International Conference: On Religious Liberty in a Democratic Society: Aspects of Law, Religion and Philosophy in Constitutional Theory and Reality from Mai 14 to 16 May 2009 in Rivne (Ukraine) Discrimination against national and religious minorities took place in Southern Europe till the end of the Fascist regime in the mid-seventies and in the countries of the Eastern European bloc till the political changes in the 1989/90. Both fascist and communist dictatorships didn t allow people to practice their religious beliefs. Analogous to the national domain where the goal was to create a homogenous society with no place for self-determination of minorities, no pluralism was allowed at the denominational level either. Consequently the centralistic dictatorial regimes launched different campaigns of religious persecution. After the fall of the Soviet Union this situation at first continued to exist in some of the emerged post-soviet republics. Quite a few religious groups had stayed under ban. The taboos not only remained, they gained an additional poignancy under new conditions. As old mainstream religions were gaining back their accustomed privileged position in the society, they started, often with governmental support, to campaign against smaller and rather nationally unspecific denominations. Thus established national religion should again constitute an inseparable alloy with nation, maintained by reciprocal support from both allies. During the conference that was held in Stepan Demjanchuk International University of Economics and Humanities in Rivne (Ukraine) from May 14 to 16, 2009, these problems were analyzed with the view on possible solutions by the scientists from Eastern, Middle and Western Europe as well as from the USA on the example of the religious organization of Jehovah s Witnesses in different European countries. The conference was organized by the College of European Studies of the Technical University in Dresden, by the Stepan Demjanchuk University in Rivne and by the Sigmund-Neumann-Institute for Freedom and Democracy Studies. The Ukrainian hosts highlighted in their four presentations the religious situation and churchstate relationship in Ukraine. Yurij Reshetnikov, Director of the Department for the denominational relations and support of freedom at the Ukrainian State Committee on the religious minorities and denominations, focused on the legal situation. Already the reforms introduced by Michail Gorbachev brought first freedoms to the different denominations. After the fall of the USSR the number of new churches and religious organizations just mushroomed. The presentation of Petro Saukh, chancellor of the State Ivan Franco-University in Schitomir, depicted church-state relations in Ukraine. Especially during the years 1994-1998 there were some conflicts involving Ukrainian state and different religious denominations. The churches had been campaigning for power and the state tried to resolve the resulting religious conflicts. Between 1999 and 2008 the existing tensions between the dominant orthodox and other churches on one side and the state on the other side were satisfactorily settled. Ivan Demyanyuk, chancellor of the faculty of European studies at the Stepan Demjanchuk University in Rivne, reviewed the denominational developments in Western Ukraine since 1991, taking the city of Rivne as an example. Numerous small and large denominations in this city generally maintain peaceful relations to each other. Some 70 percent of the inhabitants belong to one of the two orthodox churches, the Ukrainian Orthodox church under the Moscow Patriarch and the Ukrainian Orthodox church under the Kiev Patriarch. Apart of that there are Protestants, Baptists, Catholics (mostly of Polish origin) and Jehovah s Witnesses. According to the speaker, religious tolerance and mutual respect dominate in Rivne as well as in the whole of Western Ukraine.
The fact that the church-state relationships as well as coexisting of religious denominations in Ukraine is not as devoid of problems as they may appear, was shown in the presentation of Yevgeniya Dodina, Odessa University. At the constitutional level Ukraine has tried to introduce international standards of freedom of thought and religion for example the Ukrainian Parliament adopted Article 9 of the European Human Right Convention and fundamental freedoms. The constitution of Ukraine, adopted on June 28, 1996, guarantees in the Article 35 the fundamental right of every person to freedom of belief and religion. Nevertheless there is a deep chasm between the constitutional rights and the legislation in general and the practical implementation of this legislation that should secure free practicing of religion by individuals and groups. Thus the constitution of Ukraine guarantees separation of the churches or of the religious organizations from the state. Consequently, religion is not supposed to constitute a part of the public school curriculum. But in practice many schools have introduced voluntary religious lessons. There are no alternative lessons on ethics, which leads to social pressure on those who refuse religious lessons. In the second half of her presentation Dodina showed by the example of Jehovah s Witnesses the lack of social acceptance and intolerance demonstrated towards religious minorities. The inhabitants of the city Novoyavorivsk, oblast Lviv, protested against the construction of a Kingdom Hall. The priests of the Orthodox and Greek-orthodox church have openly called people to protest, labeling Jehovah s Witnesses as a dangerous sect. Afterwards Jehovah s Witnesses were compelled to initiate a lawsuit which they also won, since they could prove that the ban on the construction of their Kingdom Hall violated Article 24 of the Ukrainian Constitution (religious discrimination). The analysis of this particular case enabled Dodina to show that Ukrainian legislation, in any case, supports Jehovah s Witnesses in their claim to their religious rights. Mass-media plays the central role in representation of the religious groups in society. Professional and unbiased journalism could advance the interdenominational dialog and promote mutual respect among the religious groups. Konstantin Berezhko from the University in Feodosija has clearly shown that Ukrainian mass-media, ridden by biases and sensationalism, exploit existing prejudices and even add to them. Mass-media coverage in Ukraine strongly reminds one of soviet times. The reports appearing in Ukrainian newspapers and magazines stir up hatred and fear of the allegedly dangerous sect of Jehovah s Witnesses. Jehovah s Witnesses have been practicing their religion on the territories of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) since over 100 years. The history of this religious denomination is marked through the multiple dictatorship experiences, especially through the more than 50-years persecution and repression under the communistic regime that violated fundamental human rights. Thousands of believers were incarcerated in the Labor camps or exiled to the special settlements to Kazakhstan, Northern Russia or to Siberia. Wolfram Slupina (Selters) made an Analysis of the situation of Jehovah s Witnesses in the Commonwealth of Independent States. After the fall of the USSR, starting from February 1991, Jehovah s Witnesses were legally recognized as a religious organization in seven of the thirteen CIS states (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine). Nevertheless, the nearly 400.000 Jehovah s Witnesses in some of these states experienced religious discrimination. (Often in connection with alternative service/refusal of the military service, import of religious literature, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, religion-based discrimination at work, even imprisonment and labor camps). There are some positive developments, such as in Armenia, Kazakhstan and especially in Georgia, but in Russia, after the good beginnings in the early 1990-s, religious freedoms for minorities are increasingly being curtailed. In Turkmenistan Jehovah s Witnesses experience the
continuation of religious persecution as it was practiced by the communist regime; in Tajikistan after legal registrations in 1994 and 1997 Jehovah s Witnesses were banned again on October 11, 2007, and right now the persecution is worse than it used to be under the communistic regime. Zoe Knox from Leicester University analyzed the legal situation of Jehovah s Witnesses in Russia and demonstrated that the Russian government not only hinders Jehovah s Witnesses in practicing their religion but at times makes any such practicing impossible. The continual succession from the soviet to the post-soviet time is becoming conspicuous. According to Knox the historical parallels between the campaigns against Jehovah s Witnesses in the USSR and in modern Russia are easily established. For example both regimes interfered with the fundamental human rights of the members of this denomination. The rights, guaranteed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation from 1993, and secured with the Law about the Freedom of denominations and religious groups from 1997, in practice do not apply to Jehovah s Witnesses. There is a deep chasm between theory and practice that could be seen in the USSR as well as in modern Russia. The nationalistic as well as conservative political powers and Russian Orthodox Church all contributed to this development. Close affiliation between Russian state and Russian Orthodox Church could be clearly observed at all times. Yeltzin supported the Orthodox Church in its pretensions to the central place in Russian culture and society. The Moscow Patriarchy in the post-soviet time has taken a position of enormous power. Admittedly the Russian Orthodoxy denies any aspirations to the position of the State Religion that it possessed in the Tsarist Russia, but neither has it agreed to be put on the same level with other religions and denominations. Jehovah s Witnesses, according to Knox, have fallen victims to the factual discrimination that bears primarily political and not religious character. Ringo Ringvee from the Tallinn Department of the Religious Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Estonia presented the situation of the religious organizations in the Baltic states, focusing on the situation of Jehovah s Witnesses in this region. At the beginning he stressed the point that the denominational map in all three Baltic States differs, although all three had been under the influence of the totalitarian soviet regime from 1940 till 1991. Whereas Lithuania is mostly Catholic, Estonia is predominantly Lutheran. Latvia is more heterogenic, some regions are dominated by the Catholic Church and South-east of the country is mostly Lutheran. These regional differences are responsible for the different legal position of religions in all three Baltic States in modern times. Common for all three is the fact that new constitutions, adopted 1992, guarantee the fundamental freedom of religion and belief, as it is stipulated by the European Convention. Then Ringvee described the differences in status of Jehovah s Witnesses in three Baltic States. In Estonia this denomination was legally registered already 1991 and in Lithuania in 1993, but in Latvia they attained the registration as late as 1998 and till 2008 they had to reregister their organization every year. At the end the speaker mentioned negative media coverage in case of religious minorities in all three Baltic States; the media reports and comments are still very much prejudice-ridden. The European dictatorships of all origins curtailed the freedoms of Jehovah s Witnesses. This was the case with fascism as well as with communistic dictatorship. Katarzyna Stokłosa (Dresden) described the sufferings, discriminations and repressions of Jehovah s Witnesses in Spain during the regime of Franco. The most difficult period for Jehovah s Witnesses in Spain were the fifties during the Franco-dictatorship. Because of their refusal to carry arms or to put on military uniform Jehovah s Witnesses were put into prison and subjected to mental and physical tortures. In 1970 Jehovah s Witnesses were at last legally recognized with the consequent entry in the Register of the Religious denominations. Afterwards their numbers
continued to grow; today Jehovah s Witnesses in Spain constitute 1.5 percent of Jehovah s Witnesses worldwide. Annegret Dirksen (Bad Camberg) examined the issue of religious freedom in Hungary, hereby showing historic developments from the Golden Bull to the constitutional protection of the religious freedom in the last century. Taking Jehovah s Witnesses as an example, she showed difficulties they experienced under both Horthy- and Rákosi-Regime. Both political systems distinguished themselves by cruel persecution of the dissidents, trying to eliminate their opponents through severe repressions. Under the regime of Horthy religious minorities were banned in 1939; the reasons for the ban were, amongst other things, refusal to participate in military service and endangerment of the military power. Despite severe repressions Jehovah s Witnesses continued such religious activities as their missionary work. Thus they became the most dangerous enemies of the Rákosi-Regimes, which again put the leaders of Jehovah s Witnesses in prison already in 1950. After 1956, under the mild dictatorship of Kádár, Jehovah s Witnesses experienced renewed persecution. Only after the fall of the communistic regimes, in June 1989, Jehovah s Witnesses in Hungary have been recognized as a religious organization. The change of the political system has established the legal foundation for securing of the religious freedom. This was also demonstrated through the fact that early defamations of Jehovah s Witnesses and other religious groups launched by the anti-cult organizations as well as categorization of religious minorities under the dangerous sect label were, though at first sanctioned by the Hungarian Parliament, later capped by the decisions of the higher courts. In consequence the Parliament can be held responsible for the violation of the personal rights. Today Hungary is one if the East European countries that gives the fullest guarantees for religious freedom and thus constitutes an example for other post-communist states. Hans-Hermann Dirksen (Bad Camberg) made a comparative analysis of the legal situation of Jehovah s Witnesses in Moldova and Transdniesria. The Constitution of Moldova guarantees equal rights for all religions as well as freedom of religion and belief. There is even a law that came into effect in 2007 which made registration of small religious groups easier and enabled them to conduct their religious ceremonies in public places. Conscientious objection to military service is permitted and there exists a possibility of alternative civil service. Despite these legal measures, Jehovah s Witnesses in Moldova experienced discrimination at hands of numerous local officials. For example, they had difficulties registering new local congregations, building new Kingdom Halls or trying to renovate old ones. Also the hostility demonstrated toward Jehovah s Witnesses by some local priests calls back to mind the twenties of the last century. But the position of Jehovah s Witnesses in Transnistria is even more dangerous. The registration that took place in 1991 was pronounced invalid in 1998. Jehovah s Witnesses suffer constant discrimination at the hands of government. They still have no permission to build a Kingdom Hall in Tiraspol. The only alternative left to them is meeting together to read the Bible in private homes. Transnistria s media charge Jehovah s Witnesses with lack of patriotism and with spreading negative western influence. They have been described as a sect under the influence of Brooklyn. In the conclusion Dirksen draw comparison between the situation of Jehovah s Witnesses in Moldova and Transnistrien. Despite the communistic government in Moldova, the constitution of this country guarantees Jehovah s Witnesses their rights and, in general, also the implementation of these rights into practice. An important reason for this attitude lies in the wish of the Moldovan State to be respected in the West and to find opportunities to cooperate with western countries. Problems arise mostly at the local level and mainly in village communities. As opposed to this, the legal position of Jehovah s Witnesses in Transnistria is highly precarious, there if no provision to secure freedom of religion and belief.
What can be said about the scope allotted to the freedom of religion and conscience in Western Europe? Can Germany, Austria or Switzerland provide an example for Eastern Europe? And how does the US-model of church-state relationship compare to the European model? Social hierarchisation of religions in the Federal Republic of Germany was the topic of the presentation by Gerhard Besier (Dresden). This background again and again promotes the sprouting of religious discriminations irrespective of any constitutional laws and judicial decisions. It is true that Jehovah s Witnesses have gained the privileged public rights corporation status in all federal states after more than fifteen years legal struggle. But what good is the status, if the responsible executive ministers publicly distance themselves from it, stating they were merely forced to accept the decision of courts? Also Derek Davis (Belton/USA) presented empirical models of state-church relations, describing separation of church and state as the modern model. This was the only model ever existing in the USA, with no alternatives, since we grew up in the enlightenment. There was no interest in the National Church model, because immigrants wanted to practice their own religion. There are over 3.000 different religious denominations in the USA. Such a variety can only coexist peacefully under condition of every citizen showing deep respect for the beliefs of others. When Jehovah s Witnesses refused to greet the national flag, it led to temporary displays of intolerance caused by the respect for Civil Religion. But in a short time the courts thought better of it. As opposed to Europe, the USA doesn t make use of state registration or legal recognition procedures both of which, as Davis sees it, contain the roots of religious discrimination. Reinhard Kohlhofer (Wien) reported on the old dispute over Jehovah s Witnesses in Austria where this denomination needed over 30 years to get a legal recognition as a religious organization. Such recognitions are very hard to get in Austria. Unrecognized denominations meet with obstructions in every legal sphere. The members of these denominations experience discriminations in their daily life. During the nineties the Austrian constitutional laws on religion were taken as an example for some countries of the eastern, central and south Europe that wanted their mainstream religions to possess a privileged status. The European Court on Human Rights made some fundamental decisions in favor of Jehovah s Witnesses as well as in favor of other small Austrian denominations. It is expected that these decisions will lead to fundamental changes in the religious laws of Europe. Max Wörnhard (Bern) explained the traditional for the Swiss cantons quest for balance. This balance is lost as soon as a new religion gains some public attention, or as soon as there is some dissent. And constitutional provisions make it extremely complicated to achieve new balance on basis of recognition and integration. During this transitional phase discriminations and classicism in the religious sphere arise despite liberal laws and independent administration of justice. Using the example of Jehovah s Witnesses that exist in Switzerland since the 1890s, Wörnhard demonstrates this time consuming and complicated recognition process which was also influenced by such modern historical developments as Hitler s rule over Europe. Willy Fautré (Brussels) informed which provisions for protection of religious freedom exist in Europe. There are numerous possibilities for intervention mainly at the supra-national level. Fautré listed the following: The UN Human Rights Council, the Universal Periodic Review, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom on Religion and the Treaty Bodies in Geneva; the annual
OSCE/ODIHR Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw; the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, including the European Court on Human Rights and the Committee for Honouring the Commitments; the complaint procedures offered by the UNESCO in Paris; the EU Fundamental Rights Agency in Vienna; the European Institutions in Brussels. The Council of Europe and the European Commission invite to the human rights dialog between the countries of Europe and the third world such as Russia, China, Middle Asian and South Caucasian states. Much could be done on the level of the European Parliament: interpellations, resolutions, delegations promoting relations with the third world countries, the Committee of Foreign relations and the Under-Committee on Human rights, as well as public hearings and conferences to which the European parliament members are invited. These interventions from the European institutions are not only necessary to the third countries; they can lead to some substantial progress within the EU - as was shown in the presentation of Reinhard Kohlhofer by the example of Austria. This example should encourage religious minorities in different countries to approach Europe in quest for their rights. Summarizing results from the Western and the Middle Europe, one can state that religious minorities in spite of undoubtedly existing rule of law again and again fall victims of subtle discriminations. This happens because some influential persons and organizations in these countries directly promote resentment and prejudices, trying to strengthen social barriers against those labeled as religiously unclean. In the post-soviet countries of the East and the South Europe the state metes out privileges often in violation of its own constitutional laws to the traditional religions that are seen as a stabilizing factor and an ally. Having received these privileges, traditional religions eagerly support some of the less subtle repressions against western denominations. And in addition, they not infrequently enlist help of the western Anti-Cult-Organizations, uncritically accepting their ideological track. The presented papers will be published in the Autumn 2009 in the Journal Religion Staat Gesellschaft (Publisher-LIT).