Freedom of Conscience in Research and Media

Introduction

In recent years the issue of freedom of conscience has continued to remain in the center of the attention of the civil society, the religious organizations as well the  legislative and executive authorities.

This study is carried out in an attempt to understand how media reacts on the  issues of freedom of conscience and what issues are raised by non-governmental, juridical and research organizations engaged in religious affairs.

The content analysis method has been implied and more than 50 materials pertaining the freedom of conscience have been observed. Here, nevertheless only the materials that raise a clearly formulated social issue will be discussed.

The study consists of two chapters. The problems identified in research works are discussed in the first chapter and the media publications that affiliate the freedom of conscience with other social issues are exemplified.

 

Chapter 1: Research on the Freedom of Conscience

1.1.Key works

 

In the last 5 years the following research has been carried out on the issue of the  Freedom of Conscience and Religious Tolerance.

  1. In 2009 with the support of OSCE Office in Yerevan “Partnership for Democracy” NGO has implemented a research “On Religious Tolerance in Armenia”.

 

  1. In 2010 with the support of Helsinki committee in Norway  the “Armenian Helsinki committee” NGO has carried out a study “On Religious Freedom in Armenia: a Research”.
  2. In 2012 with the support of Eurasia Partnership Foundation “Yerevan Press Club” NGO has implemented a research “On Religious Tolerance in Armenian Media”. The study hasn’t been published yet.
  3. 4.  In 2012 with the support of Eurasia Partnership Foundation Lusine Qaramyan and Hovhannes Hovhannisyan have carried out a qualitative research “On Tolerance in Armenia Today: the Prospects of Religious Tolerance”.

1.2.    The Legal framework

 

In 2009-2012 all the research carried out on the issue of the freedom of conscience and religious tolerance have addressed the analysis of legal framework regulating the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion as well as the legal affairs between the religious organizations and the state establishments. In particular, the following has been observed:

  • The relevant provisions of Constitution of RA adopted in 1995 and amended in 2005.
  • The 1991 RA Law “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations”, the 2003 RA Law “On Alternative Military Service”, the 2009 and 2010 drafts on  making amendments and supplements to the RA Law “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations”[1], as well as the new Draft law developed by the Ministry of Justice in 2011 “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religion”.
  • The expert opinions no. 530/2009, no 603/2010 and no 643/2011 by Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and the OSCE/ODIHR on the Draft Law.
  • The 2007 Law  “On the Relations Between the Republic of Armenia and  the Armenian Holy Apostolic Church”.
  • The 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1950 Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights.

In these works the deficiencies of the legal framework have been discussed in details and it has been clarified that the 2009 Draft Law “On Making an Amendment and a Supplement to the Law on the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations” intensifies;

  • The controversy of the laws,
  • The incompleteness of the laws,
  • The uncertainty of some provisions,
  • The undue interference of the state,
  • The undue strictness of the state.

The further discussion of the 2009 Law “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations”  was suspended in the first reading at National Assembly as a result of an active struggle of non-governmental and religious organizations as well as the Venice Commission and the OSCE / ODIHR expert opinions.

 

The new, 2010 Draft Law “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations”  hadn’t had considered the criticism of the preceding expert opinions and as a result it had once again been criticized.[2] In 2011 another Draft Law “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religion” has been developed by the RA Ministry of Justice; it is still in a draft stage.

In contrast to the studies of 2009-2010, the studies of 2012 have briefly addressed the precedent research by indicating some of the conclusions drawn hereby:

Before 2009 there had been a little interest in the topic as after the collapse of the Soviet system it took time to observe and study the formation of the religious framework. Nevertheless the religious diversity, the striving and the competition in the sphere of religious authorities as well as the Armenian membership to the Council of Europe in 2001 has made that issue quite attractive for the researchers.

The 2012 study “On Religious Tolerance in Armenian Media” also raises the importance of the behavior code supervision for the editors and the journalists. The experience of different countries is described,

‘in Armenia as well as in a number of other countries different norms are determined both by journalistic code of ethics and press councils that prohibit the dissemination of religious intolerance, the use of stereotypes and the dissemination of intolerance on the basis of religion.’[3]

1.3.The stereotypes and anti-propaganda in media

 

The 2009 study “On Religious Intolerance in Armenia[4]” and the 2010 research  “On Religious Freedom in Armenia” [5] have also addressed the stereotypes that are being put into circulation by some representatives of media. E.g.

 

  •   By qualifying the ‘undesirable’ religious wing as a ‘sect’ media  tarnish the reputation of the organization it is bespoken of.
  •   Media preach the ‘exclusivity’ of the Apostolic Church and entitle other       religions as ‘sects’ in the very same context thus by this inversion creating           new models of the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’.
  •  By manipulating the expression ‘soul hunt’ the media infiltrate the society   with a fear towards the given religious organization as the ‘soul hunt’ is             associated with a ‘non-proper apostasy.             “Partnership for Democracy” NGO            suggests to remand the term ‘soul hunt’ of circulation and          oust it with the           notion of ‘inadmissable apostasy’.[6]
  • In this case the media will either have to avoid compromising the given religious organization by qualifying its activities as a ‘soul hunt’ or they will bare responsibility for qualifying its activities as an ‘inadmissible apostasy’.

Describing the adherent of a non-apostolic religious organization the majority of the society reproduces the stereotypes created by the media that particularly claim, ‘they are sects because they disrupt the family, the nation, the state’, ‘they practice soul hunt’, ‘they are administered and financed from abroad’[7] et al. Such expressions are declared by people who don’t have acquaintances, relatives or neighbors affiliated with a particular religious organization; they have thus had obtained the information from a media that instills stereotypes.

A monitoring carried out by “Yerevan Press Club” NGO represents newer information and provides an opportunity to compare the circulation of the stereotypes input by the media in motion. The study encompasses a period from 18 November 2011 to 25 July. It monitors 10 media.[8]:

A quotation:

‘the analysis of the subject matter of the study materials demonstrates that in  media, presumably also in public discourse approaches exist that allow for claiming an ‘inclined attitude’ towards the issue of religion. The latter in the first place concerns the highlighting of the exceptional role of Armenian Apostolic Church. The longing to defend the status of AAC from external threats is also demonstrated in the coverage. The tendency to defend the nation from external threats is largely reflected in materials abetting the topic of religious movements and communities distinguished as ‘denominational’ or ‘sects’. At the same time those contradictions are as a rule used against almost all the religious movements and communities that don’t fit into the traditional, the generalized notions on world religions.’[9]

Thereby we can conclude that just as in 2009 the same stereotypes also have continued to circulate in media  in 2012. The results of the study from 2012 indicate that in general the circulation of the assumptions enclosing the attitudes and the stereotypes has eliminated in media.

A quotation from the 2012 study:

‘In the volume of the examined media a total of 1020 materials has been attested that in a way or another are affiliated with religious issues but only in the 96 (less than 10%) of them the assumptions enclosing attitude and stereotypes about different doctrinal flows and religious communities have been enlisted or, in other words, the level of religious tolerance has been reflected. Those numbers suggest a largely neutral attitude by Armenian media; they have in the first place covered those topics from an informative and eventive perspective.’[10]

The quotation attests that in 2011-2012 10 media has articulated an attitude towards different religious organizations only in the 9% of the publications and the coverage.

Given the fact that this 9% also includes the stereotypes about Armenian Apostolic Church  as well as the stereotypes that are articulated in the discussion of the relations between the Armenians, the Turkish and the Azerbaijanis and therefore touch upon the issues of  inter-church relations, we can confidently say that the anti-propaganda against non-Apostolic churches is much lesser than the 9%.

Meanwhile, in a research “On Religious Freedom in Armenia” it has been noted that throughout 2001-2009 the 34% of the 1451 media publications have expressed a negative attitude towards non-Apostolic organizations and the 17% have demonstrated a positive attitude towards the Armenian Apostolic Church.[11]

In total, in the 55% of publications from 2001-2009 the attitude towards religious organizations has been attested and in the publications from 2011-2012 that number has constituted the 9%.

By comparing the results of the researches we can conclude that in comparison to previous years in 2011-2012 the anti-propaganda of media towards non-apostolic churches has decreased and an informative or eventive coverage has increased.

Due to the shortage of analytical studies in recent years we can’t speak of the dynamics of anti-propaganda in media towards non-apostolic religious organizations.

 

In 2012 research “On Religious Tolerance in Armenian Media” it has been mentioned that ‘acute manifestations of intolerance haven’t been registered in observed media.’[12]

Nevertheless, the author’s appraisal is not grounded and it remains uncertain which manifestations of intolerance are considered to be acute and which ones aren’t.

As a result of the study and the analysis of media publications we have concluded that the media sphere can conditionally be divided in 4 groups. This typology allows to understand what predisposition a given media publication has in covering the religious issues:

  1. Media that is specially engaged in an anti-propaganda against non-apostolic religious organizations: “Hayots ashkharh” (“Armenian world”), “Iravunq” (“Right”), “Azg” (“Nation”) et al.
  2. Media that by reflecting on the issue of religion represent the non-apostolic religious organizations   mainly in a negative light, e.g. “Aravot” (“Morning”).
  3. The majority of online newspapers like “blognews.am”and “henaran.am”  that represent a ‘handset’ for the head of “Aid and Rehabilitation Center for the Victims of Destructive Cults” NGO Alexander Amaryan (who carries out an anti-propaganda against religious organizations) also befall into this group.
  4. Media that address the issues of religion when the latter gain publicity. They cover the material in a neutral way, e.g. “Haykakan zhamanak” (“Armenian Times”).
  5. Media that studies the material when covering religious issues[13], e.g. “lragir.am”, “asbarez”, “hetq.am”, “armenianow.am”, “religions.am”, “kron.armhels.com”.

 

1.4.Relations between religious organizations

 

 

Comparing the 2009-2012 research data it can be concluded that the relations between the religious organizations haven’t changed and continue to remain ‘tense’.

A struggle for the occupation of a ‘good’ position in the hierarchy evolves between Christian organizations (in particular, the Armenian Apostolic Church occupies an upward position and cajoling the latter several organizations strive not to become a target of anti-propaganda). As a result, some religious organizations still fail to carry out a dialogue.

Non-Christian religious organizations fall out of this battle.

Research shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses are distinguished by contenting for the fundamental principle of the civil society, the legal restoration of their violated rights through a continuous struggle.

The adherents of Eastern doctrines are more actively propagandizing a healthy lifestyle, a restrain from smoking, drugs, a transition to vegetarian food, spending time in nature and stress-relieving practices. These groups frequently have issues with the space rental. In an article entitled “Yoga practitioners are frequently not provided with an assembly space” of the “Freedom of Conscience” newspaper it is particularly mentioned:

‘It has happened that the high school halls that are rented out to karate and dance classes  haven’t been rented out to us. In one of the schools I was told, ‘Be careful since when they hear the word ‘yoga’ not only they prohibit the rental but they can also prosecute me, for this is an establishment under the state auspices.’[14]

1.5.     The life experience of people and theoretical notions

 

The 2009 “Religious Tolerance in Armenia”[15] and the 2010 “Religious Freedom in Armenia”have included stories in the frames of their research where RA citizens encountered problems because of their heterodoxy or the inappropriate interference of the  Apostolic Church. E.g.:

 

  • Obstacles in constructing a tabernacle or a place of worship that the representatives of non-Apostolic organizations have encountered.
  • Confinements caused by religious beliefs.
  • The interference of the Apostolic church at schools, penitential establishments, armed forces.
  • The cases of dismissals caused by religious views.
  • The effects of leaflets disseminating religious hatred.

 

In comparison to other research the 2012 “Tolerance in Armenia Today: the Prospects of Religious Tolerance” scientific study[17] observes the notion of tolerance more in depth. It discusses the preconditions of its emergence and defines the essence of religious tolerance. It also addresses the social perceptions of that notion in Armenia.

The authors advise to ‘clearly distinguish, for example, the tolerance from conformism, forbearance, indifference and a number of other notions that are often identified in practice.[18]:

Also the factors that contribute to the perpetuation of the atmosphere of religious intolerance in Armenia are discussed in the research.

  • An attempt is made to restore the former power of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The authors claim that history ‘is a fact that gives rise to intolerance.’

‘The analysis of the nowadays reality demonstrates that almost the same is now happening, in a way the power and the privileged position of AAC is being restored and its sole justification is presented under the veil of resolution of the issues of national security and the safeguarding of national identity.’[19]

  • The adverse social-economic state of the society is being discussed as an obstacle in the task of amplification of tolerance.

‘…as long as the scopes of poverty remain concerning and people don’t wish to alight from their scallops thinking only about their personal well-being, the ubiquitous formation of tolerance or similar values seems unrealistic in Armenia.’[20]

The research doesn’t reflect on how and why the rather poor countries manage to exercise greater tolerance towards heterodoxy.

  • Some judgments of the authors aren’t grounded; it’s not clear in the frames of what scientific theory they have been observed.

E.g.,

‘Some of the factors contributing to intolerance in Armenia are also the low level of awareness, the stereotypes and the myths, the irrational notions and the ungrounded fears that are displayed in particular by rejecting something different from the dominant and by wishing to alienate, isolate the latter.’[21]

Such a judgment may be appropriate from a ‘positivist prospective’ where the author concedes the contractions between the ‘objective’ and the ‘subjective’ realities,  the ‘West’ and the ‘East’, the ‘right’ and the ‘wrong’ determined by  Western science, although the representatives of the Phenomenological School would consider such an approach as an evasion of the necessary efforts by the scientist to acknowledge the ‘life experience’ of the given society.

The representatives of this School[22] consider that life is a correlation of subjective perceptions, hence, also the fears, the stereotypes and the myths. To comprehend this correlation the researcher has always to consider his own subjective perceptions and examine ‘the researcher-the researched’ communication.

 

CHAPTER 2: Media publications voicing social issues

 

 

2.1.     Anti-propaganda against heterodoxy under the guise of patriotism

 

The media and the public discourse build up their anti-propaganda against  non-apostolic religions through the system of unification of religious and ethnic identities. By invoking a fear of alienation from the proper national identity, media attempt to distinguish everyone by one religious identity. Although this method doesn’t evoke hatred towards atheists and neo-pegans, it fuels hatred towards other non-apostolic religions and confessions,

‘The identification of religious and ethnic identities is one of the most dangerous ideologies,’ (www.religions.am) one  of the leaders of Evangelical faith Rafael Grigoryan particularly says in the interview,

‘Currently one of the most dangerous ideologies in this sphere is the identification of religious and ethnic identities. How can you alienate someone from being Armenian, the one who is our blood-brother, who has the same national self-awareness, who is the inheritor of the same history and fate just because he is not an adherent of the Apostolic Church. This is a striking example of discrimination and  intolerance.”[23]

2.2.     The  religious propaganda at schools of a secular state

 

«Խղճի ազատություն» կայքում «Հայ եկեղեցու պատմությունը» ակնարկում նշվում է, որ 2005թվից 4­-1­0-րդ դասարանի երեխաների համար դպրոցում ներմուծվեց նոր առարկա` Հայոց եկեղեցու պատմություն անունով: Լրագրողը մասնավորապես ասում է.

In an article entitled “The history of the Armenian Church” of “Freedom of Conscience” website the author informs that since 2005 a new class was introduced for 4-10 grade pupils, that is the History of the Armenian Church. The journalist claims, in particular,

‘In 2002 an agreement was reached between the Mother See of Holy Ejmiatsin and the Armenian Government according to which the “History of Armenian Church” class was introduced at schools. The agreement was reaffirmed by the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians and the Prime Minister of RA…  The textbooks were hastily prepared and introduced at schools without a careful examination of the pedagogical-psychological and the legal groundwork. The ‘History of Apostolic Church’ textbook is a holistic religious course not a historical one,’ says  the author of a research “On the Features of Spiritual Education for High School Students”, a practicing pedagog Armine Davtyan.’[24]

In 2014 the Minister of Education and Science Armen Ashotyan, who had  developed the Draft Law ‘On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations’ stated on that occasion:

The introduction of the class at schools allows not only to transfer knowledge but also to empower another important component, the upbringing. The school is a place of up-bringing too. The school is a place of  safeguarding and reproducing Armenian identity, a place of edification of the citizen of the Armenian State. The cooperation with the church is a step aimed at the introduction of ethical values.’[25]

The topic was further studied by ‘Partnership for Democracy’ NGO.

It has attested that,

‘…some cases were registered when children were boycotted by being forced to pray and cross themselves while being atheists.  This was told by the teachers themselves.’[26]

 

This article provides an opportunity to think about a number of issues.

What is the real motive behind the introduction of the class to school? Why isn’t it taught in the frames of the History class as far as the history of the religion is concerned? What does the Minister of Education and Science mean by stressing that the cooperation with the church is a step aimed at the introduction of moral values? Whose morality is questioned by the minister?  Does this class really allow the church to reinforce its religious behavior on children?

 

2.3.     The cooperation between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the State

 

The contradictions in legal framework evoke undue difficulties in the work of the leaders of the religious organizations. Thus on one hand the law allows the religious organizations to practice philanthropy, and on the other hand  it reserves the philanthropic monopoly to the Apostolic Church and defines that the state can’t even prevent the realization of that mission.[28]

Thereby in the article “The asphalt laid by the Apostolic Church: meanwhile the heterodox are deprived of philanthropy”of “Freedom of Conscience” newspaper it is stated:

 

“According to the data published by the Government of RA the 17 of 18 benevolent projects implemented by the Armenian Apostolic Church are qualified as a spiritual activity and only one of them is qualified as an urban construction, that is the fencing of the playground at Nersisyan park.

Meanwhile the acquisition of cars for the transportation of the lecturers of Gevorgyan Spiritual Seminarium and the Vazgenyan School, the acquisition of furniture for “Vache and Tamar Manoogian” Manuscript Libarary, the furnishing of “Vache and Tamar Manoogian” Manuscript Library and the Gevorgyan Spiritual Seminarium, the organization of the Museum of Ruben Sevak, the procurement of uniforms for the alumnus of Gevorgyan Seminarium and the Vazgenyan School in Sevan, the acquisition of furniture for the Armenian Religious Home-School in Gyumri.

 

A number of construction works have also been classified as a spiritual form of charity , E.g. the first phase of the reconstruction of one-story buildings adjacent to the Baptistry, the production and the installation of the wrought handrails of the staircase  at the Brotherhood Edifice, the renovation and the landscape gardening of the territory of “Vache and Tamar Manoogian” Manuscript Library, the flooring of the edifice of the Old Seat of Catholicos, the installation of the  antifreeze system of the Old Seat of Catholicos, the installation of the antifreeze system of the Administrative Building, the reconstruction of the Seat of Catholicos,, the construction of a parking adjacent to the Synod  House and the Fine Art school and the asphalting of a territory adjacent to the Printing House.[29]

 

The charity carried out by non-apostolic religious organization often encounters obstacles. In particular, the pastor of Rema Evangelical Church Karen Khachatryan says, ‘Definitely there are problems with philantropic activities because it’s the prerogative of the Apostolic Church. We have a right to carry out charity inside our organization but not outside of it. We have tried to help the Daycare Center for the Underprivileged Children at Ajapnyak district in Yerevan but after consulting with the Ministry of Social Security the director has told us that we can’t help the children because it’s the monopoly of the Apostolic church.’[30]

The monopolies of the Armenian Apostolic church fixed in legislation, the facts drawn in this article, that is the classification of construction activities of Armenian Apostolic church as charity by the Government Commission and the response of the Ministry of Social Security to the attempt of the Evangelical Church to help the Daycare Center allow for concluding that the Church and the State in Armenia don’t function separately.

2.4.     Religious intolerance and the vulnerability of laborers

 

A particular intolerance exercised by the administration of state establishments exists towards the religious dissidence, the freedom of speech and the membership to an oppositional political party. [32]

The institutions of higher education that seem to be a platform for the formation of new ideas may not only discourage but also dismiss the dissident.

The employers of state educational establishments are rather vulnerable in this aspect, since the  contract is signed annually for a certain period.[33]

The employer remains constantly dependent on the employer since it has a problem of extending the employment contract.
Thus in an article called “A Scientific Research Failed For Religious Motives: the Church Intervenes into Science” published by the “Freedom of conscience” newspaper the journalist covers the story of a dismissal of a 40-year-old former lecturer Armine Davtyan.

‘The former lecturer at Pedagogical University is not planning to defend her thesis once again; she is convinced that the Scientific Council is not judging by the concepts covered in the latter but by her religious belief because the authorities at Armenian Apostolic Church have interfered in the work of the Council…

The majority of the Scientific Council formed at Pedagogical University, the 12 out of the 7 voted against Davtyan’s dissertation rejecting to grant her a degree. Earlier on Davtyan was practically fired from her job that according to the leadership of the  university had happened because of Department reorganization, whereas the woman insists that the real reason behind her dismissal was her thesis and the educational issues raised in it.’[34]

 

Conclusions

 

  • the researchers demonstrate greater interest in the state of the freedom of conscience since the post soviet reality has allowed for manifestations of the appetence and contestation for the religious power.
  •  not all the media follow the journalist ethics and norms that don’t concede the dissemination of religious intolerance.
  •  Both in 2009 and 2012 some of the media continue its anti-propaganda against non-Apostolic religions and disseminate a number of stereotypes such as ‘they are sects because they disrupt the family, the nation, the state’, ‘they carry out a spiritual hunt’. By describing the adherent of a non-apostolic religious organization the major part of the society reproduces these stereotypes circulated by the media.
  • Howbeit, according to the comparison of these two researches, the negative attitude and the anti-propaganda against non-apostolic religious organizations has decreased in media and an informative and eventive attitude has increased. Thus in 2001-2009 in the 55% of the 1451 publications an attitude was registered towards religious organizations, and in the  publications from 2009-2012 that number comprised less than the 9%.
  •  the comparison of the data from 2009-2012 researches shows that the relations between the religious organizations haven’t changed and continue to remain “tense”.

 

 

[1] It also includes the Law “On Making An Amendment and A Supplement to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia”.

[2]  See the opinion no 603/2010 of the Venice Commission
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL(2010)133-e

[3] See the qualitative research “On the Religious Tolerance in Armenian Media”, 2012, “Yerevan Press Club” NGO, Yerevan. The work hasn’t been published yet.

[4] See S. Danielyan, V. Vardanyan, A. Avtandilyan, 2009
“Partnership for Democracy”, Yerevan

[5] See M. Yeranosyan, V. Ishkhanyan, A. Ishkanyan, 2010, “Religious freedom in Armenia”, “Armenian Helsinki Committee”, Yerevan

[6] See “Considerations and suggestions on amendments in the new draft law on the freedom of conscience”

http://www.religions.am/arm/documents/comments/Նկատառումներ-եվ-առաջարկություններ-խղճի-ազատության-մասին-նոր-օրենքի-նախագծում-փոփոխություններ-կատարելու-մասին/

[7] See M. Yeranosyan, V. Ishkhanyan, A. Ishkanyan, 2010, “Religious freedom in Armenia”, “Armenian Helsinki Committee”, Yerevan

[8] “Ten media were chosen for the research, including three TV channels (1st Channel of Armenian Public Television, Shoghakat that is also a part of the 1st Channel, “Yerkir Media”), one radio station (“ArmRadio” FM 107”), 3 newspapers (“Haykakan Zhamanak”, “Azg”, “Golos Armenii”) and three online editions (Lragir.am, Hetq.am, Panorama.am).

The study of the materials from every media each included 4 weeks but in order to get a general idea the media was studied throughout different segments of an 8-year period.”

See the complete research here: a qualitative research “On religious tolerance in Armenian media”, 2012, “Yerevan Press Club” NGO, Yerevan. The work hasn’t been published yet.

[9] See  “On the Religious Tolerance in the Armenian Media”, 2012, “Yerevan Press Club” NGO, Yerevan. The work hasn’t been published yet.

[10] See  “On the Religious Tolerance in the Armenian Media”, 2012, “Yerevan Press Club” NGO, Yerevan. The work hasn’t been published yet.

[11] See the complete analysis here, pp. 29-34, 2012, M. Yeranosyan, V. Ishkhanyan, A. Ishkanyan, 2010, “Religious freedom in Armenia”, “Armenian Helsinki Committee” NGO, Yerevan

 

[12] See  “On the Religious Tolerance in the Armenian Media”, 2012, “Yerevan Press Club” NGO, Yerevan. The work hasn’t been published yet.

[13] See more: “On religious tolerance in Armenian media”, 2012, “Yerevan Press Club” NGO, Yerevan. The work hasn’t been published yet.

[14] See the complete article here: Karine Ionesyan, “Yoga practitioners aren’t provided with a space”http://kron.armhels.com

[15] See S. Danielyan, V. Vardanyan, A. Avtandilyan, 2009
“Partnership for Democracy”, Yerevan

[16] See M. Yeranosyan, V. Ishkhanyan, A. Ishkanyan, 2010, “Religious freedom in Armenia”, “Armenian Helsinki Committee”, Yerevan

[17] See L. Qaramyan, H. Hovhannisyan, 2012 “Tolerance in Armenia Today: the Prospects of Religious Tolerance”, “Eurasia Partnership Foundation” NGO, Yerevan.
http://www.religions.am/files/1198/library/legal/L007.pdf

 

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] See Jurgen Habermas, 1984, “The Theory of Communicative Action”, Boston, Beacon Press.  English translation by T. McCarthy

[23] See: “The identification of religious and ethnic identities is the most dangerous ideology”, 11.05.2013,  Religions of Armenia www.religions.am

[24] See “Teaching the History of Armenian Church at School is a Propaganda”, 4 April 2013, “Freedom of Conscience”, http://kron.armhels.com/?p=362

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] See the Law “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations”, Article 7

[28] See the Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations”, Article 17, paragraph C

 

[29] See “The Asphalts Laid by the Apostolic Church: meanwhile, the heterodox are deprived of Charity”, 11 June, 2013, Freedom of Conscience, http://kron.armhels.com/?p=542

[30] Ibid.

 

[31] See the Law “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Organizations”, Article 17, paragraph C

 

[32] See Observer’s Handbook #4 / 2013, pp. 2-4, http://armhels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ditord-04-2013arm.pdf

[33] In the temporary employment contract the term of the agreement is designated, see Labor Code of RA, Article 94

[34] See “A Scientific Research Failed For Religious Motives: The Church Intervenes into Science”, 7 February, 2014, Freedom of Conscience, http://kron.armhels.com/?p=850

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *