Review of the Laws on Religion

A delicate question on private land ownership remained unanswered. There was still the absence of a  law concerning the right to found association, hence complicating the question of land entitlement of the religion.  Already, the decree No. 102/L/LOO4 of March 2O, 1954, approved by the National Assembly out of which President Ho Chi Minh signed into law a decree providing the rules for application with articles prescribing liberty of belief and religion. In particular, Articl11e 3 of the said decree specifically facilitates the creation of association that has a legitimate objective, to protect and strengthen the regime , notably the rights to mastership of the people.  It is necessary however, [for an organization] to apply for authorization before creating an association. The regulations concerning the creation will be decreed by the government.” Article 4 says: “The associations that are founded before the promulgation of this law and that are already in operation in the zones temporarily occupied [by the French] during the period of resistance will have to apply for permission to continue their activities.” There was, nevertheless, no clear-cut stipulation whatsoever defining the right to association of  an association. Neither was there a legal framework or statute for an association out of which it could be established and operate in accordance with the law.

The arguments by Le Quang Vinh at the Conference of Bishops presents only a half of the truth.  During the war of resistance that lasted 10 years and the 20 years of the Vietnam War that followed it, in the temporarily occupied regions under French occupation and in the entire South under the Republic of Vietnam, religious organizations were created out of individuals’ initiatives or by religious congregations functioning under the law and without authorization of the civil authorities. There was a separation of rights between the no secular authority and secular authority, a division of authority between the Church and the State. After the unification of the country, all organizations desiring to continue to exercise their rights to religious activities had to apply for authorization of  the revolutionary State, which formality is only normal and comprehensive under the  Communist rule. In the civilized world, the government not only gives the religion the rights to application but also the favor to facilitate this formality. Only can dictatorial regimes give or negate the rights. Similar policy was applied under Fascist dictatorial regimes Under the Nazis, in the occupied countries of Europe, the religions faced dissolution. Almost all independent religious institutions were prevented from operating their activities. Under the Vietnamese totalitarian communism after the war, all independent Churches faced oppression, repression, and elimination. Even “progressive” organizations have to obtain official recognition of the State and operate with hindrance.  (Truing Tan. A Report on Religious Persecution (September 2001)

Le Sung Vinh argued that the situation in Vietnam is complex. It requires a particular strategy. Only those who are trapped because of ruse of the enemies ignore it. This trend helps elucidate the authenticity of the revolutionary character of diverse Church organizations. The State only does the good for all believers, and, thus insists on observing the necessity of  the new procedure of “application for authorization.” As regards the    admission to a convent of prospective novices, Le Quang Vinh declared that the State neither forbids nor restricts the admission to the priesthood. However, the admission to the religious life, in particular, bears a distinctive aspect, which, in one form or another, needs authorization. Article 19 of the Decree 26 states without ambiguity: “The congregation as well as other forms analogous to associations of a collective religious life, in order to be able to function, must apply for authorization and obtain recognition from competent organs of the State. The acceptance of people desiring to enter the religious life must conform to the prescriptions of the Bureau  of Religious Affairs of the government.” The  State initiated the question  of protection of he who enters the religious life.  It guarantees  to the   best interest  protection to the congregation of which the candidate may be a member and the legal condition to the candidate as well. That authorization is also important.  It forbids the admission to religion of those who evade the rigors of the law or accomplishment of their civic duties.

“The arguments Le Quang Vinh brought to the attention of public opinion are mere rhetoric peculiar to the Communist authorities. Everyone knows that right after “the campaigns of dislodging the capitalist compradors” and “dispossession of properties of the bourgeoisie’ in 1975-1976, all Catholic convents in the South were dissolved.  Catholic nuns and novices of the “Covent des Oiseaux,”  Sisters for the Cross, and other regional convents were discharged from humanitarian services and sent home. Catholic-run educational institutions and facilities belonging to the said convents were dispossessed and came under the administration of the State.  Catholic nuns and novices thus reluctantly chose to continue to serve faith had to practice their duties in hiding.  Candidacy to the priesthood of nuns and novices has been negated ever since.  

Formalities imposed on religious activities of congregations and the individuals only serve one purpose: to restrict religions liberty. The Bureau of Religious Affairs is officially entrusted with the authority to control the religion. Following "the liberation of the South", this control  has ever been conducted in such a way that it will only cause the most nuisance to the religious congregations and their aspirants.  Religious freedom is a right, and not a gift. Authorization is without doubt a legal measure that submits the religion more rigorously to the State’s will, its laws, rules, and regulations.  To the Communist  authorities, religious activities in many ways are a hazard to the regime. New religious phenomena as they are happening in the world nowadays are complex and susceptible to destruction, potentially leading to the collapse of a political regime.  There is a must to intervene in them in terms of both pre-dispositions of the laws and security measures. (Thien Nhan. Religious Persecution in Vietnam: Facts and Realities. February 2002)

The Ownership of Land Property and Places of Cult

The dispute between the State and the Church over the ownership of land, property, and  places of cult remains an issue. Le Quang Vinh  argued that  all cultural establishments of the religions (pagodas, churches, temples, basilicas, shrines, sieges of religious congregations, chapels, convents, monasteries, monastic shelters, abbeys, and diverse adjoining constructions such as statues, platforms, steels,  and offices are to be located within  the interior of the places of cult and on a single parcel of land (building lot) . The State  takes into account the question of whether or not a parcel of land can be considered as land belonging to a religion. That is a complex question to which we have to come up with a reasonable solution. No approaches to the issue was mentioned, nevertheless.

    The Law on Land

There exists, in practice,  no legal text regarding religious land. The law on land disposed in Article 1 of the Law on Land stipulates: “Land  belongs to  the property of the whole people. It is the State that manages it homogeneously.  By Article 70, the 1992 Constitution affirms this.  Article 34 of the Civil Code prescribes that cultural establishments of the religion belong to the common property of the community of believers, and they are protected (?) by the State. Thus, it is imperative to understand that the establishments of cult are the property of the community of believers. They are also managed and protected by the State. It  grants the religion the right this category of land, the  property of community of faithful that use it. Legitimately and legally interpreted, those congregations that use the land belonging to the religion have officially received from the government a favor for granted: They are tax-exempt. Those who use that category of land have the right to exchange, cede, rent, bequeath, and hypothecate it. The users of the land. Under the law, they are bound not to violate the law on land by committing themselves to the following infractions, namely, to transfer land by bypass the laws, give  the right of use of land for other purposes foreseen by it, transgressing the law to seize hold of land or transform public land into private land and cede the right of utilization of land contrarily to the stipulation of the law.

The problem of land property then concerns two aspects: the private property or the property of the community or collective property. Land itself is the property of the State. For these reasons, to transform a private habitation and land into cultural religious establishments, that is, to change the objective of use of land and to be in infraction with the actual law and mean to violate the law. However, the religious politics of the State in appearance shows some liberalism on the definition of the right to ownership of the land of the religion. The major imperative in this policy requires that the exchange of land be subject to the decision of the State. The State cannot accept the “fait accompli.” The measure is to  flatten out individual initiative to transform the land of the religion into another category of  land for different use. In any case, the State has all its advantages to mange and control the possession and use of any category of land under the law. In any form, there exists no right to private or collective ownership, or Church land ownership whatsoever under the law (Thien Nhan. Ibid. pp. 10-11)