education

1. Everyone has the right to receive a religious education of his choice, individually or in community with others.
2. The upbringing and education of children is carried out by parents or persons replacing them, taking into account the child's right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
3. Religious organizations have the right, in accordance with their charters and with the legislation of the Russian Federation, to create educational institutions.
4. At the request of parents or persons replacing them, with the consent of children studying in state and municipal educational institutions, the administration of these institutions, in agreement with the relevant local self-government body, provides a religious organization with the opportunity to teach children religion outside the framework of the educational program.

Not everyone knows what happened during the period of real separation of church and state, which occurred after the October Revolution in Russia. It is important to say that it was not an imaginary (as in many countries), but a real separation of church and state.

And here it is important to emphasize that we are by no means talking about the famous “repressions” to which the priests refer. In fact, the essence lies precisely in the fact that the churchmen were deprived of state support, and that is why they went against the Bolsheviks, and not at all because of their supposedly principled position.

In order to consider this issue sensibly, we should first turn to the history of relations between the church and the tsarist government. Firstly, of course, under tsarism, the church was maintained at the expense of the state, that is, they built churches, paid money, and church officials could claim a number of privileges (as well as nobles). Interestingly, temples and other church buildings did not belong to the church, and therefore the priests did not have to pay for the maintenance and repair of these structures.

Actually, starting from Peter I, the church was inscribed in the vertical of power, and therefore it should be perceived more as an apparatus of officials who simply control the mob. After all, it was the clergy who came into contact with the population to a greater extent, and not other government officials.

Therefore, the illusion was created that allegedly the clergy really can control the people. However, in fact, of course, everything was not so, and the authority of the church among the population was rather weak. Well, the high attendance of temples was explained primarily by the fact that Orthodoxy was forced by the force of law. It is, of course, difficult to assess the real impact in such a situation.

But in any case, after the fall of tsarism, the church immediately began to cooperate with the provisional government. This probably surprised contemporaries quite strongly, since it seemed that the Orthodox Church was devoted to autocracy. And then talk began that, they say, Nikolai was a despot, and the church allegedly always advocated a democratic republic.

It is clear that representatives of the interim government did not particularly believe, probably, in the sincerity of this, since the entire staff had previously been “cursed” by the churchmen more than once. But still, they considered that the church should be used, and therefore they left Orthodoxy as the state religion and continued to pay salaries to priests.

Priests were mainly used during the war, the so-called. "military chaplains". Although there was no sense in this, since during the war the number of deserters was unprecedented in the entire history of Russia. In fact, it was impossible to win in such a position. After all, the enthusiasm and strength that really existed in the very initial period of the war already disappeared somewhere in the middle or end of 1915.

It is clear that the state as a whole could in no way confirm its legitimacy, because the only thing they did was to continue relations with the priests and individual highest representatives of power, i.e., bureaucrats, nobles, and so on. And all the promises that were made before that were not fulfilled.

Interestingly, in the same period, the church even sent a collection of definitions and resolutions to the provisional government. In particular, the church demanded:

• Orthodox Russian Church, constituting part of a single Ecumenical Church of Christ, occupies in the Russian State a public-legal position that is superior among other confessions, befitting it as the greatest shrine of the vast majority of the population and as a great historical force that created the Russian State.

• In all secular public schools ... the teaching of the Law of God ... is obligatory both in lower and secondary, and in higher educational institutions: the content of teaching posts in public schools is accepted at the expense of the treasury.
• Property belonging to the Orthodox Church is not subject to confiscation or seizure ... by state taxes.
• The Orthodox Church receives from the funds of the State Treasury ... annual appropriations within the limits of its needs.

There were many similar demands, and the provisional government agreed with them. By the way, it was during this period that the church began to revive the patriarchate. In exchange for concessions to the VP, the clergy prayed for the health of government ministers and, in general, for the new form of government. Therefore, of course, one should not talk about any secularism during the GP period.

As soon as the Bolsheviks took power, at first everything was relatively calm (in the church environment), since the priests shared the illusion that the alleged government would not last even a few weeks. Both churchmen and political opponents spoke openly about this. At first, the Bolsheviks were given a few days, then weeks. But in the end, we still had to reconsider our position.

It is quite clear that as soon as the Bolsheviks began to carry out their activities in a more or less "stable" regime, the churchmen became worried. I would immediately like to note that the church was separated from the state, and the schools from the church, not on the very first day, but in 1918. Moreover, the clergy were informed in advance that the church would soon be finally separated from the state.

Understanding what was happening, the clergy felt that it was necessary to reconcile with the government. The priests hoped that the Bolsheviks would reconsider their views and decide to use the church for their own needs, but all attempts were in vain, despite the persistence of the priests.

Already in December 1917, the priests sent the definitions of the local council to the Council of People's Commissars, that is, the same points that were sent to the provisional government, which states that Orthodoxy is the state religion, and all the main persons of the country must be Orthodox. The Bolsheviks not only rejected the proposal, but Lenin also emphasized that the project for the separation of church and state must be prepared as quickly as possible, despite the fact that there was still a lot of work to be done.

Probably, the first blow to the ROC is the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia”, which clearly states that with the adoption of the declaration there will be abolition:

"all and any national and national-religious privileges and restrictions"

At the same time, bills appeared that allowed civil marriages, and not just church ones, which was previously a prerequisite, and amendments were also adopted that limited the presence of priests in the army. These were some half-measures before the official law.

Soon the decree on the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church was published. Items:

1. Proclamation of the secular nature of the Soviet state - the church is separated from the state.
2. The prohibition of any restriction of freedom of conscience, or the establishment of any advantages or privileges on the basis of the religious affiliation of citizens.
3. The right of everyone to profess any religion or none.
4. The prohibition of indicating the religious affiliation of citizens in official documents.
5. Prohibition of religious rites and ceremonies when performing state or other public law public actions.
6. Civil status records should be kept exclusively by the civil authorities, marriage and birth registration departments.
7. The school as a state educational institution is separated from the church - a ban on the teaching of religion. Citizens should teach and learn religion only in private.
8. The prohibition of compulsory collections, fees and taxes in favor of church and religious societies, as well as the prohibition of measures of coercion or punishment by these societies over their fellow members.
9. Prohibition of property rights in church and religious societies. Prevention for them of the rights of a legal entity.
10. All property existing in Russia, church and religious societies declared public property.

Now about churches. Priests were allowed to use the church free of charge if there was a priest himself and 20 parishioners. But the priest, or his “brethren”, is obliged to maintain this temple and in no case turn to the state for help, since these issues should in no way concern the secular state. Accordingly, you need to pay janitors, cleaners, choristers, for repairs, and so on.

In the matter of cults, real equality really appeared when the Old Believers and Protestants (of Russian origin) ceased to be persecuted and could lay claim to religious buildings if all conditions were met. In general, frameworks were created that were quite adequate for a secular state. It is also worth recalling one characteristic detail that church apologists do not like to recall. In many Protestant countries, where Catholicism previously dominated, monasteries were often liquidated (somewhere completely, somewhere not). But in Soviet Russia, and then in the USSR, monasteries were preserved, temples were preserved. Another thing is that there are fewer of them, because now the rules have changed.

Moreover, what is important, the priests insisted that the Bolsheviks take and cancel the decree on the separation of church and state, that is, they said that they were ready to cooperate, but only if all priestly privileges were preserved. In this regard, the Bolsheviks demonstrated steadfastness, that is, they did not follow their lead.

Immediately, the local council began to curse the Bolsheviks, who "took away" the privileges of the poor priests, who had previously used laws that punished for leaving Orthodoxy. Patriarch Tikhon put it this way:

"... we conjure believing children Orthodox Church with such monsters of the human race do not enter into any communication ... "

Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd wrote to the Council of People's Commissars (probably Lenin also read the letter):

"Unrest can take on the power of spontaneous movements ... it breaks out and can result in violent movements and lead to very serious consequences. No power can hold it back"

The Council of the Orthodox Church clarified that the decree:

"a malicious attempt on the whole system of life of the Orthodox Church and an act of open persecution against it."

That is, when they talk about “persecution,” one must always understand what the clergy mean.

Since the decree was already officially in force, the clergy through their media (for example, the newspaper Tserkovniye Vedomosti) called for a boycott of the decree:

"The leaders and students in religious educational institutions should rally with the parents of students and employees in unions (collectives) to protect educational institutions from capture and to ensure their further activities for the benefit of the church ... "

It is clear that in reality the clergy were not particularly listened to, because when the "obligation" of Orthodoxy disappeared, then the authority immediately decreased, and the number of church visits dropped sharply. Not surprising, because now they did not threaten the code of laws.

Actually, the clergy themselves in their own internal publications admitted that their authority is negligible. Typical examples:

• “The distrust with which the parishioners relate to the attempts of the clergy to get closer to the flock, that hostility bordering on open hostility ... indicates that the clergy is beginning to lose its former love and authority among the parishioners ... (Medic. A frank word about the mood of the minds of the modern intelligentsia // Missionary Review, 1902. No. 5).
• “Our clergy, even among the pious and previously humbly submissive peasants, live very hard. They do not want to pay the priest at all for the services, they insult him in every possible way. Here it is necessary to close the church and transfer the clergy to another parish, because the peasants resolutely refused to contain their parable; there are still unfortunate facts - these are cases of murders, burning of priests, cases of various gross mockeries against them ”(Christianin, 1907).
• “Priests only live by requisitions, they take ... eggs, wool and strive, as it were, to go to prayers more often, and money: he died - money, was born - money, he takes not how much you give, but how much he wants. But a hungry year happens, he will not wait until a good year, but give him the last, and at the very 36 acres (together with the parable) of land ... A noticeable movement against the clergy began ”(Agrarian movement, 1909, p. 384).
• “At meetings we are scolded, when they meet with us they spit, in a cheerful company they tell funny and indecent anecdotes about us, and recently they began to depict us in an indecent form in pictures and postcards ... I don’t even talk about our parishioners, our spiritual children. They look at us very, very often as fierce enemies who only think about how to “rip them off” more, causing them material damage ”(Shepherd and flock, 1915, No. 1, p. 24).

Therefore, the decree was hampered mainly by internal and external political circumstances. Since there were a lot of tasks in power, and it is, of course, necessary to separate the church from the state, but still this is not the most important point.

The more the decree worked, the more it hit the priests, because after a month of the real work of the “department”, they simply howled. And they began to distribute all sorts of appeals in which they openly called for disobedience:

"Any participation both in the issuance of this legalization hostile to the church (the decree on the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church), and in attempts to put it into practice, is incompatible with belonging to the Orthodox Church and incurs the most severe punishments on those guilty of the Orthodox confession, up to and including excommunication"

The tactic, of course, is ridiculous, because people were literally told the following: we are forbidden to live at someone else's expense, and to live in luxury. Therefore, we call for the abolition of this decree, otherwise we will be excommunicated from the church. It is unlikely that this could inspire the defense of the church, especially on the part of those who were actually driven into the temples by force earlier. It is important to remember that there were people who really sincerely attended churches during the period of tsarism, but still drove everyone there by force. Accordingly, if a fanatical visitor to the temples abruptly stopped doing this, then sanctions would await him.

Therefore, decrees in large cities were not particularly blocked. But in the villages it happened, because there the clergy were "wiser." They declared that the Bolsheviks were antichrists, that they not only separated the church from the state, but literally killed all priests and believers. Therefore, it often happened that representatives of the government, policemen and Red Army soldiers were simply killed in the villages after such “sermons”. However, it is important to note that this did not happen very often.

Then the clergy began to hold religious processions in order to show their "influence", so that the authorities would come to their senses. It is important to note that each religious procession was sanctioned by the authorities, which allegedly interfered with the activities of churchmen. The most massive religious procession was in St. Petersburg, when the priests turned directly to the Council of People's Commissars, declaring that 500,000 believers would come to the procession. But the priests were then warned that if there were provocations, then it was the clergy who would be held responsible for this. As a result, everything went more or less calmly, and not 500 thousand, but 50 thousand came. In a couple of years, hundreds of people gathered for such events.

The Black Hundreds from the Lantern magazine, after the procession, directly called:

"Our path ... is the only one - the path of the parallel organization of Russian military power and the re-creation of national self-consciousness ... real conditions are for us the help of America and Japan ... "

And in the future, you can see basically only despondency and similar calls. Probably, in this way the priests spent the funds that they had available since tsarist times.

For a long time this could not continue, and as a result, a split simply occurred. Orthodox priests remained in the center, earning money (because, although the number of parishioners decreased, there were still quite a lot of them, and it was possible to live on donations, but, however, much more modestly). At the same time, such figures actively called for sabotage and war with the government until it goes to an ultimatum from the church. That is why soon the issue had to be resolved radically. That is, to arrest figures who actively violated the law, including Patriarch Tikhon (moreover, they tolerated them for about 5 years, that is, most of them were arrested only in the early 20s). Soon, most of them "realized their guilt" and they were released.

Although, what is important, with their provocations, they contributed to inciting discord and actually provoked bloody clashes that cost many lives. For the sake of liberation, the patriarch had only to ask for forgiveness from Soviet power. The rest of the “Old Churchmen” then took a loyal position and began to go about their daily business, but their number was significantly reduced, since basically only priests who had higher ranks and wealthy parishes (where a significant number of parishioners remained) could earn money.

On the other hand, there were also more radical groups. For example, the clergy who supported the Whites. There were even their own “Jesus regiments”. Such priests took part precisely in the armed confrontation, and therefore they were often awaited by execution by the revolutionary tribunal. In fact, many of these are today considered "martyrs."

It is also worth noting the priests who simply emigrated, taking with them the jewels of the church. All they had to do was describe the “horrors of the Soviet regime” to foreigners, on which they made good money for decades. Although they emigrated, as a rule, almost immediately, and therefore their descriptions do not differ from those that individual churchmen wrote about Peter I - that is, the Antichrist, the harbinger of the end of the world, etc.

But the smartest are the conditional “renovators” who immediately understood what needed to be done. Since there are churches, and the number of parishes is quite significant, and it is easy to get them (1 priest + 20 parishioners), then, of course, you need to use this. They actually began to create "their Orthodoxy". Various "living", "revolutionary", "communist", etc. churches, which then became generically called "renovationism". By the way, they used the symbols of power (they tried to prove that they were “communist”) just to earn money. Such figures have rapidly promoted themselves hierarchically, and occupied the central outlets of the church. The Bolsheviks were loyal to them.

But still, to a greater extent, the priests simply left the churches. These people became ordinary workers, since the places in the church where they could still get rich were already occupied, and the Orthodox, of course, will not send a cult for free. Since after Peter I the priests were mostly relatively literate, they could be clerks, secretaries, and so on.

In this case, it is instructive to know what happened to the church as soon as the state stopped supporting it. The building, which had been standing for hundreds of years, which allegedly had colossal authority and even a “basic position”, collapsed in just a couple of years. The insignificant state that was already characteristic of 1922-23, of course, only indicates that the Orthodox Church simply cannot function normally without active state support. It has proved in practice that it is not capable of maintaining on its own most of the churches, monasteries, seminaries, etc., that all this is possible only when the church uses the administrative resource.

The Russian Federation is a secular state

Secular a state is recognized in which religion and the state are separated from each other. The state and state bodies are separated from the church and religious associations and do not interfere in their activities, in turn, the latter do not interfere in the activities of the state and its bodies.

The secular state presupposes the absence of any ecclesiastical authority over the organs of the state; inadmissibility of performance by the church, its hierarchs of any state functions; the absence of a mandatory religion for civil servants; non-recognition by the state of the legal significance of church acts and religious rules as sources of law binding on anyone; refusal of the state to finance the expenses of any church or religious organization.

The Russian Federation in Part 1 of Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is recognized as a secular state. This provision determines the attitude of the state to religion.

In line with the secular nature Russian state religious associations are separated from the state (Part 2, Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). This means that, firstly, no religion can be established as a state or obligatory one (Part 1, Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation); secondly, the state has no right to impose state functions on religious organizations and interfere in their activities. Thus, the relationship between religion and the state in the Russian Federation is based on mutual non-interference.

The idea of ​​a secular state is developed in other norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and in federal laws. The Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaims the equality and freedom of various faiths, religions and confessions (Articles 19 and 28), federal laws guarantee freedom of conscience, non-interference of the church, religious associations in the affairs of the state, local self-government and vice versa.

The status of a secular state does not exclude in practice the possibility of granting benefits and providing certain material assistance to the church and religious associations, including in order to ensure the rights of religious minorities. However, at the same time, the legislator must guarantee equal rights for all religious associations upon receipt of appropriate benefits and material assistance.

The nature and procedure for the relationship of religious associations with the state and society is determined by the Federal Law of September 26, 1997 No. 125-FZ "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", in et. 4 of which the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state is concretized, relations between the state and religious associations are determined. In accordance with this constitutional principle, the Russian Federation as a state:

• - does not interfere in the determination by a citizen of his attitude to religion and religious affiliation, in the upbringing of children by parents or persons replacing them, in accordance with their convictions and taking into account the child's right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion;
• - does not impose on religious associations the performance of the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local self-government bodies;
• - does not interfere in the activities of religious associations, if it does not contradict federal law;
• - ensures the secular nature of education in state and municipal educational institutions.

The separation of religious associations from the state does not entail restriction of the rights of members of these associations as citizens to participate on an equal basis with other citizens in the management of state affairs, elections to state authorities and local self-government bodies, in the activities of political parties, political movements and other public associations.

At the request of religious organizations, the relevant state authorities in the Russian Federation have the right to declare religious holidays non-working (holiday) days in the respective territories. In particular, in Russia, January 7 - Christmas is recognized as such a non-working holiday.

According to part 2 of Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, religious associations are equal before the law. This provision should be considered much broader than its literal meaning: implying the equality of not only individual associations, but also religions as such. In the context of the analysis of this principle of equality, it is impossible not to touch upon such an issue as the historical and social conditions for the development of religions in our state. Orthodoxy is the leading denomination in Russia. This is how it happened historically. At present, the majority of believers in Russia are Orthodox. This feature is noted in the preamble of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations", which states that this Federal Law is adopted in the conditions of the functioning of the Russian Federation as a secular state with recognition of the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture and at the same time respect for other Christian religions, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions, which are an integral part of the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia.

The official position of the Orthodox Church and its individual representatives in Russia proceeds from the fact that relations between the state and the church in a secular state should be based not on the idea of ​​their opposition, but on the idea of ​​harmony and concord. With the proclamation of the separation of church and state, a policy of confessional indifference should not be pursued, in which the state power is on the positions of atheism. The idea of ​​harmony and agreement with state power should be extended to all religions and confessions that cooperate with it in the interests of the people and observe the Russian Constitution and laws.

1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as a state or obligatory one.

2. Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.

Commentary on Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation

1. A state is considered secular in which there is no official, state religion and none of the creeds is recognized as obligatory or preferable. In such a state, religion, its canons and dogmas, as well as religious associations operating in it, have no right to influence political system, on the activities of state bodies and their officials, on the system of public education and other areas of state activity. The secular nature of the state is ensured, as a rule, by the separation of the church (religious associations) from the state and the secular nature of public education (separation of the school from the church). This form of relationship between the state and the church has been established with varying degrees of consistency in a number of countries (USA, France, Poland, etc.).

IN modern world there are states where it is legal official religion, called the state, dominant or national. For example, in England such a religion is one of the main directions of Christianity - Protestantism (Anglican Church), in Israel - Judaism. There are states where the equality of all religions is proclaimed (Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.). However, in such a state, one of the most traditional religions, as a rule, enjoys certain privileges, provides known influence on his life.

The opposite of a secular state is the theocratic, in which state power belongs to the church hierarchy. Such a state today is the Vatican.

There are also a number of clerical states in the world. The clerical state is not merged with the church. However, the church, through the institutions established in the legislation, has a decisive influence on state policy, and school education necessarily includes the study of church dogmas. Such a state is, for example, Iran.

2. As a secular state, the Russian Federation is characterized by the fact that in it religious associations are separated from the state and no religion can be established as a state or obligatory one. The content of this provision is disclosed by Art. 4 of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, which states that religious associations are equal before the law.

The separation of religious associations from the state means that the state does not interfere in the determination by a citizen of his attitude to religion and religious affiliation, in the upbringing of children by parents or persons replacing them, in accordance with their convictions and taking into account the child's right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. The state does not impose on religious associations the performance of the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local governments; does not interfere in the activities of religious associations, if it does not contradict the law; ensures the secular nature of education in state and municipal educational institutions. The activities of public authorities and local self-government bodies may not be accompanied by public religious rites and ceremonies. Officials of state authorities, other state bodies and local self-government bodies, as well as military personnel are not entitled to use their official position to form one or another attitude towards religion.

At the same time, the state protects legal activity religious associations. It regulates the provision of tax and other benefits to religious organizations, provides financial, material and other assistance to religious organizations in the restoration, maintenance and protection of buildings and objects that are monuments of cultural history, as well as in ensuring the teaching of general education disciplines in educational institutions established by religious organizations in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on education.

In accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state, a religious association is created and carries out its activities in accordance with its own hierarchical and institutional structure, selects, appoints and replaces its personnel in accordance with its own regulations. It does not perform the functions of state authorities, other state bodies, state institutions and local self-government bodies, does not participate in elections to state authorities and local self-government bodies, does not participate in the activities of political parties and political movements, does not provide them with material and other assistance. In the Russian Federation, as a democratic and secular state, a religious association cannot replace a political party; it is supra-party and non-political. But this does not mean that the clergy cannot be elected to state authorities and local self-government bodies at all. However, the clergy are not elected to these bodies from religious associations and not as representatives of the respective church.

The principle of a secular state in the understanding that has developed in countries with a mono-confessional and mono-ethnic structure of society and with developed traditions of religious tolerance and pluralism makes it possible in some countries to allow political parties based on the ideology of Christian democracy, since the concept of "Christian" in this case goes beyond confessional boundaries and denotes belonging to the European system of values ​​and culture.

In multinational and multi-confessional Russia, such concepts as "Orthodox", "Muslim", "Russian", "Bashkir", etc., are associated in the public mind more with specific confessions and individual nations than with the system of values ​​of the Russian people as a whole. Therefore, the constitutional principle of a democratic and secular state in relation to the constitutional and historical realities that have developed in Russia does not allow the creation of political parties on the basis of national or religious affiliation. Such a prohibition corresponds to the authentic meaning of Art. 13 and 14 of the Constitution in conjunction with its Art. 19 (parts 1 and 2), 28 and 29 (see comments to articles 13, 14, 19, 28 and 29) and is a specification of the provisions contained therein (see Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 15, 2004 N 18-P).

The separation of religious associations from the state does not entail restriction of the rights of members of these associations to participate on an equal basis with other citizens in the management of state affairs, in elections to state authorities and local self-government bodies, in the activities of political parties, political movements and other public associations.

Religious associations in the Russian Federation operate on the basis of their own rules, subject to the law. Such a law regulating these issues is the mentioned Law on freedom of conscience and on religious associations. According to this Law, a religious association in the Russian Federation is a voluntary association of citizens of the Russian Federation, other persons permanently and legally residing on the territory of the Russian Federation, formed for the purpose of joint confession and the spread of faith and having the following characteristics corresponding to this goal: religion; performing divine services, other religious rites and ceremonies; teaching religion and religious education of their followers. Religious associations may be created in the form of religious groups and religious organizations.

A religious group is a voluntary association of citizens formed for the purpose of joint confession and dissemination of faith, carrying out activities without state registration and acquiring the legal capacity of a legal entity. The premises and property necessary for the activities of a religious group shall be provided for the use of the group by its members. Religious groups have the right to worship, others religious rites and ceremonies, as well as to carry out the teaching of religion and the religious education of their followers.

A religious organization is a voluntary association of citizens of the Russian Federation or other persons permanently and legally residing on the territory of the Russian Federation, formed for the purpose of joint confession and dissemination of faith, registered as a legal entity in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Religious organizations, depending on the territorial scope of their activities, are divided into local and centralized. A local religious organization is a religious organization consisting of at least 10 members who have reached the age of 18 and permanently reside in the same locality or in the same urban or rural settlement. A centralized religious organization is a religious organization that, in accordance with its charter, consists of at least three local religious organizations.

State registration of religious organizations is carried out by the federal body of justice or its territorial body in the manner prescribed by the current legislation. Re-registration of religious organizations cannot be carried out contrary to the conditions, which, by virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 9 and paragraph 5 of Art. 11 of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations are necessary and sufficient for the establishment and registration of religious organizations. It follows from these norms that the re-registration of religious organizations established before the entry into force of this Law, as well as local religious organizations that are part of the structure of a centralized religious organization, does not require a document confirming their existence in the relevant territory for at least 15 years; such religious organizations are not subject to the annual re-registration requirement before the specified 15-year period; they cannot be limited in legal capacity on the basis of par. 3 and 4 paragraph 3 of Art. 27 (see Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 23, 1999 N 16-P).

Religious organizations have the right to establish and maintain religious buildings and structures, other places and objects specially designed for worship, prayer and religious meetings, religious veneration (pilgrimage). Divine services, other religious rites and ceremonies are freely performed in religious buildings and structures and in territories related to them, in other places provided to religious organizations for these purposes, in places of pilgrimage, in institutions and enterprises of religious organizations, in cemeteries and crematoria, as well as in residential premises.

Religious organizations have the right to conduct religious ceremonies in medical and preventive and hospital institutions, orphanages for the elderly and disabled, in institutions executing criminal sentences of deprivation of liberty, at the request of citizens in them, in premises specially allocated by the administration for these purposes. The command of military units, taking into account the requirements of military regulations, is not entitled to prevent the participation of military personnel in worship and other religious rites and ceremonies. In other cases, public worship, other religious rites and ceremonies are carried out in the manner prescribed for rallies, processions and demonstrations.

At the request of religious organizations, the relevant state authorities in Russia have the right to declare religious holidays non-working (holiday) days in the respective territories. Such public holidays announced, for example, the Nativity of Christ, a number of Muslim religious holidays.

Religious organizations have the right to: produce, acquire, exploit, replicate and distribute religious literature, printed, audio and video materials and other religious items; carry out charitable and cultural and educational activities; create institutions for professional religious education (spiritual educational institutions) for the training of students and religious personnel; carry out entrepreneurial activities and create their own enterprises in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation; establish and maintain international relations and contacts, including for the purpose of pilgrimage, participation in meetings and other events, to receive religious education, as well as invite foreign citizens for these purposes.

Religious organizations may own buildings, land plots, industrial, social, charitable, cultural, educational and other purposes, religious objects, funds and other property necessary to ensure their activities, including those classified as historical and cultural monuments. Religious organizations may own property abroad.

It is prohibited to establish religious associations in state authorities, other government bodies, state institutions and local governments, military units, state and municipal organizations, as well as religious associations whose goals and actions are contrary to the law.

Religious organizations may be liquidated by a decision of their founders or by a body authorized to do so by the charter of a religious organization, as well as by a court decision in the event of repeated or gross violations of the norms of the Constitution, federal laws, or in the event of a religious organization systematically carrying out activities that contradict the goals of its creation (charter goals).

It must be said that certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations have repeatedly served as the subject of consideration by the Constitutional Court. However, each time the Court recognized them as not contradicting the Constitution.

Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted the Ruling of April 13, 2000 N 46-O on the complaint of the regional association "Independent Russian Region of the Society of Jesus" on violations of constitutional rights and freedoms, paragraphs 3-5 of Art. 8, art. 9 and 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Art. 27 of the Law on freedom of conscience and on religious associations * (77).

The Court concluded that the challenged provisions of the Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, as applied to their effect on religious organizations established before the entry into force of this Law, did not violate the applicant's constitutional rights and freedoms.