Dear prime minister, Ombudsman, members of Armenian government and parliament, representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church and of the Georgian Orthodox Church and of other religious organizations, colleagues and friends,

What a pleasure to be back and continue our discussion on Contemporary Issues of Freedom of Religion or Belief in Armenia, Georgia and beyond. I have fond memories of our last meeting here in the Marriott, two years ago and later in a smaller setting on tolerance in the nearby Congress hotel. Thank you, Isabella, Kolya and Gevorg for all the work done and for bringing such an impressive crowd together – both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Two years ago, I discussed in my opening remarks a specific aspect of many religions, that tends to be forgotten often: the missionary zeal, which may lead to issues like perceived intolerance, to irritation and to policies to counter it. Maybe the international audience, evangelicals – and if here – Jehovah witnesses, recognize themselves in this missionary zeal, whereas local dignitaries might recognize the dangers of proselytism – in slang ‘stealing souls.’

Both are implicitly central in the general discussion on Freedom of Religion and Belief and might pop-up today again.

But today, I’d like to focus briefly on some different aspects.

I like to start with thanking the previous speakers, the prime minister and the ombudsman, for their very relevant and brave addresses. The statement by prime minister Pashinyan being more conceptual and wider – having the effect on me of a penetrating Friday morning sermon – and the introduction of the ombudsman being more on policy aspect discussing tasks for government and politics.

Freedom of Religion and Belief is one of the Human Rights, but it addresses quite often not only states, but also the population at large and vested institutions like churches.

It then has to do with the question how countries perceive themselves.
At yesterday evening’s reception, one of the speakers described both Georgia and Armenia as Christian nations. And – historically speaking – rightly so! The majority of both populations see both countries as Christian, your nationhood was formed by Christianity and it is clear that your mainstream culture is Christian – by all means.
But both nations are also identified by minorities that have been and still are constituting parts of that same nation. I hope that today we will be able to recognize both: the Christian nature of both societies and the religious diversity of both nations.

But we might also dig a bit deeper. It’s clear from literature, both fiction and non-fiction, official and popular, that both Armenia and Georgia see themselves as especially privileged by the grace of God as Christian nations, deserving a special relationship between the state and the “main” church. Mr. prime minister, you already made some very relevant remarks about this. But you took action already some weeks ago, when receiving the Catholicos in your office. At that occasion you inaugurated a “Working Group on State-Church Relations”. Your address was published on the governments’ website.

Preparing for today, I read the address again. And, Mr prime minister, you take a starting point exactly on this position, the deep and warm relationship between the Armenian church and the Armenian nation-state. But you also make important references to the different responsibilities state and church have.

One passage that struck me as leading for today’s discussion, is where you relate to the national identity. I quote: “However, we likewise need to understand to what extent our views coincide in terms of preserving identity and what issues exist in this context that we should discuss”.

And, another one, relating to education: “the Mother See suggests teaching the history of the Armenian Apostolic Church in our schools. In this context, the first question is whether we should set a distinction between the history of the Armenian Apostolic Church and the history of the Armenian people, and if we do, why and how we put this distinction, and so on.”
I repeat the last words: “and if we do, why and how we put this distinction, and so on”.

Closing, I’d like to refer to the planned discussion on competing rights, this afternoon. The ombudsman put FoRB already in perspective as one of the Human Rights. And he listed quite some of those rights – albeit not sexual orientation, ‘being who you are’. Especially in connection to that right I see potential conflict.

The metaphysical nature of most religions, their history, traditions and reference to old scriptures make it difficult to interact with and respond to new developments and new insights. Then, given the fact that the religion feels inspired by someone transcendent and is founded on old wisdom and insight, make it inflexible and the road to conflict is open. I hope we can make headway on this issue in the afternoon and close this conference in peace and understanding.

Society is waiting …

24 May 2019,  Yerevan

Contemporary Issues of Freedom of Religion or Belief in Armenia, Georgia and beyond, regional conference, Yerevan