Modern legislative initiatives aimed at combating esoteric practices and magic have sparked lively public debates.

Legislative Crossroads: Balancing Esoteric Regulation and Religious Fr

Modern legislative initiatives aimed at combating esoteric practices and magic have sparked lively public debates. The main idea behind these draft laws is that certain rituals and practices could negatively affect citizens’ information-psychological security, despite the clearly pseudoscientific nature of such claims.

These initiatives are based on the desire to regulate those manifestations which are interpreted as a threat to the freedom of individual will and conscious choice.

While this argument sounds convincing in some circles, it raises a crucial question: where is the line between banning dangerous manipulations and restricting the rights to freedom of religion?

The draft law is not targeted at religious organizations, considering their deep cultural and historical roots as well as the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution. Under the current legal protection afforded to traditional religious groups, their purpose cannot be undermined, even if the formal criteria of the draft law could theoretically affect them.

In summary, while combating pseudoscientific influence remains an important task, lawmakers face the challenge of finding a balance between regulating dangerous practices and protecting the civil freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. At this delicate intersection, both legal and cultural challenges emerge, rendering this topic highly relevant and in need of serious public discussion.

Why, if Russia is introducing a draft law to ban esotericism and magic, is a similar logic not applied to banning religions and the Russian Orthodox Church? In legislative initiatives aimed at banning esotericism and magic, the argument is made that such practices allegedly harm society’s information-psychological security, even though these arguments are clearly pseudoscientific. At the same time, official documents show no intention—or legal possibility—to ban religious communities. According to some statements, based on the criteria set forth in the draft law, even the Russian Orthodox Church could, in theory, be rendered illegal; however, in practice, religious organizations are protected by constitutional norms.

As one source puts it, "According to the criteria contained in the draft law, the Russian Orthodox Church could be placed outside the law. For example, it is proposed to prosecute people responsible for the 'blocking, on an unconscious level, of the freedom of individual will, the artificial imposition of a dependency syndrome'" (source: link txt). This indicates that, technically, the law could be interpreted to include religious organizations. However, another quote emphasizes that the protection of religious communities is ensured by the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to create any associations, including religious ones, and to own the corresponding property: "The Constitution, not so much adopted by the people as imposed on them in 1993, prefers the formulation 'everyone.' Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to act together with others according to their beliefs. Article 35 states that everyone has the right to own and use property. Article 30 guarantees everyone the right to form associations with other persons. Thus, citizens of Russia, stateless persons, and foreign citizens are equal in their ability to form any associations, including religious ones, and to own land, buildings, churches, etc." (source: link txt).

Thus, although the criteria of the draft law theoretically allow for the prosecution of religious organizations, in the case of the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional religions, the legislation is not directed toward restricting them because they are protected by constitutional rights and have deep cultural and historical roots. The draft law is aimed at combating certain manifestations of pseudoscientific influence rather than targeting institutions recognized by the state and firmly established in public life.