Kyiv recently hosted an international scholarly conference, The Freedom of Religion and National Identity, organized by the International Academy for the Freedom of Religion and Belief, Verkhovna Rada Committee for Culture and Spirituality, the Ukrainian Association of Religious Studies, the State Committee for Religions, the National Academy of Sciences, and the International Center for the Study of Law and Religion. The conference’s theme attracted the attention of scholars, lawyers, and the clergy, for it dealt with one of the most complicated problems of today’s world: is it possible to grant an individual freedom of conscience, including the freedom of religion, without destroy his national identity? Almost all the speakers defended the right of an individual to freely adhere to a certain denomination, to belong to a certain church, as well as to change his religious persuasions. Yet, conference participants noted that the latter might lead to a loss of the image that has been formed for ages and is based to a large extent on one’s ancestral faith. In other words, it could lead to the formation of a different national identity and to the recognition of the right to the freedom of conscience. This was actively opposed in particular by the Russian Orthodox Church. For instance, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad thinks that “contemporary international standards (including, incidentally, definition of the principles of human freedom) are in essence exclusively Western and liberal standards” and that means unacceptable for Orthodoxy.
Incidentally, it is very regrettable that the conference did not hear the opinion of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy about the dilemma “religious freedom versus national identity.” When asked by me, the organizers said invitations had been sent to, for example, the Theological Academy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, but the Orthodox clergy failed to take part in the conference.
The Roman Catholic Church was represented at the conference by Cardinal Walter Kasper who runs the Pontifical Council to Promote Christian Unity. He began his address with the words, “First of all, I want to say that over the past few decades the Catholic Church has been repeatedly expressing its high respect for Orthodoxy and its cultural significance.” As to the problem of the freedom of conscience, Monsignor Kasper is convinced that “upholding the dignity of a human personality is the principal and most important element of every Christian culture. Therefore, the idea of national, religious, and cultural identity presupposes the awareness of basic human rights and freedoms, including, first of all, the freedom of faith. This is the most important contribution that Christianity has made and will continue to make to European and world culture... I am sure that reconciliation between religions and, not in the least, between churches is the most important factor of peace in our increasingly interconnected world. This will only be possible when all will recognize the freedom of worship and will be avoiding any coercion and discrimination in religious affairs.” The right to one’s own freedom of faith should not be an excuse for an intolerable and aggressive attitude toward other religions and churches. This especially applies to a historically- formed persuasion of the majority. In any case, peace can only be achieved through an open and constructive dialogue between churches.
Chairman of Ukraine’s State Committee of Ukraine for Religions, Viktor Bondarenko, dwelled on some results of Ukrainian religious policy during the years of independence. The Ukrainian law On Religious Associations and the Freedom of Conscience has brought about major changes in society: the free formation and development of churches, which have become important active subject in this country’s public life. It has also promoted restoration of the church structures ruined during the Soviet period, enabled churches to regain the confiscated property, and established religious peace. However, it is already necessary to pass a new law that would radically reduce the number of areas where bureaucrats still dominate and exclude inadmissible violations of religious freedom (most often by local authorities). According to Mr. Bondarenko, the new law should broaden the functions of the State Committee for Religions by authorizing this body to oversee the activities of local administrations in the sphere of religious life.
W. Cole Durham (US-based International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief), broached in his speech the question of not only religious freedom but also of identity. In his words, the United States’ historical experience has shown that religious freedom can become a central element of the American national identity as well as lay the foundation — a far stronger than the one laid by, say, an officially established church — to social stability.
Viktor Yelensky (Department of Religion Studies, Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Sciences, and editor-in-chief of the journal Liudyna i svit (The Individual and the World) noted, “We cannot say today that religions have finally shifted to the private sphere — they still show considerable vitality on the political and social stage, helping to preserve the old and establish the new identities of human communities.” Likewise, no predictions of the end of the “era of nationalism” have come true. “In reality, there are very few people in today’s world who do not identify themselves with a certain religion or nation. This remains a very important component in the identity of billions of global residents.” Meanwhile, belonging to the faith of one’s parents is no longer the rule. We are witnessing a gradual departure from the national church to the church of free choice, to which one belongs not by birth but by one’s own decision.
According to Dr. Yelensky, in the late 1990s religious freedom in Ukraine “crystallized as in fact the only real, not only declarative, freedom, which nevertheless does not rule out some infringements on it.” Western analysts also give quite high marks to the way Ukraine observes constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms. For neither the legislative nor executive branch in Ukraine has ever resorted to large-scale crackdowns on religious minorities.
The situation in Ukraine results from, among other things, the fact that the Ukrainian types of religious culture are by and large quite tolerant towards those who adhere to other faiths. “It should also be noted that Ukrainian nationalism is relatively weak and devoid of a rigid denominational identity, which seriously diminishes the possibility of establishing a religious monopoly. The Ukrainian national myth is far less linked with religion than is, say, the Serbian, Polish, or Georgian ones. Yet, there really is some tension between religious freedom and the right to preserve one’s own identity, with religion often being an important component of the latter.”
Doctor Anatoly Kolodny, president of the Ukrainian Organization of Religion Researchers, touched on the unity and independence of Orthodoxy, one of the thorniest problems in contemporary Ukrainian life. At the stage of national renaissance, “some nationally-oriented forces of Ukraine attempted to use religion as an instrument of spiritual revival of the Ukrainian ethnic community. They thus tried to remove the factors that have contributed to the denationalization of Ukrainians for centuries. This could also promote the renaissance of Ukrainian culture, for it is only recently that religion was brought back as a component of national culture.” Mr. Kolodny believes that only independent religious institutions can promote a nation’s membership in the world community. “Meanwhile, the current formation and functioning of national churches has nothing to do with any kind of denominational autarchy or religious chauvinism and will never lead to any restrictions on the freedom of worship. We live in a historical period, when toying with such ideas as only ‘one true faith’ and some imaginary ‘canonical territory’ is obviously receding into the past, while the multi-denominational nature of states and nations is an objective reality to be reckoned with.”
Liudmyla Fylypovych (Department of Religion Studies, Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Sciences) emphasized, “It is not until recently that such phrases as religious freedom or the freedom of religions, national or religious identity, were part of our vocabulary.” Today, our society debates new problems, including one of the most burning issues: the correlation between the freedom of religions and national identity. Realities of the twentieth century such as the Yugoslav and Arab-Israeli wars and the events of September 11, 2001, show that all identities are in crisis and find it difficult and sometimes even impossible to bow to standardization, Americanization, and globalization. An individual, both as an ethnic and a believer in a certain confession, will counter the threat of losing his multifaceted identity and refuse to sacrifice his ethno-religious specificity for the sake of some European or global cause. Moreover, one cannot regard himself as belonging to European or worldwide culture unless one first identifies oneself as part of an ethnic group.
Dr. Fylypovych believes that “in Ukraine, the freedom of religion was interpreted as a component or a derivative of the freedom of conscience, a subject of Soviet law. This is why, unlike in the West, it could not result from the recognition of necessity or from a longtime struggle for the right to practice a chosen religion. Religious freedom, as well as official independence, emerged somewhat unexpectedly for most Ukrainians... This is why religious freedom is often viewed as pure accident, as an oddity, as government weakness, as chaos in education. Traditional religious freedoms in Ukraine do not have such a solid historical grounding as in the US or some European countries. Thus, whoever advocates the freedom of religions today almost always means the church he or she belongs to.”
Hence, in this country the freedom of religions is more often than not interpreted as permission for a certain religious community to exist rather than as the inalienable right and freedom of an individual to choose and practice any faith. Collective identity is the original cause that dominates over individual — both ethnic and religious — considerations. What come first are the interests of the community, not the rights and interests of the individual. Nobody still accepts the right of an individual to religious self-determination and, moreover, the right to change his religious persuasions freely, without coercion. “The law does not accept the believer as such.” For example, Ukrainian law provides the right of alternative military service only to members of a certain religious community. In this sense, religious freedom in Ukraine has been reduced to the minimum and is very far from international standards. It is this factor that causes so many conflicts and problems — for example, of national identity — because many Ukrainians tend to believe that religious freedoms and national identity are incompatible.
Still, should national identity be preserved or should the individual be given a full religious freedom? Here, as perhaps in many other really important problems, binary logic and simple yes or no answers are utterly ineffective. In addition, national identity, as well as personal self-identification, are not staid notions that remain unchanged in time and space. Under the pressure of time and circumstances, with the development of education and international contacts, personal (and, hence, national) identity is undoubtedly changing — sometimes gradually and unnoticed, sometimes by leaps and bounds. Suffice it to recall how Ukrainians have changed in the past ten years — even those of us who used to unconditionally and sincerely identify themselves with the Soviet system and atheism. We should also remember that the Ukrainians have never been a colorless monolith — also in terms of religion. Today, according to the State Committee for Religions, practically every second religious community in this country is not Orthodox. Obviously, we cannot do without tolerance, respect for other people’s choice, and religious freedom. The only alternative is the religious war of all against all and denominational cleansing.
