| Abstract [eng] |
Religion, as one of the most important social institutions, has seen its position challenged by the processes of modernization. One of the fields in which it had previously enjoyed substantial influence is politics and state power. With the advent of secularism, countries were faced with solving the puzzle of what precise connection the two institutions can maintain without compromising freedom of belief, equality before the law, minority rights and avoiding the pitfalls of oppression. The aims of this thesis are to: • Provide an overview of the theory of secularization, its predictions and criticisms; • Analyze the field of religion and state relationship with focus on the position of religious minorities globally and in Lithuania; • Analyze the arguments of decision makers when deliberating upon minority religious organizations and them being granted state recognition; • Compare and contrast these arguments with predictions of secularization theory. While the theory of secularism predicted the decrease of the influence of religion, and the ideals of separation of state and religion seemed to become synonymous with modern democratic state, religious organizations appear to be reluctant to accept the requests to retreat from the public sphere and sever its ties with the state. The states, in turn, retained regulatory power of religious organizations, which, in many cases, resulted in discriminatory practices against the majority of them. The ideals of secularism, when applied to reality, take various shapes, some of them resulting new relationships between state and religious organizations. The empirical part of the research was accomplished by analyzing political discourse during all procedural stages of Seimas‘s deliberations regarding the granting of state recognition to “Romuva” religious organization, in order to provide additional insight into the motivation for the state’s treatment of religious minorities. Members of Parliament, who are granted the collective prerogative to grant state recognition to religious organizations in Lithuania, provided numerous motives for their refusal to grant it to “Romuva”. The religious organization was presented as lacking religious character, a cultural rather than a religious movement, insignificant and too small, especially when compared to the majority religion, a threat to Christianity, and, by extension - to national security. The possibility of “Romuva” being granted state recognition was interpreted as having profound negative impact on Lithuania’s international standing and its relationship with its Christian allies. The arguments used to justify the state’s refusal to grant recognition to “Romuva” minority religious organization showed that state’s relationship with particular religious minorities remains an issue of great political and geopolitical significance in Lithuania; that in matters of state regulation of religion, Seimas as a political institution displays extensive normative influence of the dominant religion; and that the state’s decisions regarding the establishment of relationships with minority religious organizations is significantly influenced by the religious identity of applicant organizations. The European Court of Human Rights found the treatment of “Romuva” by Seimas to be discriminatory, which resulted in both the need to reassess “Romuva’s” application, as well as to make changes to the process as a whole in order to prevent such shortcomings in the future. Possible changes to the process of granting state recognition are also suggested, including the introduction of additional stages as well as the possible inclusion of additional institutions in the final decision making. |
