Destruction of Worship Places

The local authorities of My Dong Ward in cooperation with the security on July 19, 2012, proceeded with its  land eviction at the Cao Dai Temple area in the township of Phan Rang, Ninh Thuan Province. They brought down the temple without a notice to members of the Church there. The temple had been under construction since 1951. In 1987, while it was still being constructed, the security police arrested  the representatives responsible  for the construction of the local Church  and ordered them to hand it over to the State. The church  officials nevertheless refused to comply with the order. The authorities of My Hai Commune drew up minutes, accusing  one of them of  behaving like a thug. Incidents of oppression as such happened again and again in My Dong. Members of the Church  made multiple claims beside competent authorities; no solution came to avail, however. The State-affiliated Cao Dai Church at Tay Ninh suggested that there must be a proper solution. A piece of fertile  land should be exchanged for compensation.  However, an area of hollow land was given in exchange without any other compensation for the premises taken down by the authorities, instead. Without proper compensation, the members of the Church at My Dong could in no way construct a new one. Complaints were, again, made to high competent authorities.

Nguyen Dinh Lien, Vice-director of the Department of Religious Affairs of Ninh Thuan Province, evaded the question over the problem in question and kept silence. The authorities of My Dong Commune maintained that there had already been conspiracy of silence on the part of the Cao Dai Church at Tay Ninh and the authorities.  On March 5, 2013, the local authorities of Long Binh District, Tien Giang Province in the Mekong Delta broke into the temple of a branch of legitimate Cao Dai Church.  The police got in, assaulted an assembly of  60 members who were attending ceremony at the temple. Police disbanded the assembly and told the leader to hand over the control and ordered the attendants to go to and practice faith at a State-affiliated temple. The worshippers resisted. Some were beaten; others were  handcuffed, and six of them among whom was Le Ngoc Diep, the temple guardian,  were arrested and  detained.  Temple members claimed that “they only serve faith. They need to keep this temple so that can follow the traditions as they have in the past. They don’t need legal status”  The group had refused earlier the authorities’ order to surrender the facility to the State-affiliate Church at Tay Ninh. 

Sources said that on June 11, 2014, local authorities and officials of the State-affiliated Church at My Dong had thugs thrown excrement and filth  on the worshippers while they were performing religious services at a place of cult. These bad elements were also given order to chain the wheels of the vehicles of the worshippers who attended the services. These are punishing measures common used by the authorities to place under control Dissident Cao Dai who refuse to affiliate with the State-sanctioned Cao Dai Administrative Council at Tay Ninh. 

THE HOA HAO BUDDHIST CHURCH

The State Elimination of Legitimate Hoa Hao Buddhism

  

The struggle for religious faith of legitimate Hoa Hao Buddhism was enduring and challenging. Not only do Hoa Hao faithful face constant State repression but also have to take risk to preserve faith and fight for survival. To pacify members of the Church, the authorities sought to reconcile with church leaders, wooing them to join the Party affiliates in a State-instituted directory “to normalize” the Church’s affairs. On May 20, 1999, under the patronage of the State, a congress of Hoa Hao Buddhism voted on the nomination of 11 selected members of the Council of Administration. Nguyen Van Ton alias Muoi Ton, a protégé of the administration, was nominated the chairman. This was an effort on the part of the authorities to replace the leaders of the legitimate Church with the State affiliates. This new organ would officially represent the entire laity of Hoa Hao Buddhism and operate under the supervision of the State through the intermediary coordination of the Fatherland Front. This process of “normalization” of the Church, according to the administration, should follow methods of application established for non-authorized factions of any other religions.

The new council nevertheless met with resistance from the majority of various Hoa Hao congregations. The veteran leaders, particularly the venerable Le Quang Liem, firmly professed to revere the religious principles as inscribed in the Sacred Books of Teachings by the Master of the Church, legitimate lines of organization of the Church,  and traditional practices of the Church. To preserve legitimacy, the Church began to function with the aegis of Hoa Hao Thuan Tuy  (Pure Hoa Hao Buddhism). The Church then has unavoidably faced with constant persecution ever since.  

To cope with increasing persecution, a Council of Elders for the Protection of Hoa Hao Buddhism comprising long-standing members of the rational Hoa Hao Buddhism was formed. The new leadership practiced new lines of direction, observing Hoa Hao faith in silence acceding to the laws of change but resiliently meting out oppression following the law of struggle "where there is oppression, there is  resistance."  The reality shows that, following the takeover of South Vietnam in April 1975, the Communist administration has brutally forbidden  the masses of Hoa Hao Buddhist to serve their faith. Hoa Hao worshippers have stood firm to preserve their faith although with sacrifices and sufferings. The new leadership called for support from Vietnamese leaders inside and oversees and world personalities and organizations and vowed to persistently struggle for religious faith and national urbanity.

Following the foundation of the Council of Elders, independent factions of pure Hoax Halo Buddhism hold firm resistance and received warm spiritual support from friendly religious circles in the country. The Reverend Chan Tin, a Catholic priest, a prominent advocate for democracy and freedom, nationwide, associated himself with members of legitimate Hoax Halo Buddhism.  He publicly protested against the State’s repressive measures the Church. The priest circulated his appeal for support for the venerable Le Quant  Lime and Hoax Halo adepts.  In the text, dated December 1, 1999, the priest denounced  brutal acts of violence  that the authorities had inflicted on the people of the province of An Giang most of whom were Hoa Hao believers. These practices of terror, immersed in fear the entire population in the province. Involved in the action were the authorities of the province, among whom were the secretary of the  section of the Communist Party of the province, the chairman of the People’s Council of the province, and  the chairman of the Fatherland Front of the province. The priest affirmed that “they were the haughtiest state officials notorious for extortion and flaunted themselves above “everyone else in all over the Mekong Delta.” They were those State cadres who rolled in money and possessed luxurious residences that were worth of billions of “dong,”  which barefaced act even the central administration was at a loss to disaffirm.

The priest equally specified that the local administration had executed malicious practices  against Hoa Hao Buddhism with the publication of articles denigrating the religion and ridiculing its founder of the Church in the official review An Ninh The Gioi (The Police World Security). The appeal called for the respect for human rights and the abrogation of Article 4 of the 1992 Constitution which, in his view,  immerses the country under the thumb of the Communist Party of Vietnam. He  demanded an immediate dissolution of the servile Hoa Hao Committee of Representatives that solely consisted of the henchmen of the regime.

Suppression followed suit. On December 26, 1999, the security forces arrested Hoa Hao adepts when they went to To Dinh (Ancestral Temple) to prepare for the Church’s anniversary celebration. This commemoration of the death of the Founder of Hoa Hao Buddhism is to the Communist a reminder an act of bad faith and betrayal to the Communist Viet Minh. Hoa Hao believers, on the contrary, ever consider this a vile fabrication.  The founder of the Church was practically assassinated by the Viet Minh, and his death is commemorated by the Hoa Hao faithful on February 25 every year). This yearly commemoration ceremony is forbidden by the actual political regime. Police raids, attempts of intimidation, and arrests on unfounded charges ate the common practices. They were  part of a  of repression programs destined to prevent the Hoa Hao  faithful  to organize, attend, and celebrate Holy Days. To the authorities, celebrations of this kind not only creates a “show of force” but also a manifestation of resistance against the regime of the pure Hoa Hao, which  act of defiance the authorities cannot look the other way.

On this day of celebration, the To Dinah, the birthplace of the Founder of Hoa Hao, was surrounded by a chain of police checkpoints aimed  to  block all entrances to the site. Reports from the Hoa Hao community in the United States said that telephone communication was cut off.  A little less than ten thousand Hoa Hao adepts were waiting for this even to take place. Repression was on the way. the resistance persisted, and the event rolled on in chaos. Police detained the worshipers without a charge.  Under detention, the adepts suffered ill-treatment. They were released only after the intervention of U.S. Congress and, particularly, the expression of  deep  concern about religious freedom in Vietnam of the Honorable Christ Smith whom the Hoes Halo adepts had met several days before that. Sources said that right after their liberation when dispossession of the Church's properties was in full swing , they repeatedly sent  letters of protest to Vietnam Prime Minister and the Supreme People’s Court to present their case, but no answer came to avail (Truing Tan. Report on Religious Persecution. February 2000)

THE PERSECUTION

Fallacy and Reality    

Concerning ideology, quite a few people maintain that the Socialist State is atheist, and, as a consequence, it opposes the religion. Socialism is synonymous with atheism. Hence, the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, led by the  Communist Party, is necessarily atheist; it opposes the religion. and it is the destroyer of religious faiths. The Chief of the State Bureau of Religious Affairs Le Quang Vinh conceded that the Communist State is atheist but  contended that such a remark is only an ill-intended exaggeration founded on deduction without either exactness nor sound base. To say that the religion and socialism don’t meet is baseless. That is not the case: Both socialism and the religion aspire to build  a happy and just society and wish that the good will ultimately vanquish the evil  Socialism struggles to build up the society right on the earth, and the religion, the afterlife in the world beyond.  In the Scriptures, the Lord Jesus affirmed: ”My kingdom is not this world.” (June 18, 36). Thus, between socialism and the religion, there is certainly no common identity, and, neither is there incompatibility. Ho Chi Minh declared: “The Communist Party does not get rid of the religion; it  protects it, instead.” (Nhan Dan, January 27, 1955).

   

The history of contemporary and modern Vietnam proves the reverse. Bloody religious persecutions of the Communist against the religions faiths of Vietnam, Caodaism, Hoa Hao Buddhism, all denominations of the Buddhist Faith, Evangelical Christianity, and the Roman Catholic Church rolled on throughout nearly 30 years under the Democratic Republic of Vietnam during the anti-French Resistance (1945-54), in the liberated North Vietnam (1954-75), and throughout the Socialist Republic of Vietnam ever since 1976.

THE CAO DAI CHURCH

Instances of Persecution

  

For more than three decades after the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, the Cao Dai Church has still lagged far behind other religions in the propagation of the faith. The Church is at an impasse due to somber internal division on one hand, and he State intervention in and control over the internal affairs of the Church on the other. Pressure and violence against the sects that refuse to take side with the State have persisted to the hopelessness of many Cao Dal followers. Efforts on the part of the State were made to incorporate various sects into the State-affiliated Cao Dai Tay Ninh but were in most instances proven futile. In many places, Cao Dai followers identify themselves with the legitimate Cao Dai Church.  Several groups claim themselves independent and practice their religious faith on their own creeds. rites, and rituals. They voluntarily organize sessions of prayers or for union at residential or congressional worship places. The State-affiliated Supreme Administrative Council has failed to unite under its leadership this range of heterogeneous factions.

Control and Harassment

Cao Dai factions that loyally observe the traditional legitimate worship practices suffer strict control of the civil authorities. The Cao Dai sect at Dinh Quan, which was founded in 1969,  as a case in point, has been under constant harassment. Loyally observing the tenets of legitimate Caodaism, it categorically negates the role played by the Tay Ninh Supreme Administrative Council which it considers as illegitimate and undeserving. It has become therefore the target for elimination of the those authorities who side with the council. On November 19, 2008, for instance, these people repeatedly attempted to cause physical damage to their temple at Dinh Quan. To preserve their faith and observe the commandments of  Caodaism, the adepts could only resign themselves to resist with nonviolence. They presented their case to the local authorities who nevertheless turn their blind eye to the matter. With no other means to voice their aspirations, they called  on  fellow followers  in and outside the country for moral and material  to preserve their worship place.

Artful treks are often manipulated to divide various Caudal sects. An incident that widened division between the  various  sects within the Cao Dai Church when news about whether or not the alter of Pope Pham Cong Tac should be moved from Cambodia to the Tay Ninh Holy See reached Cao Dai communities inside the country and abroad. Pope Pham Cong Tac, whose image still lives in the memory of most Cao Dai followers  He was one of the highest dignitary who had made great contributions to the  foundation of the Tay Ninh Holy See, which was inaugurated in 1955. He died while in exile in Cambodia in 1959.  Most Cao Dai communities overseas expressed  their wish and support over  the move of the Pope’s altar to the Holy See approvingly whereas many  others, who mostly live in Tay Ninh and members of the State-affiliated Cao Dai Tay Ninh Sect showed discontent, saying that the Pope was a criminal and not a supreme leader. Still, others thought that the move of the Pope’s altar could only complicate the existing internal division. Furthermore, there has been no religious freedom and independence in Vietnam, the establishment of the altar at the Holy See only proved an awkward accommodation .

On the anniversary of the death of Pope Pham Cong Tac at Tay Ninh Holy See organized by the State-affiliated Cao Dai Supreme Council, May 20, 2011, delegations of various sects of the legitimate Cao Dai Church were prevented from attending the ceremony. Hua Phi, Chairman of the Executive Board of Administration in Lam Dong Province, lamented that his delegation from the Central Highlands and others from the provinces in the South were hindered from joining fellow Cao Dai to pray Cao Dai Supreme for favors due to rude intervention by  the State-affiliated Tay Ninh Supreme Council. Nguyen Bach Phuong, Chairman of the Executive Board of Vinh Long Province, added that about a hundred delegates from the provinces in the Center and the South, Phu Yen, Binh Dinh , Quang Ngai, Vinh Long, Can Gio, and Ho Chi Minh City, Go Cong, Vung Tau, and Phan Thiet were all treated with rudeness at the ceremony. Chaos created a scene of disorder at the negligence of the leaders in the Tay Ninh Supreme Council.  The local authorities denied all charges according to which they themselves were the true instigators that pulled the string behind the scene. 

The conflict between leaders in the Tay Ninh Supreme Council and members in the executive boards of various independent sects of legitimate Cao Dai Church ever deepened.  In most cases, the administration lent support to the Supreme Council. On July 19, 2011, the local authorities decided to take down to the ground the Cao Dai Temple at My Phuong Ward, Phan Rang City. The temple was built in 1951 and has been the worship place of Cao Dai followers ever since. The sect has been  targeted with discrimination after the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, however. In 1987,  for example, while religious rites were being performed the security police came in, arrested three followers, and compelled the faithful  to cede the right to ownership  of the  temple to the civil authorities.  A number of Cao Dai followers were attributed to as hooligans and seized hold of the temple. Cao Dai followers at My Phuong  sent petitions to the city authorities. They received no answer, nevertheless. The  administration seemed to evade the matter in question. A cadre at My Dong People’s Council explained that this was not a land eviction, there had already been agreement between the administration and Administrative Council at Tay Ninh.

     

On May 5, 2012, a large group of local and province security police of Long An Province launched a raid, intimidating the believers at the Cao Dai Temple, in An Hoa Hamlet, An Ninh Tay Commune, Duc Hoa District They warned against them with threats.  This show of power of the police was such that the female follower Nguyen Thi Nu, aged over 60, who got scared, urinating herself involuntarily.

The police burst into the temple but met with strong opposition. The temple guardian Nguyen Thuy Lieu resolutely resisted the admittance. Only until the Cao Dai faithful, at the news of the rude intrusion of police force into the holy place, rushed to the temple did Nguyen Thuy Lieu open the entrance. The police made a search-through inspection without a warrant all through the worship place and found no evidence whatsoever of a fault or crime. They nevertheless ordered Nguyen Thuy Lieu and other members of the sect to leave the worship place on ground that the Caodai faction at An Hoa operated its activities illegally, without authorization from the Head of the Administrative Council Thuong Nhuong Thanh at Tay Ninh.    

   

The Reverend Le Minh Chau, the Head of the Administrative Board of Cao Dai Temple at An Hoa, who was absent from religious services at the time the police operated the search-through inspection  declared  that the Cao Dai faithful at An Hoa dutifully observe the rules and regulations of the Cao Dai Church. He does not know who Thuong Nhuong Thanh is. The  faithful do not trust the man, neither do they  repose their reliance in the head of the administrative council in Tay Ninh. They vow to resist until death to protect their worship place and the Church’s laws , rules, and regulations.  

 

On May 12, 2012, Cao Dai believers in the country and overseas celebrated the anniversary of death of the late Pope Pham Cong Tac. Delegations of Cao Dai dignitaries from  distant regions as far as Lam Dong in the Central Highlands, Binh Dinh, Central Vietnam, and Vinh Long in the plains of Mekong River came in pilgrimage to Tay Ninh Holy Site where the celebration was to be held by members of the Supreme Administrative Council. Hundreds of delegates, however, were targeted with harassment and hindrance from payting respects at the Holy Site and attending the ceremony, especially by guards and members of the State-affiliated administrative council. Petitions by the followers and dignitaries of various factions the Cao Dai Church were sent to the State Office of Reception at 35 Ho Ngoc Lam, Ho Chi Minh City for intervention.

Asked about the incident, Vo Thanh Cong, the vice-chief of the Department of Religions of Tay Ninh Province, declared that there was no such thing as hindrance. Religious activities are now favorable to the followers and performed under guidance of and  in accordance with the regulations of the State.  The authorities of the State Office proclaimed that there undeniably is religious freedom in Vietnam, in spite of a multitude of nefarious incidents of religious persecution as revealed in the reportage of international news agencies, protests of world humanitarian organizations, and acts intervention of personalities and governments worldwide that may take place under any circumstance, at any moment and anywhere in the country.

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)

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.     

Reactions from Religious Circles to Resolution 24

    

To the outside observers, the Resolution No. 24 of the Communist Party, which was issued after the Sixth Congress, and the new directive of the Politburo did not reflect the true situation of and solution to the question of religion. In addition to implementing the existing administrative regulations, the Communist Party arbitrarily adopted other rigid measures to abort  possible opposition from the religions. Plans for action for cadres at all levels of the Party hierarchy were devised to carry out political schemes. The Party, in effect, was cautious in its intention but failed to dissimulate its artful scheme to subordinate the religions to submission to its established order. Cadres were instructed to be on guard against potential confrontation with the elements who the Party thought would use religion to destabilize the socialist regime politically. At the same time, it heighten vigilance against the covert and ever-lasting opposition of the religions on the ideological plane. Weaknesses of the administration in dealing with the religions were also mentioned, and, as a matter of fact,  particular attention should be focused on evil tendency. Party cadres must be alert to execute programs of action and correctly implemented them since the coordination between the responsible of various services in this domain were still lax, and the methods to solve the difficulties were somewhat incoherent.  Still, there was  lack of a comprehensive understanding of the problem and loose union in  the conduct of affairs. The distinctions in viewpoints as regards religions between diverse political, cultural and social organizations remained wayward.  Amid complex difficulties, staffs and cadres working in the domain of religion were still a small number. They were even poorly educated and professionally weak. Diverse services at all levels were not really conscious  of their responsibilities. Even more, they were not keenly aware of the objectives in this domain.  Hence, more tasks were to be done. One of them was to prepare a new law in response to the new situation     

The Decree 26/1999/NDCP

The Decree on Religions 26/1999/ND-CP signed by Prime Minister Phan Van Khai in April 1999, reaffirms the rules and regulations on religious activities applied since the 1950’s and, with some additional clauses, tightens  the control of the State on the religions. Under this Decree, all religious properties confiscated by Communist authorities after 1975 become the permanent property of the State. Government agencies are empowered to recognize the legality of a religion,  the appointment of religious dignitaries, and the the privilege to publish religious materials. All subjects concerned are subject to the Prime Minister’s approvals. Priests and religious officials under “administrative detention” are not permitted to assume religious functions. All activities believed to activate" opposition to the State” or “go against the healthy culture of the nation” will be severely punished. The State Bureau of Religious Affairs, the ominous interpreter of the Decree, will issue instructions concerbing the applications for permission and approval.

Article 1 of the Decree 26/1000/ND-CP provides candidly: “The State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam guarantees the liberty of belief and religion as well as the liberty to adhere or not to adhere to a religion. Any discrimination for reason of belief or religion is strictly forbidden.”  Article 4 of the Decree 26/1999/ND-CP stipulates: “Religious activities accomplished in the interest of the faithful are protected when these interests are legitimate and comply with the law. Religious activities accomplished in the interest of the fatherland and people are encouraged.” Article 5 of the same decree further stipulates: “All activities causing harm to the liberty of belief and religion, any activity utilizing belief and religion to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, prevent the believers to accomplish their civic duties, sabotage the union of the whole people, encounter the sane culture of our nation and engender superstitious practices will be sanctioned in conformity with the law.”

The decree stresses that, as  the manager of the society, the State only intervenes in matters that are within its responsibility and competence and in conformity with the law and policy of the State. The State does not interfere in the matters  that are purely religious and the matters that are theological.  Primarily, it protects religion. It opposes the use of religion as cover for illicit purposes as well as superstitious practices. All progressive States in the world do the same thing. Thus, in conclusion, the government firmly assured the public of the credibility of the law. The Decree 26/1999/ND-CP is a step forward, the first phase in the process that allows everyone to build, improve and complement the juridical system of the State.  The Decree 26 itself will be a perfect  complement to a future order and a prospective legislative code.  This action is essentially correct. It is opene to the path of a good will uniting the religion and the State within the framework of building the country. One may find in it some natural insufficiencies. Remedies will nevertheless be made all along the process of application. of the law. (EDA 303).

Remarks

The Decree 26/1999/NDCP of the government came into existence as a result of growing tension between the government and the Churches. It aims to implement the existing laws on religion,  performing in emergency one of the crucial tasks, preventing popular opposition from the religion as foreseen by the Politburo. Pitfalls surfaced, however, as the State, again, made erroneous ideological judgments on the social nature and political character of the religion. In fact,  right in the first part of the legislation,  for instance, the decree does not specify the legal requirements a religion must meet. Rather, it imposes intricate interpretations and twits of equivocal lexical terms, instead. In Article 5, in particular, the lexicon “associations,” which is used to designate “Churches,” is vague and confusing. It is first defined positively in paragraph 1, and negatively in paragraph 5, respectively. Religious organizations, under the new law, must be authorized to operate under the law by the chief of government.  Religious goals, practices, and activities, which are practically theogical, must comply with rules and regulations of the law. Only if these requirements are met, “ will they  be protected by the law, if not, they have to stop to function.” These “provisions” are not the prescriptions of a law. They are merely the rules and regulations the religion must observe.

Still, the instructions in the application for authorization for a new religion of July 1999 further stresses that operative religious organizations must meet the legal requirements as stated in the directives of the Politburo on July 18, 1988. The directives specifically emphasize the “illegality” of certain religious activities, such as the activities that are practiced outside the places of worship or the activities that operate in contradiction with the ultimate interests of the country, and, especially, the activities that are superstition-tainted and activities “that must be criticized and eliminated.” Such activities are, in effect, not clearly defined, thus causing disturbance and nuisance to the observer of the rules and regulations of the law.

The imperatives that mark the directives of the Politburo and the rules and regulations provided by the said decree do not always match. The directives, it is noted, don’t particularly mention anything about the kind of religions practices or activities of any Churches, legal and illegal.  As regards religious activities, the Decree 26  prescribes only one general disposition in Article 3: “Religious activities must be conducted in conformity with the legislation of the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.”  What would be a religious activity that is considered to operate suitably to  the ;aw of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. And, an activity like this is not clearly defined in the said law or any other law on religion of the Socialist State of Vietnam.