Parliament once more spurns proposal to modify legislation prohibiting the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate from amending its status.
In a significant move, the Estonian parliament has once again refused to amend a bill that effectively bans the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (EPCC), marking a strong stance against the Moscow Patriarchate due to its perceived geopolitical and ideological alignment with the Russian government.
The repeated rejections of amendments to the bill reflect Estonia's commitment to limiting Russian influence and protecting national security. The Moscow Patriarchate is seen as closely linked to the Russian Federation, a totalitarian regime considered a threat to Estonia’s independence and security. This perspective aligns with broader regional tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Russian Orthodox Church's (ROC) support for the Kremlin's political agenda.
Key concerns surrounding this issue include the potential for the Moscow Patriarchate to act as an instrument of Russian state influence and propaganda, its role as a war propaganda instrument, and its religious and political influence that may undermine Estonia’s political and cultural autonomy.
The bill aims to sever all ties between the Estonian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, viewing the latter as exerting undue influence under the guise of religion. Attempts to amend the law have been rejected, as such amendments would be seen as weakening Estonia’s legal and political stance against Russian influence conveyed through the Moscow Patriarchate.
The initial refusal to sign the bill was due to it contradicting the country's constitution. The Estonian president, Karis, did not approve the amended bill, citing cosmetic amendments as insufficient.
The head of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Kivberg, supports establishing strict rules for influence activities. Kivberg's statements suggest a connection between influence activities and the Moscow Patriarchate, expressing concerns about potential security issues that outweigh people's right to religious freedom.
However, it is unclear whether Kivberg's statements reflect the views of the entire Estonian parliament. The discussion now includes concerns about influence activities and their potential impact on security, reflecting a broader movement distancing from the Moscow Patriarchate due to its political entanglements and support of Russian state policies, especially in light of the ongoing conflict involving Russia and Ukraine.
The implications of these decisions for the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate remain to be seen. The parliament's resolute stance against the Moscow Patriarchate underscores Estonia's determination to safeguard its sovereignty and independence in the face of regional geopolitical challenges.
The Estonian president, Karis, did not approve the amended bill, viewing cosmetic amendments as insufficient to weaken Estonia’s legal and political stance against the Moscow Patriarchate's political influence. In the ongoing discussion, attempts to amend the law have been repeatedly rejected, aligning with a broader movement distancing from the Moscow Patriarchate due to its support of Russian state policies, particularly in light of the conflict involving Russia and Ukraine.
