A Legislative Code

Le Quang Vinh, the director of the Bureau of Religious Affairs, argued that those who emitted doubts about such the authenticity of  the laws on religions only proved themselves superficial. They tackled a question beyond their comprehension. The contents of the of the Decree 26 and the Decree 37 are comprehensive and  are consistent. The dispositions of the law servwe the best intersts of all religions and adherents to any religion. Religion is an objective reality of the society whicht everyone has to  respect. According to the latest statistics by the State, the number of adepts of diverse religions in Vietnam is estimated at 15 million, that is, less than one-fourth of the population.  The State serves the best the interests of the believers, but it has at the same time, to meet the needs of the non-believers. The regulations on religious activities are simply the requirements of the law, which situation is common, and, even necessary. Any state, even a capitalist one, must establish the laws for religions. In addition, there are, in our country, numerous different beliefs and religions whose needs are multiple and diverse. Prescribe certain measures, a concrete line of conduct, is necessary, may it be a common orientation. From this necessity, the government has established  the laws on religions. Working in thid direction, it is heading towards compiling a legislative code to be approved by the National Assembly.

The New Religious Policy

     Administrative Measures

     

A priesttt who asked anomymity said that "renovation" had not brought in changes in the religious policy. The State, till showed all intents to place the religions under strict control.  The Director of the Bureau of Religious Affairs, in his address ro the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam (2000) defended the Party's religious policy, praising the  State's approaches to the religious affairs at the Episcopal Conference. His remark was  directly addressed to Cardinal Pham Dinh Tung, President of the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam, and the bishops as follows:

“A year has passed by since the Seventh Reunion of this Conference. Today, the Bureau of Religious Affairs of the government comes to talk with you in this beautiful city of Nha Trang abound with monuments and rich with historical, cultural, and technical achievements. Nha Trang is a city which is seen in progress on the path of wealth and prosperity towards a just and civilized society. I would say my first words on this occasion to wish you all good health so as to guide the Catholic Church of Vietnam on the right path and also my congratulations as regards the total success you have gathered in this assembly.

Gentlemen, 

Last year, the world was shaken with  multiple wars, in Kosovo in Europe, in Afghanistan, in Sri Lanka in Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America. How have so many wars whose motives were moral and religious  broken out?  In our country, there have also been serious incidents of religious character. We  are well aware of those that touched the Catholic Church. At the beginning of the year 1999, a delegation from the “Foreign Affairs” of the Holy See came to Vietnam for negotiation, as we agree to do so every year.  Within one year, five  bishops have been nominted.  In the past, within five years, the same number of bishops had been consecrated. In August, the fete-day to close the year of full indulgence at  La Vang was celebrated in calmness and discipline with the participation of hundreds of thousand of pilgrims. In September, the Episcopal Conference of the United States came to visit the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam. As the civil servants working in the religious domain, we feel great working in that beautiful harmony. The Catholic Church and its organizations, in general, have led a civil and religious life with fervor in a country of peace. 

 Gentlemen,

The State does not cease to ponder on the spiritual and cultural needs of the nation to realize a politics of union of the people, the politics of union of believers and non-believers. Our people practice many religions. According to our statistics, the total number of our compatriots participating in religious activities does not exceed 20 million of people. There exist 50 million of people who don’t participate in any religious activity. The State guarantees the rights to freedom of beliefs and religions as well as the rights to freedom of non-belief and non-religion. It is strictly forbidden to exert discrimination for whatever reason on any belief and religion. There are people who live abroad say that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a state directed by the Communist Party and, for that reason, it must be an atheist state. By atheism, they mean intervention, destruction, and limitation. We allow ourselves to answer that such a judgment is issued from a reasoning based on vocabulary terminology and not on the nature of things. Our State came into being along with the foundation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam,. It had fought all through successive wars, the war of resistance against the French (1945-54) and the war in the South under the direction of the Revolutionary Government, having achieved independence and the liberation of  South Vietnam (from 1976 to the present time).  It has never been an atheist State. If it were an atheist state, why has it not forbidden religious  activities and fostered discrimination against all faiths for reason of belief and religion?

     The State is directed by the Communist Party. However, the                              Party follows the path as enlightened by President Ho Chi Minh “Not only should it not destroy religions, the Communist Party protects them. It only destroys the crimes committed by those who oppress man.” Coming back to the heart of the preoccupations of the State:  The State never ceases to ponder about the means to meet the needs iof the people in matters of religion. It should be remembered that, within two years, the Episcopal Conference has demanded to open a certain number of grand supplementary seminaries. The State has pondered very much on this religious need. We have keenly studied ourselves the needs as suggested by the Conference and  come up with realizable projects for the government to consider. Last year, the Prime Minister granted  permission to openi existing facilities for the establishment of the grand seminary of Ho Chi Minh City which is in the interior of the city. Nevertheless, one year has passed by, no accord from the Cburch concerning this project has been reached. 

     This discord is originated from diverse demands of a divergent subject. The demand for a grand seminary in Ho Chi Minh City turned to be the object of discussion on the 305 m2 space of an  annex establishment to the existing grand seminary, instead. The President of the Episcopal Conference solicited the opening of a new faculty. During the discussion, the bishop of Xuan Loc declared that he did not ask for the creation of a simple faculty, but a grand seminary at Xuan Loc. Today, I would like to inform you  that the Chief of government has given his accord concerning  the opening of an annex establishment of the grand seminary of Ho Chi Minh City at Xuan Loc in the province of Dong Nai. In the second place, you have demanded to organize pilgrimages, to participate in the celebration of the Saint Year at the Holy See in the Holy Land.  Again, we would like to inform you that  the government has given approval, and we ask you to proceed with the formalities for visas. Another central point is the question of publication of the bulletin    Communion. As regards this matter, we would like to inform you that, in principle, the Chief of Government has already given his accord. We ask you to specify the objectives and the type  of diffusion of this publication in a concrete manner, and  to submit application to competent agencies for consideration. Thus, I would like to ask the secretary-general of the Conference to fill in the necessary formalities and send them to us (the Bureau of Religious Affairs of the government), specifying more details, particularly, the objectives of this demand, and the mode of diffusion  of this internal bulletin as said in the letter of solicitation and during the assembly of the Episcopal Conference.     

Now, I would like to talk about the so-called “Appeal of the Religions for Religious Freedom in Vietnam” by some people who pretend to represent the religions and who, without shame, demand that “the Article 4 of the Constitution, the Decree 26 on religious activities, and the letter of application 01/99 published on July 16, 1999 be ignored, and that the legal status of the religions that had existed before 1975 be restored." These demands are rejected by the realities of daily life, and even by you, the leaders of a religion.I would like to speak about it in a comprehensive report. In reality,       the  Decree 26 enlarges the sphere of freedom for the religions while the Decree 69 only retaffirms the freedom of faith. This new decree states clearly the warranty of freedom of belief and religion. Beliefs belong to the domain of conscience, of sentiment, and of thought. Religions reveal a much larger domain, adducing activities and structures. The Decree 26 contains new regulations concerning religious activities and organizations. It lays emphasis on the protection that the law and State bring forth for them.  At this point, people would ask me how they will be free when they  are tied to authorization. The authorities of religious affairs have answers directly adressed to a critic embedded in the general considerations in a letter submitted to the government, in which the requirement for demand and authorization is put into question (EDA 299). The fact is, by inciting freedom of action from request for authorization, one is only deprived of many very precious advantages of protection. The fact of soliciting authorization of the State does not cary anything abnormal.

 

 Now, we confront the problems of entering the monastic life and  applying for authorization. Why is it that the State does not forbid one to practice a monastic life?  One is allowed to live a monastic life, but one must practice it in conformity with the dispositions of the law. Article 19 of the Decree 26 affirms without ambiguity that “the congregations of religions that are capable to function must ask for authorization and obtain recognition from competent organs of the State.”  The approval for people who desire to enter the monastic life will be accorded in conformity with the prescriptions ascribed by the Bureau of Religious Affairs. The State disposes of protection for those who enter the monastic life. Most of all, for  religious congregation, it guarantees the legal  status of the prospective priest. The State does not grant admission to the convent to those novices who evade the  rigor of the law or who want to  evade  their duties. The administrative civic formalities require of religious congregations  and candidates to the monastic life to fulfill these objectives of protection. The Bureau of  Religious Affairs is implementing these formalities so that they will not constitute inconveniences to the congregation or the candidate. However, the absence of all applications for authorization is unacceptable.

          

Let’s go back to the question of ideology that entangles the State and the religion. Certain people think that socialism and atheism are synonyms. This type of argument is reasoned without foundation. Most people think that the methodology of religion, on one side, and, socialism, on the other, are different. One is spiritualism, the other, materialism. Such things are methodologies, but their finalities and the objects derived from their methodologies are the same (?). If we trace back to the origins of religions, we will perceive that the object of belief and religion is the other world while socialism advocates the need for change of scientific society and  the change of State by society, actually at a higher level where oppression of man by man will be eliminated. In reality, between socialism and religion, there is  no convergence, but there is incompatibility. Article I of the Decree 26 has this phrase: “All discriminations for reasons of belief and religion are strictly forbidden.” To whom is destined this strict interdiction ? I think that it aims at isolating those who practice religious services vile political schemes (?). The State upholds an interdiction that concerns itself : That is the impartiality of our State.

 

 Being the manager of society, the State intervenes in two types of matters, showing its responsibility and power, the juridical and political matters. The State does not discuss the problems that concern the world of the other side, those questions that are purely religious and that belong to theology and belief. It does not criticize religion. The State is content to protect the religion against evil use of it, and for no benefits other than those that best serve the religion itself. The Decree 26 is only the first stage on the path of edification, of achievement, and of perfection of the judiciary system of the State in the domain of religion. It is then normal that there are deficiencies. The Decree 26 will be completed and perfected and will be elevated to the rank of an order and the law for religions. The citizens all have the rights to contribute with their positive opinions to the improvement and perfection of the law for religions. As for those who present extreme requests by demanding. for example, that the regime in rigor before 1975 be restored, as well as, it seems, to reverse our country back to the war and detour our society from normality. Neither our compatriots of diverse religions nor our society can approve of those extremist demands."

Ideological Premises

Within the context of renovation the Directive No. 37/CT-TG on religions, the Communist Party and State could not dissimulate worries about the rising dissent among diverse religious circles, especially various Buddhist sects operating in Hue, The administration apparently sought to soothe stubborn opponents.  Among other things, it eulogized: “Beliefs and religions are spiritual needs of part of the population.” In a sense, it recognizes the legitimacy of religion.  A religion is an organization that  belongs to the people, comes from the people and works for the people. It is the spiritual med of the people. That is the concept of Ho Chi Minh thought, of one of the ideological tenets the Communist Party the State have ever cherished.  The Directive reminded the fact that right after the proclamation of independence on September 2 1945, President Ho Chi Minh cited, among other pressing needs, the urgent  task is to solidify national union, to unite  the believers and non-believers. President Ho Chi Minh had declared: “The colonialists and landlords practiced a politics of division separating our compatriots of beliefs from those of non-beliefs, to be able to govern our people more aggressively. He suggested to the government to proclaim the right to liberty of beliefs and the union of the believers and non-believers. Ho Chi Minh. Complete Works, Vol. 4, pp. 8-9). That orientation from the directive, in the views of the authorities, has been applied in the unanimity and in conformity with various changing circumstances. Therefore, the Vietnamese Communist Party and State have repeated numerous directives and enacted multiple decrees in order that this orientation be put into practice, suitably and effectively.

    The Control    

To anticipate questions and objections, the directive consolidates its position, arguing that he management of religious activities, the State, has its objectives which cadres should achieve to guarantee the legitimacy pertaining to the liberty of belief and religion as well as the liberty of non-belief and non-religion of the people.  But, the State at the same time ought to maintain public order and have authority over the religions to prevent evil doers from taking advantage of the religions and abusing the rights to liberty of religion to sabotage national integrity. The history of diverse nations and the history of Vietnam as well have proven this. The believers of diverse religions also know this.  Save for the enemies that maliciously use religion as a means to defame the sacred character of religion and discredit the authenticity of religious faith. The fight against evil doers who use  religion for illicit purpose is then an urgent need. It is equally  a pressing task of the cadres and all true believers as well.

  

To achieve this objective, the Directive 37 of the Politburo stressed that the government would bring in complements to all existing decrees. It would then prepare an executive order on the religion and presented it  to the Permanent Committee of the National Assembly for promulgation. This order would serve as the compass for the management of all religions, thus creating favorable conditions for the legal functioning of religious activities. It was in the spirit that the government promulgated the Decree 26 of April 19, 1999 whose main objective was to complete the Decree 69/ HDBT of 1991 which would  nevertheless remain in force while awaiting the promulgation of the new legislation on religions.  

This new law, to the observer, was essentially a move towards establishing a more elaborate law on religions, prepared by the State Bureau of Religious Affairs and nominally adopted by the National Assembly.  The hope for a real and true law for  religions nevertheless remained a dream. As usual, no sooner had an old law been abrogated than  a new one of the same nature came into being.

    

Remarks

The Decree 26/1999/ND-CP, the authorities believed, reflect perfectly the spirit and thought as regards religion of Ho Chi Minh expressed in his speeches in September 1945 when the country entered the period of national reconciliation and the Communist Party sought to calm down religious leaders to build national union in face of foreign aggression.  In a soothing tone, the six-point directive of the Politburo heightens the respect for and guarantee of liberty of religious belief and non-belief, into a solid union under the Party’s leadership  to  accomplish their civic tasks, to protect the interests of the Vietnamese socialist  fatherland, maintain independence and national suzerainty. The Communist administration again,  guarantees a legal status for the believers. The cultural and moral values of religion are respected and promoted.

The promises of the State are nevertheless unconvincing. In the fact place, they are mere empty promises.  The believers were fully aware of the two-edged twist of words the State always devises to  veil its hidden intention. People would easily get trapped and fall prey to its vile schemes. This intention is self-evident as the Party admonished with warnings and threats the believers right in this directive with these terms: “the dealings of evil doers that lie under the cover of religious activities, endanger public order, cause harm to national independence. sabotage the politics of national union, that  oppose the Party and State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, that infringe on moral values and the ways of life and culture of the nation, and that alienate the clergy and the faithful from civic duties. These evil-doers all will be judged according to the law. Superstitions will be criticized and eliminated (2nd part, Article 5).

The Decree 26/1999/ND-CP renews the ideological interpretation expressed in other preceding directives and laws on religions.. Compared with the Decree 69 of 1991,  there is no real novelty that could be found in the Decree 26. The political nature of the two decrees is virtually the same. The difference is that many articles in the latter decree are more specific. Democratic liberty in it is defined clearly, and the responsibilities vested in the State are prescribed with concrete substance.  Article 1 of the Decree 69 states:  “The State guarantees the liberty of belief and the liberty of non-belief of the citizen.” But, Article 1 of the Decree 26 adds the word “religion” : “The State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam guarantees liberty of belief and religion as well as the liberty to belief or non belief or non-religion pf the citizen.”

Distinction between Belief and Religion  

Belief belongs to the domain of conscience, of sentiment, and of thought. Religion belongs to a much more vast domain, comprising activities as well as the physical structures. The Decree 26 thus contains new dispositions concerning religious activities and organizations. Beyond its precepts as regards belief and religion, the State assured the religion  the protection of the law. Article 8 specifies that “The religious organizations whose ideals of life aim to realize religious orientations and whose rules of organizations are in conformity with the laws those that are authorized to function by the chief of government or the Bureau of Religious Affairs and are protected by the law.” Article 2 affirmed: “The State protects the places of cult of religious organizations.” There are still other articles of the  Decree 26 that imply the basic principle according to which the State and the law will protect and guarantee the liberty of religious activities and facilities of the religion within the framework of the State and the law.

Prior authorization for religious activities are nevertheless necessary., Le Quang Vinh, the Chief of the State Bureau of Religious Affairs argued that, considering the real meaning of the term “liberty,”  there is practically no contradiction between liberty and application for authorization. In the world, there exists no country in which the authorities tend to eliminate the procedure of application for authorization. That formality, on the contrary, helps to differentiate what is legal from what is illegal. Therefore, the State exercises general rules of law  to protect, guarantee, and defend the legality of the authorization process. When you apply for authorization, you are protected.  Do not apply for authorization is to reject a very precious right, the right to be protected. Thus, is there anything abnormal in the act of applying for authorization ?

Reactions from the Catholic Conference of Bishops

The Decree 26/1999/ND-CP met with resolute reaction from the highest Catholic clergy. In its letter of communication to the government, the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam expressed its opinions as regards the Politburo’s directives concerning the religions. Before that, during its annual convention in October 1999, the bishops had publicly pronounced that they could not keep silent on the two latest government legal documents since they triggered discontent in diverse religious milieus of the country. A letter of communion was issued after that although the Bureau of Religious Affairs suggested that the affairs be buried. The authorities contested that the intervention on the part of the bishops in a form of a letter with its considerations should be expressed through open communication, instead and that this communication should be transmitted to the competent authorities.

The letter is entitled “General Considerations of the Vietnamese Episcopal Conference as regards the Decree 26/1999/ND-CP of April 19, 1999 to the Government,” It was dated October 16, 1999, the last day of convention of the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam. The directives of the Politburo evidently holds a firm position as regards religions and religious politics as well. The viewpoints of the Episcopal Conference in the letter of communication are not much less resolute. and, thus, must not be ignored. It was nevertheless a hard-fought encounter on the part of the bishops. At intervals, the bishops expressed their solidarity with other religious congregations of the country. Prior to the conference, the Cardinal President of the Episcopal Conference had hesitated to sign the appeal to the civil authorities. He had to wait until the October Episcopal convention when the bishops adopted an attitude on this subject.  Files and documents with evidence in the areas of education, culture, and charitable works were well instituted. In the same way, the general attitude of the authorities towards the religions and the society, in general, should be put  under consideration before a final draft was executed.

     

Summarizing, the letter attested the facts that 1. Many people of diverse religions feel the same impression, as it is known, that, in the domain of religious freedom, the Decree 26 `is not an aperture but a shutter [to religious freedom; 2. Many articles of the decree, instead of creating favorable conditions for religious activities, intentionally foster complications  and difficulties; 3. The Decree 26 bars the way to the establishment  of the legal bases that allow the religions to contribute to the building and development of the country, particularly in the fraternal and spiritual domains, closing doors to all efforts of the religions to extend their social works. By appropriating the properties and confiscating their lands, forbidding, until the present time, the Catholic Church to acquire land, the State practically debarred  the politics of privatization of the State (EDA 297). and  4. The Decree 26, fails to create favorable conditions for the religions to contribute to the enhancement of the democratic spirit in the administration of the State and implementing the organs of the State to effectively carry out  the functions of the State to the service of the people.The system of administration of religious affairs compels the responsible of the Church to perform religious duty in a position that is similar to that of a perpetual beggar.