At the beginning of the year, I wrote on the ERR portal that "Freedom of religion is part of a free Estonia." Now, with President Alar Karis refusing to promulgate the questionable amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act, I have received confirmation of my belief. Despite the president's well-reasoned arguments, the controversy will likely continue. Therefore, I would like to add a few more observations about the boundaries of religious freedom.

There is no doubt that freedom of religion is not absolute. It cannot be used to justify a crime or a violation of the law. If someone's conscience does not allow them to abide by national norms, they may engage in civil disobedience, but the state has the legitimate right to punish them for it. At the same time, it is the task of a democratic state to ensure that as few people as possible feel that their freedom of conscience and religion is being restricted without cause and without endangering others.

What arguments are used to justify such restrictions? Many speeches have delved into the twists and turns of history, theology and canon law. Is it enough merely to believe in Jesus, who is said to be common to all Christians, or are certain organizational forms also mandatory in matters of faith? Must the legitimacy of these forms be traced all the way back to the creation of the world?

While such discussions may be interesting, they are irrelevant in the context of parliamentary debate on religious freedom and should remain the domain of historians or theologians. In a secular state, the definition of religious freedom must be based on the constitution and legal principles.

Theological and canonical arguments are irrelevant simply because Estonia does not have a state church. Therefore, the parliament does not need to establish a theological commission or hire canonists to determine the correct doctrine for religious associations. (Though one interview with the minister of the interior hinted that the law aims to protect believers from "fundamentalism" — perhaps soon also from other "heresies"?) In other words, the state must not decide whether a branch church's transfer from one patriarchate to another severs its roots or whether a mother church is considered a malevolent stepmother.

Secular legislation regulating religious life must be non-confessional and suitable for any religion or religious association, whether they are Christians, Buddhists or "keepers of the violet flame."

This means that every religious association must have the right to determine the content of its faith, including its concept of God, traditions and canon law. In a free society, theologians from one community should not define faith for others and even less should such definitions be legally enforced. Of course, fraternal ecumenism and theological cooperation are a different matter. In speaking on the topic of religious freedom, I do so not as a theologian but as a citizen and a democrat.

The same applies to historical arguments. History provides countless examples that could be used to ascribe "historical guilt" to contemporary Christians — from participation in the Crusades to caesaropapism. We know that, for instance, in England or Denmark, the church is officially part of the state and those states have also waged wars, along with all the associated atrocities. One recalls Ervin Õunapuu's once-dramatic accusation that "the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church is a criminal organization and its leaders are real criminals."

A transgression committed by a member of a community in the past must not be extended to the entire group, because responsibility must be personal and proportional. President Alar Karis has emphasized this as well. When justified, sanctions should be imposed on Patriarch Kirill or on any Estonian clergyman who has engaged in criminal behavior.

Defending religious freedom means defending the rule of law, based on the constitution and internationally recognized human rights. What is alarming is the application of the principle of collective threat or guilt to religious communities.

Although the concept of collective guilt — developed after World War II by thinkers such as Carl Gustav Jung and Karl Jaspers — can express a positive idea of social responsibility, its legal application has always been difficult due to its ambiguity and has tended to create new injustices. The preventive discrimination of any social group belongs historically more to the arsenal of totalitarian regimes and the sanctions based on such discrimination have generally been crimes against humanity.

Who should decide, and on what legal basis, whether someone poses a threat to Estonia's security? The Riigikogu? The Ministry of the Interior? The press? The churches themselves? Do a few statements made by a departed pope endanger the entire Catholic Church?

Questions have been raised about whether the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, with its canonical ties to the Moscow Patriarchate, has sufficiently distanced itself from Patriarch Kirill's outrageous statements regarding the war in Ukraine and whether such distancing is even possible. Can the utterances of a church leader be selectively categorized and applied? Undoubtedly, they can.

Every form of faith is variable. In human society, it is nearly impossible to find two completely identical understandings of faith. The unity of a church is created by traditions and dogmas, not by the statements of whoever happens to be the church leader at a given moment. These statements can also be wrong and thus must be renounced. Even within the Catholic or Lutheran churches, the views of church leaders are not always and everywhere followed.

This distinction should be acknowledged in the case of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church [formerly MPEÕK] as well. Estonian Christians are not tethered to anyone; they have freely and lawfully chosen their religious affiliation and have the right to continue practicing it.

The weakness of the arguments is often masked by an abstract claim of needing to protect (gullible?) believers from hostile influence. But that is Sisyphean labor. Any freedom of thought, speech and expression inherently includes the right to influence and to be influenced. Each individual is responsible for whether they act lawfully within the exercise of those rights.

Religious associations should not be singled out for suspicion. There is no evidence that hostile propaganda is being preached from any pulpit in Estonia. However, one does hear mutual accusations in the Riigikogu of echoing Kremlin talking points. Should the Riigikogu then be dissolved?

President Karis rightly points out that Estonia's current legal framework already provides adequate means to respond to violations of the law, including activities that endanger national security. In a state governed by the rule of law, the security of every citizen and the society as a whole is ensured not only through lawful behavior but also through reasoned and well-founded legislation. Unfortunately, the recent amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act do not meet that standard. Thanks to President Alar Karis for drawing attention to this. Let us hope that his warnings are taken seriously.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!