|
Ordinance on Religion:
A Method of Oppressing Religion by the Means of Law
by Father Chan Tin, Father Nguyen Huu Giai, and Father Phan Van Loi
It is widely know
that on June 18, 2004, in Hanoi, the Standing Committee of the
Vietnam National Assembly passed an Ordinance
Regarding Religious Beliefs and Religious Organizations. It
consists of 6 chapters and 41 articles. This Ordinance
is scheduled to come into effect on November 15, 2004.
As people of
faith, we have the right and responsibility to raise our voices when
we see clearly that this Ordinance violates the legal rights of all
religions and the rights of all religious people. We sincerely hope
that the government will withdraw this Ordinance for these reasons.
Oppression of religion by the
means of law
In reading the
Ordinance, we perceive it to be a tool of the State to oppress
people of faith. Even though the Ordinance does not explicitly deny
the right of freedom of religion, it binds all religious activities
of all religions to be submissive to the control of the State and
entirely subservient to the State. Almost all of the chapters and
articles in this Ordinance aim to limit to the maximum, or to
nullify completely, all the rights of religious freedom of the
people, a right that is a natural and basic right, is guaranteed in
the Constitution of Vietnam and is recognized in international law.
Thus, to accurately reflect the actual content of this Ordinance, it
should be renamed, The Ordinance to Limit or to
Nullify the Freedom of Religion. This Ordinance has 41 chapters,
which include the following:
Article 1 This
first article puts in mind the general principle of the Constitution
regarding religion, which is that “all the citizens have the
right to freedom of religious belief, and of having a religion, or
the right to follow or not to follow a religion. The government
guarantees the right of freedom of religious belief and of having a
religion for its citizens. Nobody is permitted to violate this
freedom.” In this article from the Constitution, there is not a
single word that limits the freedom of religion at all.
However, in the
next 40 articles, with the exception of four articles which relate
to the implementation of the ordinance, of the remaining 36 articles
which are the main content of the Ordinance, virtually every single
one has the spirit of limiting the right to freedom of religion as
declared in Article 1. These 36 articles cover all essential
religious activities of all religions. Therefore, these 36 articles
more or less reject what is stated in Article 1. They also reject
the commitment to allow religious freedom as given by the
Constitution. Indeed, Article 1 says, “The government guarantees
the right of freedom of religious beliefs and of having a religion
for its citizens. Nobody is permitted to violate
this freedom,” but then the Ordinance immediately
follows with 36 articles which to a greater or lesser extent violate
this very freedom! Article 1 grants religious freedom, then the
following articles gradually withdraw that freedom until nothing is
left. Therefore, this Ordinance is an inconsistent ordinance and
clearly violates the Constitution.
Therefore, with
this Ordinance, except for Article 1, the State uses all the
remaining articles to remove virtually all the rights of religious
freedom of its citizens. It is safe to say that when the National
Assembly of Vietnam prepared and then declared this Ordinance, it
was violating the Constitution. It is ridiculous that the National
Assembly which itself established the Constitution then turns around
and itself violates that Constitution! What good is Vietnamese law
anyway?
In summary, the
poisonous, hidden scheme of the State – for decades now, but which
has become more obvious during recent years, and will become clearer
still when this Ordinance comes into effect – is to avoid arresting
anybody for religious activities, because in doing so it is too
obvious that the State is violating freedom of religion. Therefore,
in the past, the State issued many decrees, but now the State has
become more serious by issuing this Ordinance passed by the National
Assembly. The policy of the State is that the National Assembly has
to word this Ordinance in such a way that it would create the
condition that all the essential religious activities of the people
can be illegal, so that the authorities, based on this Ordinance,
can arrest, convict, and imprison anyone engaged in religious
activity of any kind. This is the essence, the purpose, and the
content of the Ordinance Regarding Religious Beliefs
and Religious Organizations, issued on June 18, 2004 in Hanoi.
We must realize
that if there is religious activity that appears to happen as if it
is free and normal, we can know for certain that such religious
activity is readily controllable by the authorities; indeed, it is
only a show for the world to make them think Vietnam has freedom of
religion, and is intended to mislead the naïve and those who do not
thoroughly understand the situation. But even such activities must
usually be registered and secure permission or approval before
they can proceed. Please note that in the 41 articles of the
Ordinance, the word “register” is repeated 18 times, the
words “approval,” “recognized,” “allowed,” and
“permitted” are repeated 21 times. We also know from past
experience, that the word “register” does not mean just to
report to the authorities and then go ahead and do whatever you plan
to do, but it means waiting for the authorities to grant permission
before you can begin anything. Therefore, though the words “register”
and “getting permission” are in reality two different verbs,
in State practice they mean the same thing. In these 41 articles,
there are 39 articles which have as their content requirements of “getting
permission” or “getting approval.” Thus, the kind of freedom
of religion in this Ordinance is “freedom, but
must ask permission,” or “freedom, but must register.”
The phrases “but must ask permission,” or “but must
register” have changed the word “freedom” which goes
before them into a meaningless and empty word.
Let’s be
practical, is there in this Ordinance any public and corporate
religious activity which does not require prior registration or
permission? Why is there is no article in the Ordinance that
specifies situations in which the authorities are required to grant
permission, and if they don’t, they will be punished for violating
the law. The State grants local authorities the power to give
permission or not to give permission - depending on their own will,
according to their own convenience, subject to their own feelings,
case by case - perhaps also dependent on a bribe. In the past, there
were many situations in which it was necessary to bribe the
authorities so that a seminarian could get permission to be ordained
as priest. If a bribe was not forthcoming, the seminarian would
never get permission to be ordained.
It is clear that
the authorities use this “giving permission” as a gift to
reward those monks or religious leaders who would kowtow to, and be
subservient to, the State, even to violating their own conscience.
The authorities can use this “giving permission” tool to
punish those monks or religious leaders whom they describe as
arrogant and not subservient to the State, but actually remain true
to their conscience. The power to give permission in
this situation is like “the carrot and the stick”. The
State would use this approach to force all religious leaders to
become docile tools in their hands. They can also use this approach
to limit or nullify the activities of unsub-missive religious
leaders who do not kowtow and obey them. Indeed, any Buddhist monk,
any Protestant pastor, or any Catholic priest who is submissive to
the authorities can readily get permission for many things. On the
other hand, those who do not try to please the authorities have a
very hard time getting permission for anything, regardless of how
necessary and legitimate those things may be.
It is for that
very reason, to maintain the policy of “the carrot and the stick,”
by this Ordinance, the State seeks by all means to retain and
strengthen the “policy of ask and give,” a policy which
democratic governments have rejected for many decades. Even in this
country, it has been strongly condemned by the media and the public.
And thus, the
kind of religious freedom that this
Ordinance would grant is a kind of empty freedom,
a kind of freedom that has a name but is without substance. If we
understand the word freedom as
defined in dictionaries, we see this kind of freedom is not that
kind of freedom at all. More accurately speaking, the
kind of freedom that this Ordinance defines, is the kind of freedom
in which you must ask first then wait until it is given to
you.
An illustration of “freedom
in which you must ask first then wait until it is given to you”
In order for
everybody to easily understand this kind of freedom, let’s look at a
simple illustration. An owner of a house commanded all
his servants, saying, “In principle I grant you the freedom to do
anything at all you want to do. I only have one requirement. Whatever
you want to do, you must let me know ahead of time, or get my
permission first. Then if I give permission, you can do it.”
Then that owner went around and proudly boasted to other owners, “In
my household, all the servants are free to do whatever they want. I
permit them to do so.” In hearing this, the very naive might
believe the owner, and respect him, for his great kindness and
goodness granted to his servants.
The kind of
freedom that this house owner grants to his servants, is the very
same kind of freedom in which you must ask first
then wait until it is given to you which is defined
in the Ordinance just issued by the State. In comparing the new
Ordinance on Religion and the illustration of the owner of the house
and his servants, notice these similarities:
Article 1 of the
Ordinance declares the general recognition of the right of freedom
of religion - as the house owner said, “In principle, I grant you
the freedom to whatever you want to do.”
However, the
following 40 articles immediately nullify what is said in Article 1.
The house owner said, “I only have one requirement. Whatever you
want to do, you must let me know ahead of time, or get my permission
first. And then, if I give my permission, you can do it.” The
difference between the Ordinance and the house owner’s statement is
that instead of making a general statement like, all religious
activities are required to have permission, the Ordinance lists in
minute detail all the kinds of activities which require registration
and permission. It includes virtually all legitimate religious
activities.
With the contents
of Article 1 of the Ordinance in mind, the spokesman of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Communist Vietnam would doubtless not hesitate
to boast to the international community: “Our country of Vietnam
always respects freedom of religion as defined in our Constitution,
and the best example of this is in the Ordinance on Religion which
we have just issued.” Of course, there is nobody in the
international community today who would believe such a lie, except
for the most naïve. We Vietnamese, living within the country or
overseas, have had too many experiences with these lies. Our
experiences through the years boils down to the proverb, “Lying
like a mussel,” a proverb that has been very popular among our
people for over a half of a century. [The ‘shadow’
meaning of “mussel” is “communist”.] Nevertheless, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Vietnamese Communist government continues to
lie shamelessly to the international community without so much as a
blush.
Is it really necessary to limit
freedom of religion?
It is possible
that government authorities may have concerns that some people may
abuse religion, or abuse religious activities to violate the law, or
not be submissive to government policies, or cause some public
disorder, or even hurt someone else, and so the idea that they must
limit that freedom to a some degree, makes some sense. But if the
government fears that the people may abuse religion to violate the
law, they already have the means to handle it. They can send the
police to investigate such persons, and if they find anyone who
intentionally violates the law, that person may be brought to court
as in any other crime. But it is quite unreasonable to limit all
religious activities because of such unfounded fears, and to require
all religious activities to be registered and secure prior
permission for everything. In cases where religious leaders do ask
for permission there is, of course, no guarantee that the
authorities will grant permission. Thus religious activities that
respond to the innate spiritual needs of the people, but which
cannot get permission, and proceed without permission anyway,
automatically become a violation of the law, even though nothing has
been done to violate the law at all.
There have been
many situations in which believers came together for the purpose of
prayer, or to listening to preaching, when the police came to
disperse the people and to arrest the leaders as if they were indeed
violating the law! What did these religious believers do wrong to
make the State so fearful that the State has to limit virtually all
such religious activities?
It is now common
knowledge that for several decades many Communist Party members have
abused their membership in the Party to violate the law in taking
public funds and properties to be their own, in abusing their
positions for personal gain, and using their positions to do
personal business, oppressing anyone who dares report them. These
are very serious and rampant occurrences. The people are groaning
under this injustice, and many intellectuals and upstanding Party
members have raised their voices regarding these infractions, but
the State pays them no heed. If the State does put on
a show of concern, it is only a show to try to take the heat out of
the criticism. There is no sincere effort to improve the situation
at all. If the State is so fearful that people may
abuse religion to violate the law that it feels obliged to issue a
religious ordinance, then it would only be right if the State would
issue 10 or 100 ordinances to stop members from abusing their
membership in the Communist Party and breaking laws. But
there is no such ordinance at all!
Moreover, social
evils such as bribery, drugs, prostitution, the selling of women and
children to foreigners are happening all over the nation. These
terrible social ills make our nation looked very bad and hinder the
development of our country. Why is it in these areas, where the
government should be paying a great deal of attention, they don’t
seem to give a care? Instead in the area of religious beliefs, the
government is so vigilant it feels it must issue a detailed
Ordinance – this is senseless. Is it because the government
considers religion to be more dangerous and more evil than
corruption, drugs, prostitution, and the selling of women and
children? In reality, in many other nations of the world, religion
has done countless good things for people. Why do government
authorities not issue any ordinances to control the most serious
social problems?
Other nations do
not have special Ordinances on Religion, and virtually no one abuses
religion to violate the law. Does our government really believe that
religious believers in our country are worse than believers in other
nations? Our police and security forces are widely known for their
effectiveness and for their ability to keep a constant close watch
on the activities of the people. So why is it necessary to take such
additional, extraordinary, and extreme measures to guard against
religion?
If the government
fears that religious organizations might oppose the government,
doesn’t it make more sense for the government to allow them to be
free to exercise their faith? Instead the government’s restriction
of religious freedom is increasing every day. To see the progression
one only has to compare the first decree concerning religious
activities, Decree # 234S/L, issued on June 14, 1955 by Chairman Ho
Chi Minh, with Ordinance on Religion recently issued. Anyone can see
clearly that the oppression of religion, especially in regard to
legal aspects, has escalated very significantly. This will make
people who have no inclination to oppose the government, to begin
doing so, so that they may have a little freedom. If believers will
not struggle in this way, their religious organizations will be
suffocated and will find themselves in a condition of being half-alive
and half-dead. Religious leaders such as Buddhist Venerables Thich
Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do, Catholic Father Nguyen Van Ly, and
Protestant Reverend Nguyen Hong Quang, have raised their voices of
concern because the State does indeed oppress religion and restrict
the people’s right to religious freedom to the point of being
intolerable. If our country truly had religious freedom, it would
not be necessary for these respected leaders to raise their voices
of concern. In truth, the State must recognize this reality and
immediately cease all forms of religious oppression. Lenin himself,
one of the founders of Communism, said, “Where there is injustice
and oppression, there will be struggle.” Could it really be that
by means of arresting, slandering, and imprisoning those who
struggle for freedom, the State wants to escalate strong-armed
oppression on the one hand, and shut the mouth of everybody on the
other hand, until no one dares to speak up anymore? It’s the same as
stamping on someone’s foot and forbidding them to cry out in pain!
If the recently
proclaimed Ordinance on Religion becomes effective, many essential
religious activities will automatically becoming violations of the
law because they were not registered, because permission was not
sought, or not granted by authorities. For example, take prayer
meetings in the homes of believers, sharing one’s faith in places
not approved as official religious venues by the State, posting
religious web pages, printing and distributing religious literature,
and even cultural, social, educational, and charitable programs, and
so on. All such legitimate religious activities are freely carried
out by people of faith everywhere in the world, without the need of
registration and getting permission, and are never seen as violating
of the law. But when religious believers in Vietnam do these things
without asking for or without receiving prior permission, they are
seen as lawbreakers and may be arrested and imprisoned. So how can
it be said there is freedom of religion in Vietnam? Could it be true
that during our heroic struggles for freedom over the last century,
struggles in which we lost millions of lives and our whole nation
suffered immensely, that we only achieved a kind of freedom which is
a fraction of the freedom enjoyed by other nations? Have we paid too
much for what we have?
Why do we continually need to have
State recognition?
One of the many
weird things about this Ordinance on Religion is that only those
religions, or religious leaders and those of religious vocation who
have been approved by the State, are able to perform religious
activities or share their faith. Does that mean that a religion
which is not recognized by the State will no longer be a religion? Does
that mean that a Buddhist monk, a Catholic priest, or a Protestant
pastor who is not recognized by the State will no longer be a
religious leader in their own religion, and will be unable to
perform religious duties such as preaching and teaching? Then what
good would it be to be a Buddhist monk, a Catholic priest, or a
Protestant pastor if one could not do these duties?
We are human
beings, but if the State does not recognize that we are human
beings, does that mean we are no longer human beings? Do we cease to
have the natural needs of human beings? And do we still have the
right to live properly as human beings? And suppose, we become sick
and the State does not recognize that we are sick, does that mean we
are no longer sick and have no need for medicine or treatment? And
can the State, based its refusal to acknowledge our sickness, forbid
us from taking medicine and getting treatment to cure our sickness?
Of course this is ridiculous, crazy!
And how about
asking a member of the Communist Party, if a religious body does not
recognize you as a member of the Communist Party, will that mean you
are no longer a member of the Communist Party? Does that mean you no
longer have any responsibility to the Party?
We believe that
even a first grade student would know that if you are a true, hard
core Communist Party member, even though the whole world did not
recognize you as a Communist Party member, you would still be a
Communist Party member. The fact that a person who is not a
Communist Party member does not recognize you, doesn’t mean you are
no longer a Communist Party member nor release you from the
responsibilities you have with the Party. Then why did those who
wrote this Ordinance on Religious say that if the State does not
recognize a particular Buddhist monk, or Protestant pastor, or
Catholic priest, then that person is no longer a Buddhist monk, or a
Protestant pastor, or a Catholic priest, and how can the State
forbid them performing their religious duties as a monk, a pastor,
or a priest? How is it that no one in the whole
National Assembly of Vietnam seems to be able to understand such
straightforward logic?
The major
religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, etc., have
existed in the world and functioned for thousand of years. For
centuries the world has recognized these religions while the
Communist Party has been in existence for less than a hundred years.
But now the Vietnamese Communist State claims the right to decide
which religion is recognized and which religion is not recognized,
which religion is permitted to operate and which religion is not
permitted to operate. What arrogance and stupidity!
Or is this
requirement of State recognition of clergy an intentional means to
outright forbid those religions, or Buddhist monks, or Protestant
pastors, or Catholic priests who will not submit themselves to serve
the Party and the State? Because simply by not recognizing a certain
religion, it becomes automatically illegal for that religion to
function; and by not recognizing a certain monk, pastor, or priest,
those leaders are immediately deprived of their religious rights and
they immediately become persons who violate the law and can be
arrested and imprisoned any time. In free countries, the State does
not make as an issue of recognizing and approving religion, or
concern itself about who is a monk, or a pastor, or a priest. Such
recognitions are the internal affair of the respective religions,
not the business of the State. Similarly whether a person is a
Communist Party member or not a Party member is the internal
business of the Party; it is not the business of those who are
outside the Party. Does the State have nothing else to do but to
interfere in the business of others? Is there anybody in any of the
religions who wastes their precious time trying to figure out if
this person or that person is a member of the Communist Party?
The recognition
or non-recognition of a religion has, in some cases, had interesting
side effects. Some religious organizations, precisely
because they have been recognized and granted permission to operate
by the State, have become the objects of suspicion and rejection by
the people, and are scorned as State-owned religion
- not a genuine religion, but only a vehicle of the
State to control the people’s faith. There are some monks, pastors,
and priests who because they have been recognized and promoted by
the State are called by the people rattlesnake monks or State-owned
pastors or priests. People see them as servants of the regime,
and as those who are sent by the government to infiltrate into
religious leadership so that they can destroy the internal
leadership of the religious organization. Of course, these are not
real monks, or pastors, or priests in the true meanings. Religious
believers can sense these plants and hence hold them in suspicion. In
some cases believers despise them openly. On the other side, those
religious leaders who were not recognized by the government and are
forbidden to perform their religious duties are loved and respected
by the people in a special way. The people consider the hardships
these religious leaders suffer to be sure marks of authenticity of
their religious leadership.
Why are the Communists
free to propagate their doctrine and why are religious believers
not?
One of the absurd
and illogical things about the Ordinance on Religion is that one has
to ask permission for all religious activities, and there is no
guarantee that permission will be granted. Meanwhile
the Communists enjoy complete freedom to propagate their doctrine.
Not only is it not necessary for them to get permission to propagate
their doctrine, but they also have the power to compel students,
even theological students, to study their doctrine! Does this
demonstrate the equality of every citizen before the law? Does it
make sense that while Communists, who make up only a small
percentage (2%) of the population enjoy such a privilege, while the
religions which have a much higher percentage (for instance,
Buddhists 30%, Roman Catholics 8%, Cao Dai 4%, Hoa Hao 3%, etc.)
cannot have this freedom? Such unfairness and
imbalance clearly indicate that the present State of Vietnam is a
State of the Communist Party and for the
Communist Party, it is not of the
people and for the people.
The Ordinance on Religion
will be a means to escalate religious oppression.
In the past, all
decrees regarding religious activities were only resolutions of the
Communist Party, decrees of the Prime Minister, or of the Central
Committee on Religious Affairs, but now the rules and regulations
regarding the religion are promulgated by the National Assembly, and
the result is called the “Ordinance Regarding Religious Belief
and Religious Organizations.” Before the promulgation of the
Ordinance on Religion, that is before the official law given by the
National Assembly, when decrees given by lesser organs of the
government prevailed, already under those circumstances, a great
many religious activities were viewed as illegal. The police often
went to harass and to break up religious gatherings, forcing people
to disperse. And now with an Ordinance on Religion on the books, how
much more will harassment and oppression escalate when the Ordinance
actually comes into effect?
Before there was
an official Ordinance on Religion, meaning there was no religious
activity which could be officially considered by the National
Assembly as illegal or violating the law, there were countless
prayer meetings of Protestant Christians in many locations which
were harassed and dispersed, and the leaders of these gatherings
were arrested and imprisoned. Before there was an Ordinance on
Religion, in Son La, Lai Chau, and the Central Highlands and many
other places, the police confiscated Bibles, Catechism booklets and
various Christian literature of Catholic Christians, and forbade
them to pray. How much more oppression will there be when the
Ordinance on Religion comes into effect? From the past to the
present, religions suffered oppression at the hands of State to the
point of being unbearable, how much more oppression will religions
suffer now that the State has manipulated even the National
Assembly, the highest law-making body in the land, to issue an
Ordinance to restrict the right of religious freedom in such an
official and serious manner?
*
* *
Therefore, we
wholeheartedly agree with Cardinal Pham Minh Man when he publicly
said, “It would be best if this Ordinance were not issued”. We
sincerely desire that the State withdraw this Ordinance. If put into
effect by the government, this Ordinance will instigate an
ever-stronger struggle for religious freedom in the country. The
State will have to spend huge amounts of time and energy to arrest
and imprison who knows how many more innocent people. Moreover, this
Ordinance shows that the National Assembly, and the people who wrote
the Ordinance and promulgated can’t tell right from wrong, and have
never really contended for the welfare of the people. They are only
compliant tools in the hands of the Party; they blindly obey the
Party and mindlessly support the Party to oppress the people; they
cannot discern common sense from nonsense, nor what is good for the
country and what is bad for the people!
We respectfully
ask people of good will around the world, especially members of
religious organizations, both within our country and overseas, to
raise up strong voices to demand that the State of Communist Vietnam
truly respect the right of freedom of religion, an innate need of
human beings and a legitimate right of the people. The State of
Vietnam has solemnly acknowledged this right and committed to honor
it at the United Nations. This is our sincere cry for help.
Made in Vietnam on August 15,
2004
Signed: Father
Chan Tin
Father
Nguyen Huu Giai
Father
Phan Van Loi
--------------------------------------- 84-year-old Father Chan Tin is a well-known, long-time religious freedom activist. He spent some years in “village arrest” in the 1990’s after a controversial Easter sermon entitled “Repentance for the Nation”. Fathers Giai and Loi of the Hue Diocese, are colleagues and strong supporters of the Vietnam’s best-known religious prisoner-of-conscience, Father Nguyen Van Ly.
|