The Formation of the Right to Freedom of Religion in the States of the Ancient East

Abstract

The article examines the process of the formation of the right to freedom of religion in the primary civilizations of the ancient East – Egypt, Babylon, India, China and Japan.
It is determined that freedom of religion in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia in the modern understanding of this concept did not exist and could not exist. The state, using legal norms, clearly established the boundaries of “religious freedom”, and therefore deprived a person of the right to freely choose or change religious beliefs within the then state borders. The state and religion were in an inextricable and organic connection, and religious practice was under the strict control of the despot, priests and bureaucratic bureaucracy.
It is indicated that the process of the formation of the concept of “freedom of religion” within the ancient Indian states differed from other ancient civilizations. Hindu law, which became an organic part of Hinduism as a religion, allowed for a certain freedom of religion to the extent that it was possible under the conditions of that time. At the same time, the clearly established varna-caste system significantly limited communication between people.
Certain elements of freedom of religion can also be found in ancient China. However, religion was viewed through the prism of an organic connection with the state, and the so-called “freedom” could not go beyond clearly defined boundaries: the state tolerated different beliefs as long as they did not threaten political stability, the social system, and its very existence. Historically, conditions for the formation of freedom of religion were not created in Japanese lands, which generally corresponded to the trends in the development of this subjective right in state formations of the Ancient World.
The author concludes that the religious systems that formed in the Far Eastern states were characterized by certain features, namely: first, restrained tolerance towards other religions, since those religious beliefs that were inherent in a particular people and were recognized at the official level did not claim to be exclusive; second, freedom of religion could in no way go beyond what was permitted by the official authorities, since the authorities themselves and the ruler were recognized as sacred and inviolable.