Release:
2019, Vol. 5. №1About the authors:
Dmitry A. Kirillov, Cand. Sci. (Jur.), Associate Professor, Department of Civil Law and Procedure, University of Tyumen; eLibrary AuthorID, kdakda@yandex.ruAbstract:
Until recently, there has been no academic research of mismatch in the regulation of religious tolerance by the provisions of the Russian Constitution and the national legislation on freedom of conscience. The problem is that the legislative description of religious landscape, including mutual understanding, tolerance and respect in matters of religious freedom, is contrary to the Constitutional ban on propaganda of religious superiority. It also causes a number of undesirable phenomena in the religious sphere.
Since 2013, this research has been covering a wide range of social and legal issues of the religious landscape. The research methodology is typical for dialectical methodology, supplemented by elements of critical rationalism, modern versions of neo-positivism, existentialism, and other methodological approaches. In the course of the study, the authors conducted conditionally representative surveys, sufficient to formulate valid conclusions on the subject of the article. About nine hundred people from twelve regions of Russia and from five foreign countries took part in the survey. Among them there were more than fifty clergymen; about seven hundred respondents who have identified themselves as representatives of various religions, denominations and sects; and more than two hundred religious agnostics and atheists.
This article aims to amend the legislation on freedom of conscience, explaining its necessity and providing a draft. The relevance of this objective relates to the accumulation of social ideas on the rejection of tolerance, religious isolationism, the contradictions between the world centers of a number of religions and denominations.
The results reveal the mechanism of latent legislative obstruction of religious tolerance, highlight the inferiority of its identification with patience, and state the absence of religious tolerance in Russia. The authors describe three approaches to amending the legislation: “technical”, “conceptual”, and “compromise” — and give grounds for choosing one of the three proposed revisions of the problematic fragment of the legislation on the freedom of conscience.
Keywords:
References:
