Jump to content
The World News Media

Controversial bill on evangelism introduced in Russian parliament


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Member

EXPERTS DIFFER IN OPINION ABOUT LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OF PREACHERS
RIA Novosti, 17 February 2016
 
A draft law defining in federal legislation the concept of missionary activity has evoked a mixed reaction among representatives of religious organizations and experts questioned by RIA Novosti. Some see in it a long-needed measure; to the contrary, others declare it to be in contradiction with the constitution of the Russian federation.
 
The authors of the draft law introduced this week into the State Duma—the Arkhangelsk provincial assembly of deputies—want to supplement the existing law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" with an article entitled "Missionary activity." The initiators explain that in its current form the legislation does not adequately regulate the legal relations connected with the procedure for conducting missionary activity and it lacks in particular control of the activity of "missionaries, including those who have come from abroad and are preaching on Russian territory."
 
"I remind you that Russia is a secular state, where all religious organizations have equal status. Their activity is regulated by the law 'On freedom of conscience,' into which it is proposed to introduce changes. I suppose that there already now is a negative conclusion by the government," Yaroslav Nilov, a deputy of the LDPR fraction and head of the duma's Committee on Affairs of Public Associations and Religious Organizations, told RIA Novosti. He said that this may be because when it has successfully gone through state registration a religious organization has the right "to implement the goals of its charter, which are guaranteed by the constitution." He said that such goals include the dissemination of the faith, conduct of educational events, implementation of canons, conduct of ceremonies, and "engagement in such activity as may be called missionary activity."
 
Therefore, the deputy suggests, the government has considered that to prescribe in addition the concept of "missionary activity" in the law is "excessive."
 
The news agency's interlocutor assured that the standing committee "has an obligation to discuss and to determine future prospects" of the legislative initiative. He also noted that a number of legislative assemblies have adopted similar regional laws.
 
Position of Religious Organizations
 
The Russian Orthodox Church has declared that it does not support the initiative of the Arkhangelsk deputies. The director of the Legal Service of the Moscow patriarchate, Hegumena Kseniia Chernega, reported that a similar draft law was prepared by the cabinet of ministers several years ago. The initiative for regulating missionary activity—which is first of all illegal—belonged, she said, not to the church but to the Ministry of Justice.
 
"We rejected this idea since there were many subjective concepts," Chernega stated, explaining that at the time there was talk, for example, about problems in determining the affiliation of a person with one or another confession or who is a representative of a religious organization. "We are talking, in such a case, about the persons who act with authorization or who are leaders of religious organizations, clergy," the director of the Legal Service of MP explains.
 
Chernega thinks that the constituent elements of the country [subjects] cannot be given the right to regulate missionary activity. This violates the constitution and "may seriously infringe the rights of citizens."
 
The first vice-chairman of the Ecclesiastical Board of Muslims of Russia, Damir Mukhetdinov, told RIA Novosti the performance of missionary activity is nothing other than "the obligation of the true Muslim." He emphasized that this is "a very difficult topic," since, on one hand, one is talking about an attempt to combat preaching activity of "destructive sects and movements," and, on the other hand, this deals with questions of doctrine that require a definite point of view of theologians and religious leaders.
 
"In such a case, we will have to change the religious imperatives themselves since after all the charters of the ecclesiastical boards of Muslims say that their purpose is to spread their religion, that is, to engage in missionary activity," Mukhetdinov thinks. In his view, legislative limits on missionary activity "will not be accepted by believing people," since they will take away from them one of the primary dogmatic functions: "to bear the word of God."
 
Opinion of Experts
 
In his turn, the senior scientific associate of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leonid Siukiyainen, suggests that legislative regulating of the activity of missionaries "is possible in principle." "In the past 20 years there have been many situations which evoked the desire and necessity of adopting such legislative acts. They have been adopted in a number of constituent elements of the Russian federation. We know the situation that troubles the Russian Orthodox Church and we know many sensitive issues that are connected with Muslim religious organizations. Therefore I think that it may make sense to regulate this," the legal expert said. At the same time, he emphasized that the regulation should be accomplished without violation of provisions of the chief law of the country and not contradict relevant European documents on this topic that Russia also has signed.
 
The necessity of adopting a law on the federal level was previously stated by the president of the Russian Association of Centers for the Study of Religions and Sects, Alexander Dvorkin. The religious studies expert explained that such a measure would be aimed, in the first place, not at sectarians but at organizations in whose name they are conducting their mission. He said that imprisonment of individual members of sects is "an extremely undesirable development of things," since sects "dream that their members would receive real prison terms," so that then they can "talk about persecution of religion in Russia." (tr. by PDS, posted 17 February 2016)

TEXT OF AMENDMENT OF RELIGION LAW

Introduced by Arkhangelsk provincial Assembly of Deputies
 
Draft
 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
FEDERAL LAW
 
On introducing changes into federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations"
 
Article 1
 
To introduce into chapter II of the federal law of 26 September 1997 "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" a change, adding to it article 5.1 of the following contents:
 
Article 5.1 Missionary activity
 
1. Missionary activity means informational and organizational activity of representatives of religious associations, and also of persons distributing religious literature and other items of religious significance, produced by religious associations, directly or indirectly intended for the dissemination of their teaching and religious practice on the territory of the Russian federation among persons of a different faith and/or nonbelievers.
2. A missionary is a person who conducts missionary activity on the territory of the Russian federation.
3. Informational missionary activity is activity of missionaries aimed at announcing, popularizing, and disseminating any religious views, notions, and religious practice by oral, printed, electronic, and other means.
4. Organizational missionary activity is activity of missionaries aimed at the creation of organized religious structures (associations), training of specialists, organizing and conducting religious events, and creation of other conditions for accomplishment of missionary activity.
5. Religious associations have the right to conduct missionary activity.
The procedure for conducting missionary activity by a religious association on the territory of a subject [constituent element] of the Russian federation is established by legislation of a subject of the Russian federation.
 
Article 2
 
The present federal law becomes effective from the day of its official publication.
 
V.V. Putin,
President of the Russian federation
Moscow, Kremlin
 
(tr. by PDS, posted 17 February 2016)
Russian original posted on official site of State Duma, 15 February 2016

http://ria.ru/religion/20160217/1376279891.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 964
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
    • In the era of the Bible Students within the Watchtower, there were numerous beginnings. It is essential to bear in mind that each congregation functioned autonomously, granting the Elders the freedom to assert their own assertions and interpretations. Most people embraced the principles that Pastor Russell was trying to convey. You could argue that what you are experiencing now, they also experienced back then. The key difference is that unity was interpreted differently. Back then it had value where today there is none. To address your inquiry, while I cannot recall the exact details, it is believed to have been either 4129 or 4126. Some groups, however, adopted Ussher's 4004. It is worth mentioning that they have now discarded it and revised it to either 3954 or 3958, although I personally find little interest in this matter. I believe I encountered this information in the book titled "The Time is at Hand," though it may also be referenced in their convention report. Regardless, this is part of their compelling study series 3. Please take a moment to review and confirm the date. I am currently focused on Riblah. The Bible Students who firmly believe that Israel is the prophetic sign of Armageddon have made noteworthy adjustments to their chronology. They have included significant dates such as 1947/8 and 1967/8, as well as more recent dates. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, according to their calculations, 2024 holds immense importance. The ongoing tension of Iran targeting Israel directly from its own territory amplifies the gravity of the situation. If their trajectory continues, the subsequent captivating event will occur in 2029, rather than as previously speculated, in 2034 by some.
    • Would it be too much to ask what was the bible students starting point of creation?
    • @JW Insider Your summary is irrelevant, as I do not make any assertions regarding BC/AD other than their usage by scholars and in history, as you yourself have also acknowledged on numerous occasions, thus rendering your point invalid and evasive. The Watchtower leverages external viewpoints, including secular evidence, to substantiate the accuracy of their chronological interpretations. There are numerous approaches to dating events. Personally, I explore various alternative methods that lead to the same conclusion as the Watchtower. However, the most captivating approach is to utilize secular chronology to arrive at the same outcome. By relying solely on secular chronology, the pattern still aligns, albeit with a distinct interpretation of the available data. Nevertheless, the ultimate result remains unchanged. This is why when you get upset, when you are proven wrong, you, Tom, and those with the authority to ban take action, because you like others cannot handle the truth. In this case, your infamous tablet VAT 4956 has become useless in this situation. I do agree with you on one thing: you are not an expert, just like COJ. However, I must admit that this foolish individual was not the first to debate the chronology with the Watchtower and abandon it based on personal beliefs. He simply happened to be the most recent one that's on record.
  • Members

    • Gilles h

      Gilles h 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dennis

      dennis 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • roquinha

      roquinha 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.