/nginx/o/2022/03/07/14411686t1hca79.png)
/nginx/o/2024/05/06/16053478t1hefae.jpg)
The decision of the Riigikogu to declare the Moscow Patriarchate a sponsor of Russian aggression is correct, the question now is what will happen next and how the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (EOC-MP) will react.
On Monday, the Riigikogu adopted by 75 votes, or a more than two-thirds majority, a statement declaring the Moscow Patriarchate an institution sponsoring the Russian aggression. At the same time, the Riigikogu noted that the statement concerns the Moscow Patriarchate as an institution and directing body, not the people who follow Orthodox traditions.
«Orthodox associations and congregations should also carry out their own assessment of the threat to public order and to their members caused by the hostile influencing activities, and take the necessary steps to cut the ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. The Republic of Estonia must preserve the constitutional right to religious freedom, with full consideration for the rights and freedoms of everyone living here,» the Riigikogu statement reads.
In simpler terms, the Riigikogu put the ball in the court of the EOC-MP. We have seen that the EOC-MP has not wished to distance itself from Moscow. While the issue of the Moscow Patriarchate has several dimensions, the first one of them concerns the relationship between the secular state and a religious organization. According to the Estonian Constitution, we have freedom of religion, but it's important to remember that this freedom applies to organizations dealing with faith, not justifying imperialist policies.
The hesitant EOC-MP would do well to look to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has freed itself from the yoke of Moscow and is in step with the Ukrainian state, which is fighting for its existence.
In Russia's past as well as in the present, we can find many examples of things not being called by their proper names. The Stalinist Constitution of 1936 was called by the Soviet Union the most progressive in the world, yet we know that the law had no meaning in Stalin's Soviet Union. In the same way, the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik clothed itself as journalism, and when the Estonian authorities decided to close it down, there was also criticism of restrictions on the freedom of the press. Just as today we can hear criticism that religious freedom is being restricted. With no consideration for the fact that Sputnik was not about journalism and the Moscow Patriarchate is only a religious organization on the surface.
The hesitant EOC-MP would do well to look to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has freed itself from the yoke of Moscow and is in step with the Ukrainian state, which is fighting for its existence. When the government resumes dealing with the issue of EOC-MP, it can rely on the statement of the Riigikogu, which makes prevaricating increasingly difficult for EOC-MP.
In the context of religious freedom, however, it is a question of principle, that is, of the free choices of each individual. Religious freedom is not to be confused with loyalty to the leadership of an organization that justifies killing, which has fallen into heresy. Those who say that the statement of the Riigikogu offends the religious feelings of people adhering to Russian Orthodoxy should be asked whether these feelings should not also be offended by the hailing of the killing of Ukrainians. Shouldn't every seriously religious person think about their belonging to an organization which justifies and promotes killing? And while you may think that in Russia it is really difficult to make such a choice for fear of repression, in Estonia such choices are much easier to make.