Obscurantism of the Russian Orthodox Church. June 21st, 2018
In general, I’m always very sad when I read about the Russian Orthodox Church’s obscurantism. For obvious reasons. And once again, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church lost their minds and brought to light dense nonsense. "Cossacks", by the way, also did not stand aside.
“In the city of Livny, Oryol region, the conflict between representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the creator of the Slavic Garden park is gaining momentum. The park is a zone free of smoking and alcohol and conducive to a healthy lifestyle - walking and playing sports. However, the priests did not like it a children's sandbox in the shape of an Old Slavonic rune, and then the whole park."
Slavic runes and what?
Obscurantists from the Russian Orthodox Church don’t know that paganism, the Rodnovers, are not prohibited in Russia? We now do not have the Russian Empire, which blotted out and erased the memory of the ancient Slavic faith. Yes, I consider myself a Christian, but I have no hostility towards other beliefs and religions. Especially to the beliefs of our ancestors. This is part of our culture. Which is much older than Orthodoxy, by the way.
A very interesting Bishop Nektary is in touch:
“Recently, neo-pagan movements have intensified in the city of Livny. Many of our townspeople and residents of the area are not aware of the danger posed by the new movement “For a sober Russia and a healthy lifestyle.” Most townspeople do not know that in the park near the temple “St. George the Victorious, religious pagan meetings take place, in which young people participate and priests come, initiating the youth of our city into pagan cults and culture,” the bishop’s message says.
Nektary probably felt sad that these young people would not give him another car for 6 million rubles:
“Baptism is for us a choice that is historically and in fact irrevocable. And attempts to revise this choice, including by presenting arguments that seem to apologists to support interest in paganism, are based on the invention of pagan ideas about the surrounding reality,” noted Deputy Head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for Relations of the Church with Society and the Media Vakhtang Kipshidze."
So what's the problem? Some choose baptism, some choose paganism, others choose some other beliefs. This is freedom of choice. Every person has every right to this.
And no one has the right to force him. I didn’t have a conscious choice; I was baptized as a baby. And I don't protest against this, on the contrary. Russia has truly been built for a thousand years under the influence of Christian culture. All of Europe, as we are accustomed to seeing it and see it, is the fruit of Christian culture. And this is my culture. But someone chose a different faith. This is his personal choice and path in life. The Church may not like this, but the Russian Orthodox Church has no right to engage in persecution and destruction. This is not Christianity, but some kind of raiding. And let's not remember the Middle Ages and the Crusades. This is the past.
Therefore, this whole story is ordinary, stupid obscurantism. The Russian Orthodox Church should be ashamed.
P.S.
“A few weeks after the message, the Cossacks came to the Slavic Garden and destroyed the sandbox in the form of a Slavic symbol.”
About true faith, obscurantists and « pop » – Andrey Muzolf, teacher at Kyiv Theological Seminary.
Photo: © Natalya Goroshkova/Orthodox Life
– There is a certain negative background around Orthodoxy in society. Orthodoxy says unpleasant things: it points out sin, talks about punishment for violations, that is, it acts as a moral censor. This role irritates society. But in fact, Orthodoxy does not set itself such tasks. Please comment and explain what are the global goals and objectives of Orthodoxy?
– To say that Orthodoxy creates some kind of negative background around itself is the same as saying that hospitals and other medical institutions are a breeding ground for illness and death, because it is in them that, for the most part, people get sick and die. But such a statement is absurd!
Orthodoxy does not create negativity around itself. It only testifies to the fact that humanity is sick with sin and warns what consequences such a disease can lead to. If a doctor tells us that we have health problems, we will not blame him for telling us something unpleasant. Yes, it is unpleasant for us to hear about our diseases, but otherwise, if we do not know about them, we will not be able to cure them.
Orthodoxy is a testimony that a person is sick, but has received hope for healing from the disease that he contracted in heaven, at the dawn of his existence. Having succumbed to the temptation of the devil - “a murderer from the beginning,” as the holy apostle and evangelist John the Theologian calls him, man fell away from God as the source of Eternal life and, as a result, began to die. According to St. Gregory Palamas, the primordial man died twice: the first time - spiritually - at the moment of committing a sin, and only after many years of life away from God, the person died a second time - physically. But despite the fact that man himself, by his own free will, left the Creator, God still comes to meet him. The Lord shows mercy and immeasurable love for the human race: He Himself becomes one of us in order to save humanity from the power of sin and death.
Based on this, the main task of Orthodoxy, according to one modern Christian writer, is for every Christian to become a “little Christ”, to be able to embody in his life the ideal to which Adam was called from the moment of his creation - to become not only an image , but also in the likeness of God. And this is only possible if a person remains in the Church of Christ, because only there is real reunion with God possible, that is, deification.
– People are happy to find something to reproach Orthodoxy for. They point to the “spots” and say, look at yourself, and then learn. How to be here? After all, Orthodoxy is about both holy and unholy people.
– Let’s give an ordinary life example: if a person does not trust this or that doctor, he will not reject the importance of all medicine entirely. A similar approach can be transferred to the church sphere: if we do not like this or that priest, this is not at all a reason to reject the importance of the Church and question the necessity of Its existence.
Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh once said the following words about himself: “I am not a good person, but what I say about God is true.” If a person sincerely seeks the Lord, he will definitely find Him. If a person comes to the Church to find the Truth within its walls, the Truth will be revealed to him, because the Truth is Christ Himself. If a person tries to catch the Church and its ministers in something bad, then this means that this is his main goal, and not at all a spiritual quest.
A person’s external behavior is a kind of litmus test that reveals his inner world. And therefore, the abundance of gossip and slander addressed to the Church is, first of all, evidence that it is lies that fill the human heart, because, according to the Holy Scriptures, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). For an Orthodox Christian, slander has never been something terrifying. One ascetic once said: “It doesn’t matter to me what other people think about me; All that matters to me is what my God thinks of me.”
And regarding the idea that the Church, which preaches the high ideal of holiness, itself should consist only of holy people, while avoiding everything unclean and vicious, the famous Orthodox theologian L. Uspensky noted: “The Orthodox Church has never equated holiness and infallibility." The Church is holy not because its members are holy, but because its Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, is holy. An interesting description of the Church was given by the Christian ascetic of the 4th century, St. Ephraim the Syrian: “The whole Church is the Church of the penitent... all of it is the Church of the perishing...”
Unlike sectarians, the Orthodox never claimed that they were holy, so to speak, a priori, only because they became a member of the Church, and therefore “automatically” chosen by God for Eternity. Eternity is not given to a person just like a “club card”: it must be earned, and this is not an easy matter, because “the kingdom of heaven is taken by force, and those who use force take it by force” (Matthew 11:12). And only the Church can show a person the path that will lead us to eternal life in Christ.
– Why is Orthodoxy not fashionable? Why doesn't it keep up with the times? Protestants, for example, go door to door, campaign, invite people to cafes, throw parties... This is fashionable and fun. Why can’t Orthodoxy become a little “pop”, because then the people will flock?
– The famous English writer of the last century, G. K. Chesterton, wrote: “The Church always seems to be behind the times, when in fact it is timeless.” And the main reason why the Church has always been and will be timeless is that the Gospel - that Good News about the salvation of fallen man by God, which the Church reveals to each of us - has no boundaries, either temporal or spatial. The Gospel is intended for every person, regardless of his place of birth, material or social status.
If we want to change something in the Church, if we don’t like something about it, we must think about one elementary thing: the Church has existed for almost two thousand years and in its history it has already seen more than one hundred similar “reformers”, who tried to free her from something, to somehow “improve” her, to make her more accessible to the public. We should remember the words of the great teacher of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, who in one of his sermons said: “A person comes to the Church not to bring something into it; a person comes to the Church to take away with him nothing else and no one else but Christ Himself.”
Based on this, the main task of the Church is to sanctify man, and through man, the entire visible created world with the grace of the Holy Spirit. This is the mission of the Orthodox Church, this is its salt. And, in the words of Christ, “If the salt loses its strength, then with what will you make it salty? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out for people to trample underfoot” (Matthew 5:13).
- “The Orthodox are obscurantists, ignoramuses, aliens from the 10th century, in general people who are backward in all respects.” How can you comment on such statements addressed to Orthodox believers and priests?
– Despite such statements, the Orthodox Church has never encouraged ignorance. Saint Philaret of Moscow said: “The faith of Christ is not in enmity with true knowledge, because it is not in alliance with ignorance.” We all know well that most great scientists, such as Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Leibniz, Descartes, Newton and many, many others, have always positioned themselves as deeply religious people. For example, the founder of quantum physics, the German physicist of the last century M. Planck wrote: “Wherever and no matter how far we look, we do not find any contradictions between religion and natural science... Religion and natural science are not mutually exclusive... these two areas complement each other and are dependent on each other.”
Another question: what exactly does modern society mean by the concept of “obscurantism” of the Orthodox? By “obscurantism” of believers, we mean, first of all, that the Orthodox do not want to make concessions to the modern secular world. What concessions? First of all, recognize sin as the norm of human life.
Today, almost all the media extol what was considered something shameful and unnatural just half a century ago. Even the holy Apostle John the Theologian wrote that all the values of the world come down to three main factors: the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (see 1 John 2:16). That is why, in the words of another apostle, “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4).
Consequently, the modern world and the Church point a person to completely opposite values: if the world demands to take everything from this life, to strive for ambition and vice, then the Church, on the contrary, calls its children to humility, meekness and piety. And it is in such piety that modern society, unfortunately, sees “obscurantism.”
– They say: “Orthodoxy is difficult to understand. Everything about it is complex and incomprehensible to modern man. None of this is relevant today.” Please tell me, is Orthodox teaching accessible to the average person? How can he comprehend the incomprehensible truth that philosophers and theologians have comprehended throughout their lives?
– It is impossible to understand Orthodoxy, if only because it is not a philosophical concept at all. Orthodoxy can only be experienced on oneself, or rather, in oneself. Orthodoxy is not a theory, it is not a sum of some knowledge or philosophical conclusions. Orthodoxy is, first of all, life in Christ. And therefore His relevance does not depend on certain chronological boundaries. Orthodoxy will always be relevant as long as this world still exists and until man reaches his highest goal - the general resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment of Christ.
Unlike the comprehension of a particular philosophical system, which requires some preliminary intellectual preparation, the general educational level is not important for the perception of Orthodoxy, because God does not look at a person’s intellect, but at his heart: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8).
Philosophers of the pagan world tried to comprehend the truth of existence, neglecting the Creator of this existence. And it is quite understandable why they could never achieve their desired goal. Not a single philosophical system could give a person what he was able to receive in the Church, namely, God Himself. That is why the English writer G. K. Chesterton, whom we have already mentioned above, says that if such lights of ancient philosophy as Plato, Pythagoras or Aristotle had stood for even a minute in the light that comes from Christ, they would have understood that the light of their own teachings - twilight.
Interviewed by Natalya Goroshkova
Anti-Sovietism and religious obscurantism in modern Russia
In this article, I propose to reflect together on what we have and what we can expect from the future in Russia. The questions that I propose to answer together will be formulated as if on behalf of a simple layman, not burdened with knowledge from political science, sociology, history, philosophy and other sciences about the state and social formations. These questions will be naive and, at first glance, stupid. But, as you know, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
Anti-Sovietism as the basis of the project
By historical standards, quite recently we observed the development of the “Ukraine” project, and now we see the collapse of this country and the tragedy of an entire people as the natural conclusion of this false project. Somehow everything happened quickly... Just some 25 years! But, experts say, time is compressing and what in previous eras took centuries and millennia is now unfolding and collapsing within decades before our eyes.
This article is not written at all about Ukraine, which interests us solely as a source of parallels and analogies of the modern “Russia” project. Yes, Russia is also a project that, in the socio-political aspect, is very reminiscent of Ukraine. What these two projects have in common is that they were both conceived as anti-USSR. This naturally explains the cavernous anti-Sovietism that we have been observing all these 25 years.
Ukrainian anti-Sovietism was initially intended to justify the emergence of a separate Ukrainian state and quickly transformed into Russophobia, which became the basis for the existence of the national project “Ukraine”. Thus, Russophobia is the foundation on which Ukraine is built. Without Russophobia, Ukraine turns out to be simply a “piece” of Russia, illegally torn away from it as a result of a separatist act committed by the republican party elite of the Ukrainian SSR in 1991.
Anti-Sovietism, deployed as an ideological doctrine, in the newly formed Russian Federation also served as the justification for this new project, and at the same time as legitimation of the new government, which came “not entirely” legally. In that shaky and politically unstable period of 1991-1993, the authorities needed legitimation like air. After all, Soviet power, which came at one time as a result of the revolution, has gone through all the necessary stages of legitimation over 70 years of history. This is the victory in the Civil War, and the Great Victory of 1945, and, in fact, the construction of a completely new socialist state with the education of a new type of person and the emergence of a new community - the Soviet people. All this turned the Soviet government into an absolutely legitimate power, the legitimacy of which no one in the world doubted, and Victory in the War turned the USSR into a superpower, “without whose knowledge not a single cannon was fired in the world.”
There was nothing of this in the newborn “RF” project, just as the new government could not do anything heroic for its authority. Unless to start a civil war... But even in the event of a civil war, victory for the new government was not at all likely. Therefore, it was decided to limit ourselves to the ideological whipping up of anti-Soviet hysteria. Thus, the “Russian Federation” project, like the “fraternal” project “Ukraine”, is also based on anti-Sovietism. But anti-Sovietism - that’s the problem - is inevitably a form of Russophobia, which in Russia is becoming a factor tearing apart society. In Ukraine, we note that anti-Sovietism-Russophobia still cements part of Ukrainian society.
But as the years go by, Her Majesty History has turned the young Russian Federation into an internationally recognized state, and no one has doubted the legitimacy of its power for a long time. So why is anti-Sovietism still in demand? Why wasn’t it thrown into a landfill as an anachronism? Why is the Russian elite so nervous and continues to exploit anti-Sovietism? What is the source of her discomfort? The problem, as we see, is that it is vitally important for her to consolidate the chosen course and guarantee the irreversibility of the process of building capitalism in Russia.
Bastard Russian capitalism and its ideology.
Does Russia have a capitalist future?
But not everything is clear with capitalism. It is known that the most developed countries of the West, as a result of natural social development, came to a social democratic model, which in Soviet times was called “pink socialism.” This includes France, Norway, Finland, Canada, and other countries. About Sweden, which gave the name of its country to the mentioned model of socialism, it is completely banal to write... So, after all, they said: “Swedish socialism.” Why shouldn’t the Russian Federation choose a course towards building “correct” socialism? This is just in case for those who claim that socialism was supposedly wrong in the USSR. Indeed, why not follow the example of China, which has subjected its “wrong” Mao-Zedong socialism to a deep revision and is now building a new correct socialism with a multi-structured economy at the base and the leadership of the Communist Party at the superstructure? By the way, it is building very, very successfully, while the new Russia is eating up the remnants of the legacy of the former USSR, without creating anything new over these quarter of a century.
The questions are, of course, rhetorical. Everyone understands everything perfectly well - liberal capitalism is being built in Russia. The task of anti-Soviet hysteria is the complete eradication of socialist consciousness, formed in the process of evolution of the Russian people in specific geographical, climatic and demographic conditions and finally taking shape in the Soviet period of Russian history.
It’s just not clear where the builders of capitalism in Russia got the idea that they would build it and live like in the West? Who told them this? Or did you come up with it yourself? It is well known that capitalism is a world system, at the core of which is the Anglo-Saxon world. The Anglo-Saxons own the world capitalist system. The rest of the world is divided into zones. The closest zone is the European Union and Japan. The rest are countries of peripheral capitalism. No matter how you jump, you won’t jump higher than your head. No one will let you into the core of the capital system, no matter how hard you try to please the USA and Great Britain. And there is no point in flirting with the European Union - they are just satellites of the Anglo-American core of the system.
But if, for example, rich oil monarchies can afford a decent standard of living for the small population of their countries, then this will not happen to Russia. If the Anglo-Saxons allowed the hardworking Japanese and Koreans to live decently, it was only because they needed these forges of inexpensive and high-quality goods. Neither Japan nor South Korea are competitors to the Anglo-Saxons. By the way, at any moment they can be turned off from the production chain, and then the Japanese economic miracle cried along with the Korean one.
Russia is not suitable for the Anglo-Saxons to be included in their system in any of the parameters. First of all, Russia is too big. Secondly, the insignificant resource-extracting part of the economy is efficient. The rest is absolutely ineffective by capitalist standards. Thirdly, Russia cannot, due to its cultural characteristics and racial energy, compete on equal terms with the frantically hard-working Chinese. The Anglo-Saxons simply do not need Russians in this form. In short, there is nowhere to push Russia into the global capital system. According to capitalist laws, Russia is an absolutely ineffective asset. Therefore, its role is assigned exclusively as a raw material appendage to the countries of the capitalist core and its closest satellites. The population not involved in the raw materials sector is subject to optimization. That is, reduction. Margaret Thatcher, after all, did not state out of hatred for Russians that it was economically justifiable for 15 million people to live in Russia. This is not misanthropy, this is the capitalist purely economic approach of the Anglo-Saxons to any business. One should not be offended, but one should think about why, for example, in the USSR there was a catastrophic shortage of labor and engineering workers in the national economic complex, while in capitalist Russia there was unemployment? Why did the country develop and deteriorate during the Soviet period, and now it is shrinking, drying out and shrinking? Supporters of the liberal-capitalist model will object that, they say, under socialism they worked inefficiently and, therefore, a lot of workers were required. And under capitalism, they say, they get by with fewer workers. Yes, there is some truth in this. But the Lie is hidden in the fact that the task of socialism was to involve the maximum number of citizens in the creative process so that they would all provide for themselves with their labor, and the results of their labor would work for the development of the country. Capitalism does not set such goals. He only understands the language of profit. Capital is only interested in maximizing this profit. Russia does not meet the criteria of capitalist profit maximization. According to these criteria, Russia is ineffective in principle, which means it should not exist at all. So let us answer ourselves, is capitalism suitable for Russia?
Anti-Sovietism of the President and the “disgusting” of the new elite
As we answer some questions, new ones arise.
Why, for example, a quarter of a century after perestroika, is anti-Stalinism being intensified with increasing intensity? What does Stalin have to do with it? Even the oldest citizens no longer remember him! Why is the President, with or without reason, trying to undermine the Soviet past? Will Lenin be remembered “in vanity”, then Stalin, then repressions, then the Soviet system? Who is he sending these messages to? Who does he want to please and please? In any case, not to Russian citizens who gave the best years of their lives to building the Soviet state and, by the way, a fair socialist system. Why does the President not consider the feelings of Russians? After all, even the religious feelings of believers are protected by law, and today you can end up in prison for saying “there is no God”! And this is in a civilized country in the 21st century! Why are the feelings of believers in mythical characters protected by law, but the feelings of real citizens who actually built a real state are not only not protected, but in violation of the simple rules of tact, ethics and political correctness, are spat on and subjected to ridicule?! By the way, the President heads the successor to this real state - Russia, and the new bourgeois elite owns industrial assets that were selflessly created by several generations of these very real Soviet citizens. What kind of disgusting is this?
The question sounds rhetorical again and again, since everything is obvious: anti-Sovietism is necessary for the elite to justify its existence and secure the right to property stolen from the people.
And it would be okay if they stole it, but they would multiply it and use it for the good of the country and the people. Well, no! Contrary to Article 7 of the Constitution, which states that Russia is a social state, this social state is being dismantled before our eyes. As, indeed, contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution that Russia is a secular state, religious obscurantism is being revived at the state level! Just think, in the 21st century in a secular state, allegedly disrespecting religious feelings is a criminal offense! What is this if not a return to the dark Middle Ages?
Religious obscurantism as another ideological attitude
Yes, those girls who danced in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior are narrow-minded and unpleasant characters... But, let’s think for a minute, in a civilized country they are charged with criminal charges and given a prison sentence for a stupid but harmless joke! For what? What is their crime? The Cathedral of Christ the Savior, like any other church building, is a private territory owned by a private public organization such as, say, the Auchan or Metro hypermarket. The Russian Orthodox Church is a private company and citizens are not obliged to honor its internal rules of conduct and share ideas about ethics, which are not generally recognized and generally accepted by everyone. In addition to the religious aspect described above, another unpleasant aspect looms in the background. This is a mention by these girls in their song of the name of the President. As a result, the criminal prosecution of these stupid girls smacks of elements of political persecution. Obviously, this provocation was intended that way. It was conceived with a double connotation, showing the President in an unsightly light, and Russia as a state in which such medieval savages are happening. Of course, this is a provocation to which the head of state succumbed. ...Or he was “set up” by his surroundings. But everything would be fine if the criminal prosecution of the mentioned characters were not accompanied by propaganda hysteria. The tone, unfortunately, was set again by the President, who in a TV interview hinted that, for example, in a Muslim mosque these girls would simply be torn to pieces. Let's think about what the President is indirectly calling for! And in this context it sounded like a call! I remember that in one European country, some people also justified the imprisonment of undesirables in concentration camps by the fact that otherwise the angry people would subject them to lynching. Imprisonment in a concentration camp, they say, allows wrong citizens to avoid the just wrath of the people.
Yes, the association looks too extreme and, fortunately, we live in modern democratic Russia. But how can such presidential blunders be explained? Why do they follow one after another?
In this regard, the question arises: how can we ensure that our Presidents, whose cultural and educational level is sometimes so low, do not speak out on such painful topics that divide an already divided society?
The answer to the above question is simple: Russia needs a new ideology that unites and guides us all.
What kind of ideology do we need?
In the Soviet project, despite the degeneration of the party-Soviet elite, which curtailed this project and offered nothing new to Soviet society, there was a higher goal. The Soviet project had an idea and a super task. The successes of the USSR in the first five-year plans, the Great Victory of 1945, primacy in the exploration of space and the peaceful atom are evidence of the mastery by the masses of the idea that was proposed to the people by the Soviet government and successfully carried out by the people's leader Stalin. This was a truly great project that advanced Russia and the Russian people to the most advanced frontiers of historical development. But sooner or later everything exhausts itself and at each new frontier new ideas and projects are required.
The pathetic attempts of the current government to pick up at least some kind of ideology, either flirting with religion, or declaring the state’s goal to support entrepreneurship, or declaring patriotism as an ideology, have no response among the people and do not capture the masses.
Religion, for example, cannot be an ideology. And the point is not that the times of religions have passed, but that religion does not set goals for the state and society, does not interpret the idea of the existence of the state. Religion does not explain to us why Russia exists, why the people must endure their power and their sometimes unjust state. ...Finally, religion does not indicate the path along which our people will go into the future.
Moses led his people through the desert for 40 years in search of the Promised Land. He referred to the highest authority of God, who promised, as the legend goes, the Jewish people happiness in the new land. And where are the Russian people led by their elite, the President with the State Duma and United Russia? For what are all these costs that people must endure in the process of searching for a goal? Why is this operation in Syria, why all these Caliber missiles, S-400, S-500 complexes and nuclear submarines, if Russia is torn apart from the inside and is about to be blown up?
Returning to the issue of religion as an ideology, it should be stated: religion is focused on a relatively small percentage of the believing population. For others, it either does not exist or is an element of folklore and nothing more. And what about Muslims or atheists, with whom Russian society is fairly diluted? In a word, religion is not suitable and does not suit ideology. Rather, it is a dividing and hostile social institution. By the way, the new leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church does not particularly hide its corporate interests and political views, having adopted sharply anti-Soviet rhetoric in its preaching activities. There are rumors that Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), known for his vicious anti-Sovietism, is allegedly the confessor of the President. What does this confessor whisper to his spiritual child during their spiritual conversations? One can only guess what partly explains the anti-Soviet verbal blunders of our President.
However, the main disadvantage of Orthodoxy as an ideology is not only that the religion has no future and attempts to revive it are an empty and harmful undertaking. Orthodoxy, like any religion, is a medieval feudal institution, unable to respond to the modern challenges that hyperindustrialism and globalism pose to humanity. What can Orthodoxy give us under these conditions? Complex social formations require deep scientific and moral understanding. The moral component at this stage is no less important than at the stage of transition, for example, from feudalism to capitalism. But morality has long been desacralized and reference to the highest authority in the person of the mythical God simply does not work. Humanism has long been divorced from religion and exists independently. Why do we need medieval Orthodoxy and the church organization of the Russian Orthodox Church? Let's leave them for weak people who find it difficult to live without it, especially since they are still not capable of intellectual comprehension of the challenges that humanity faces at the current stage of development.
Russia needs an ideology that unites society, unites it around its elite, sets higher goals for the people and the state, and reveals super-tasks. And so that we don’t hear any more presidential blunders and don’t watch television series on television with constant anti-Soviet overtones, the new ideology must proclaim the unity of Russian history and the equal value for society of all its stages, including the most outstanding and heroic period of Russian history - the Soviet one. Anti-Sovietism and Russophobia should be taboo. Otherwise we will fall apart as a society and we will have no future.
Does the Russian Orthodox Church have a moral right?
for mentoring in government affairs?
The idea of this article is not at all to stigmatize religion and Orthodoxy. But since we touched on the topic of ideology, the Russian Orthodox Church, which so persistently strives at all times to occupy an ideological niche, will receive here in full. Let me remind you of the fatal role of the Russian Orthodox Church, due to which Russia found itself on the outskirts of European civilization and stuck between the world cultures of East and West, and the Russian people never realized themselves as a European nation.
It is foolish to condemn only Prince Vladimir, who adopted Orthodoxy, for the wrongness of his civilizational choice. Everyone makes mistakes, especially statesmen who stand at the crossroads of historical development. Let us leave to the children the parable of Nestor the Chronicler as retold by the historian N. Karamzin, who picturesquely described the casting arranged by Vladimir for representatives of the Abrahamic religions. Let us try to reproduce the political logic of the prince, who was faced with the most difficult and urgent task of uniting the Russian principalities under a single crown and at the same time maintaining sovereignty in the face of political pressure and encroachments from an already fairly established Europe. Prince Vladimir, just like President Vladimir, needed ideology. In those distant times, any power that aspires to a state scale was faced with the need to justify its legitimacy. But only religion and the organization that personified it were able to provide such legitimacy. Monotheistic Christianity actually reflected the formula “one God in Heaven, one monarch on Earth,” so necessary for the unification of Russian lands under a single government. The prince’s choice in favor of the Byzantine Christian rite, of course, is ridiculous to justify Karamzin’s naive charm with the eloquence of missionaries from Orthodox Byzantium and the delight of Vladimir’s ambassadors with the splendor and luxury of the churches of Constantinople - let’s leave that to the children. But the desire to preserve sovereignty from an overly active Europe and the Pope looks quite rational and politically wise. Thus, the tragedy of the future centuries-old backwardness of Rus' and the future Russia in isolation from enlightened Europe is not fair to explain by the political myopia of the prince. Patriarch Kirill, for example, honestly and openly comments on attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church from a critical public. He justifies Vladimir by the fact that in those distant times, Europe was not at all enlightened and prosperous, while Byzantium was fragrant and was clearly a more attractive model for borrowing a socio-political system. It was only later that Byzantium degraded and collapsed, and the Age of Enlightenment and rapid cultural development began in Europe, which, indeed, was not obvious in the era of Prince Vladimir.
And yet, in the history of Rus' there were chances to smoothly merge into European civilization and unite the Russian people of European origin with the family of the rest of the peoples of Europe. One of them was the choice of Prince Alexander Nevsky, when Rus' could unite with Europe against the Horde and thereby prevent the nearly 300-year Mongol-Tatar yoke. But Prince Alexander Nevsky, encouraged by the Orthodox clergy, made an insane choice in favor of the barbarian Horde, rejecting the hand extended by Europe in the person of the Pope, hated by the Orthodox church elite. For centuries, Rus' plunged into dark times and into slavish dependence on the wild and barbaric steppe “suzerain.” The Russian Orthodox Church, pursuing its narrow corporate interests in the form of economic and political benefits, established cooperation with the Horde and reoriented Rus' towards its barbaric eastern neighbor. As a result of this choice, Rus' and the future Russia fell 700 years behind its European neighbors. The first universities, founded in Europe in the 11th century, appeared in Russia only in the 18th century. Culture, science and industry were respectively postponed until the 19th century, receiving full development only in the Soviet period of the 20th century.
But the harm that the Russian Orthodox Church caused to Russia lies not only in the fact that it tore the Russian people away from the European peoples, interrupting this natural connection and causing the country to lag behind in science and culture. The main thing, perhaps, is that the Orthodox Church itself, being a dense barbaric offshoot of Christianity, not only did not take part in the development of sciences, patronizing them like its Roman Catholic sister, but also with its obscurantism oppressed even those scientific thoughts that timidly originated in Russia. Until the end of the 19th century, the Russian Orthodox Church continued to persecute scientists, allowing itself completely wild antics. By the way, Alexander Nevzorov talks about this in detail in his educational series “Lessons of Atheism” - see on the Internet.
So let us answer ourselves, can this most harmful medieval barbaric organization of the Russian Orthodox Church become our spiritual mentor and sanctify our path to new frontiers of historical development?
Out of false political correctness, let’s not pretend that all this just happens and the people choose their own spiritual guide. Orthodoxy, as an ideology, is persistently being introduced into the life of Russians and the activities of the state completely artificially. Under the presidential patronage, the Russian Orthodox Church launched its greedy tentacles into all spheres of social life: school, university, army, etc. From the state budget, that is, from taxpayer funds, the Russian Orthodox Church is actively subsidized. With these funds, countless churches are built within the so-called walking distance, museum real estate is transferred, which never belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church, since until 1917 it was state property. Consider the brazen attempts of the Russian Orthodox Church to acquire St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, which was also never the property of the Russian Orthodox Church and it never had anything to do with its construction. Why on earth is the priceless cultural heritage of the people being transferred to a private company, the Russian Orthodox Church? I repeat, the ROC is a private commercial company, which, by the way, for unknown reasons, is exempt from taxes. Huge amounts of money in the form of “black cash” flow into this company, but there are no taxes!
Let us not blush to be ashamed of the obvious fact that the Orthodox religion is being implanted in Russia artificially and purposefully. Its role is to form an ignorant, and therefore helpless and submissive mass of slaves who can be exploited unlimitedly in the obviously inefficient capitalist economy of Russia. Well, the more intensively you need to exploit it!
A short excursion into a delicate topic
The Russian Orthodox Church's claims to a role in the revival of morality and spirituality raise the question of whether this organization itself is moral? For ethical reasons and political correctness, the history of collaboration between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Nazis during the Second World War is stubbornly kept silent. The cooperation of the Russian Orthodox Church with the German invaders in the occupied territories of the USSR is well known. But the most unpleasant discovery is the history of the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), with which such a solemn reunion of the Russian Orthodox Church recently took place, with the Nazi command of Nazi Germany - read “Metropolitan Anastasius’s Address of Gratitude to Hitler on June 12, 1938.” Driven by its corporate interests, at a time when the entire civilized world, putting aside political differences, united against Hitler’s Germany, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR) blessed this fascist regime - see materials on the Internet.
But the Russian Orthodox Church was not going to appreciate the generosity and political correctness addressed to itself by the Soviet government and respond in kind. Having suffered battle losses in the Civil War, in which the Russian Orthodox Church took a side hostile to the people's Red Army and the people's Soviet power, the Orthodox clergy harbored a sense of revenge for a long time. And so, after the treacherous defeat of the USSR in the Cold War, the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church with pleasure rushed to tear up and mix the hated Soviet regime with dirt. The Russian Orthodox Church is still trying to satisfy its feelings of revenge. Orthodox leaders still curse the Soviet system, without “complexing” with the fact that the moral character of Soviet society was not commensurately higher than the new Russian society, spiritually led by the Russian Orthodox Church. The Orthodox clergy does not care about the spirituality and moral character of society, they only care about business! Business and only business on stupid and weak people, dispossessed as a result of the collapse of the state. The arrogant pig faces of Orthodox priests “neigh” from the TV screens and revel in their power over their stupid flock.
So maybe Russia needs European integration?
Criticizing history is counterproductive. Modern Russia is a completed product of the historical process and the subjunctive mood is not appropriate in the analysis of the current situation. The times of religions are over and the Christian Church has long ceased to play any significant role in the life of societies and states of European civilization. Attempts to revive Orthodoxy in Russia are an empty idea, only squandering the resources necessary for investing in the development of Russia. Who will need all these temples within walking distance that are growing like mushrooms if religion has no future. As soon as the government curtails this project and stops forcibly promoting and financing it, all the new temple buildings will be abandoned and, at best, they will be used as clubs, and at worst, they will be demolished as unnecessary.
The introduction of Protestant and Catholic rites to Western Christian Churches, like the European integration of Russia, will also not change anything. Europe can no longer be made healthier, and Russia cannot be made more cultural. Europe and Russia are complete civilizations. And the achievements of culture and science have long ceased to be a monopoly of Europe, being the heritage of humanity, which we only need to put into practice. This requires political will, which is so mediocrely and senselessly used in attempts to revive religiosity in Russia. Against this background, literature, art, theater, the unique Russian ballet and cinema, which received such high development during the Soviet period, are degrading. And the problem again rests on the lack of a creative state ideology, without which the state is not able to formulate a state order for cultural products. Under these conditions, culture will not be revived. Stewed in its own juice, culture can only decompose, showing us cheap commercial “pop”, ugly creations in the form of stupid television series or installations by so-called gallery owners. But Russian society so needs not false religious spirituality, but creative and developing secular spirituality!
Regarding European integration, which is so advocated by liberal-minded figures, we should clearly define what we actually need in the European experience and whether it is possible to join it by integrating into European structures. Integration into the bureaucratic structures of the European Union, as the Baltic republics did or Ukraine is trying to “break in,” will, of course, bring us nothing. We need to build Europe “under our feet.” What exactly is Europe? Ukrainian society, for example, fascinated by the European standard of living and achievements, is not able to understand what the European phenomenon is. Official anti-Sovietism is to blame for this, confusing Ukrainians who feel a natural need for modern society for a fair social structure of the state. Europe is, first of all, a social democratic (socialist) social system. The speculations of stupid leavened Orthodox patriots about the supposed moral decay of European post-Christian societies are already confusing Russian society. Meanwhile, European socialism represents the highest moral state of society, which presupposes social justice, equality and social protection of the population, limits the exploitation of man by man, presupposes the protection of natural rights and freedoms, respect for human life, health and dignity. Yes, sometimes this takes on somewhat perverted forms in the form of inadequate promotion of the interests of homosexuals. But this does not indicate a sick society. Perhaps this is a neophyte overlap that accompanies the current state of Europeans. We need to build European socialism in Russia and popularize it in our confused society!
Patriotism as an ideology
Another initiative of the President, after a not entirely successful attempt to re-instill Orthodoxy, was the announcement of patriotism as a state ideology. Well what can I say? There’s really nothing special... Patriotism is not an ideology. It manifests itself, rather, as a result of the people’s awareness of a leading and unifying idea. Patriotism embraces the masses only when they are seized by an idea. Soviet patriotism at one time was not promoted as an ideology; it manifested itself as a result of the Soviet people’s awareness of their participation in the construction of a new, fair state, when all layers of society, without exception, who in the pre-revolutionary Russian Empire were superfluous people forced to win their place every day, were involved in the process under the sun. Everyone was called upon to build a new type of socialist state. Every pair of working hands, the knowledge of every engineer or doctor were valued, and acquiring knowledge became a cult.
Nothing else can explain the patriotic impulse of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War, as a result of which they won a dazzling victory. And the call “for the Motherland, for Stalin!” was not a propaganda fiction, but really existed.
Unfortunately, in the First World War, the Russian people did not show similar patriotism and ordinary Orthodox men deserted en masse from the front. The people simply did not understand what and for whom they were fighting, and this man did not see the point in shedding blood for someone’s interests and defending a state that does not protect the social interests of the peasant. The Orthodox ideology did not help either, which ended with the throwing of priests from church bell towers by these same baptized Orthodox men who regularly took communion. After all, it was not Trotsky and Lenin who personally threw the priests off the bell towers - they did not even call for these senseless actions, as the current supporters of the “Orthodox idyll” claim.
Sense of justice
Sometimes you hear demagogic rantings that justice does not exist at all, that each person has his own understanding of justice. They say that justice for ordinary workers consists in working as little as possible and getting as much as possible. For an entrepreneur, justice consists in not paying taxes, but in squeezing as much as possible out of an employee, paying as little as possible. In a word, they give different examples, but they are all examples of injustice, and the reasoning is pure demagoguery. A sense of justice exists objectively and is not only a social phenomenon, but also inherent in human nature. And, perhaps, not only in humans, but also in our lesser brothers who are more or less intelligent. Try, for example, punishing a dog for not completely violating the order to which you have taught the animal. I think that, at best, she will be offended by the unfair owner for a long time. I know what I’m talking about - there was an example in my life when dog handlers advised me to raise a Doberman Pinscher dog strictly. I was young, not mature and I liked to demonstrate my power over the animal. The dog really got used to order and became very disciplined. “Having disturbed order,” as a rule, she came to confess herself, bowing her head and demonstrating her repentance with all her appearance. One day I got carried away and, without understanding, beat the dog. Not in a cruel way - rather for psychological suppression... But what was the reaction - my Dober attacked me and bit my hands, which I had to fight back with, to deep wounds. After this incident, I thought a lot and changed my attitude towards my dog and animals in general. Now, of course, I advise everyone to raise animals only with affection and love, not forgetting about justice. After all, animals understand everything and they also have a sense of justice!
Conclusions
So, what does Russia need for progressive development and survival in the 21st century in the conditions of fierce competition in the geopolitical arena?
Religion
Religion is offered to us. But religion is yesterday’s “ideology” turned to the past. Relig
Latest publications on related topics
Comings per page: 357
Religion is the opium of the people. The rightness of Lenin (as well as the author - Navalis, Marx and O. Bender) in this particular case was confirmed by the Orthodox Church. More precisely, its brightest representatives in one particular school. Although any religious schizophrenia could have manifested itself with the same success.
On April 12, 2012, for students of grade 1 A at the municipal educational institution "Vostryakovskaya Secondary School No. 3" it began in an unconventional way. During the “world around us” lesson, instead of stories about the Day of Cosmonautics and Yuri Gagarin, children began to be told about the death of Jesus Christ on Mount Golgotha and his resurrection from the dead, that the stars light up with the birth of the gods and on the day of Jesus Christ’s entry into Jerusalem it is necessary to go to Church of JSC "ROC" with willow branches. The children spent the entire lesson coloring eggs, and the next day there was to be a competition for the best egg. During the lesson there were posters with pictures of Jesus, prayers before studying, and other nonsense. Nobody stubbornly told the children about Yuri Gagarin that day. After hearing my daughter’s story, the next day I went to talk to the teacher....
In response to my questions on what basis the teacher was engaged in church propaganda without the permission of her parents, she stated that she had not done anything like that, but was talking about traditions in Russia. When asked why she talked about the death of Jesus and his resurrection, she stated that she had not told anything like that, but my daughter said that she had. Then the teacher stated that she would not make excuses in the presence of the child and that everything she did was according to the program. Then I demanded to provide a program that described the lessons taught with my child. I was sent to the director and told that the conversation was over. I demanded to remove the icon from the class, the teacher told me that if I don’t like it, then I can transfer my child to another school. I explained to her that it would be easier for me to transfer the teacher to another school. After that, I went to the methodologist, who did not give me the program and referred me to the director.
According to the director’s version, based on the need to talk about “Pysanki,” the teacher began to talk about the death of Jesus Christ on Mount Golgotha and his resurrection. That the stars light up with the birth of the gods and on the day of Jesus Christ’s entry into Jerusalem it is necessary to go to church with palm branches. After which the children spent the entire lesson coloring eggs. The primary school teacher could not justify her behavior with anything else, and at the same time she was very worried about how she could now talk about ancient Russian wooden buildings without mentioning the Old and New Testaments, if this directly intersects with the “red corner” of the Russian hut. And about the founders of Russian writing, this is generally impossible without the church.
They asked me to admit that my daughter has a problematic perception of religious topics and asked how, with such a beginning, I am going to continue sending my child to study at this school, they say that I am the only one in so many years at this school who has such a problematic perception of their activities and everything is for me suffering Orthodox parents will not adjust their children. And on April 12, the teacher’s projector broke down and she couldn’t show a film about Cosmonautics Day, and instead, high school students came and told 1st grade A students about such a wonderful national holiday, and for some reason only my daughter remembered only Golgotha (no high school students that day the first-graders didn’t have one and no one told them about Yuri Gagarin).
After listening to all this nonsense, I asked to copy the program for me and show me the passages in the program about the crucifixion, resurrection, palm resurrection, and other religious propaganda. In response, they told me that the teacher was simply answering questions from Orthodox children. I explained to the director and teacher that they would have to write everything that they told me to write as a response to my incoming letter with an outgoing number and answer all my questions in it. He answered that teachers discredit themselves in the eyes of their students by telling anti-scientific stories with a poor retelling of the Bible, with which parents teach astronomy, botany, geology, physics, mathematics, music and other disciplines. And how they are going to continue teaching children with their authority undermined is not entirely clear to me.
That showing disrespect on April 12 to the builders and residents of the Domodedovo airfield is the height of disrespect for the people around them. That according to the Soviet and Russian tradition, April 12 is celebrated as Cosmonautics Day, and according to the Russian tradition, “International Aviation and Cosmonautics Day,” which is an international holiday and this holiday is approved by the UN. He said that any religious propaganda brings discord to the children's community in a secular educational institution, and I categorically object to such propaganda in relation to my children. I expressed surprise that the teachers do not understand simple things, that having given the school the most expensive thing I have and having given them a credit of trust, I am going to continue to monitor the quality of their work, and that the quality does not suit me and the teacher did not justify the given credit of trust, and now I will monitor her work more carefully.
This formulation of the question clearly did not suit them, it surprised and upset them (as I understood, they were going to do with the children something that they were not going to initiate their parents into). As a result of the conversation, the school director tried to smooth out the conflict, saying that even though the minister of the nearest church wanders around the school and gives icons to all classes, she will hold a meeting with 12 primary school teachers on the subject of what children do not need directly as living to tell about God and what will be explained to them, what needs to be said, they say that there are different people who believe in different things and there is one group of people (ROC) who believes in such and such, but their faith is not the only one, and on everything has a scientific explanation. But she will not remove the icon from the class, because... there are children who really need it.
This is a brief retelling of the meeting with a fair reduction and conveying the main meaning.
In general, I was dissatisfied with the meeting, although I saw the fear in these people about what they had done, apparently they thought that none of the parents would react to their prank. Therefore, I will write a letter with a notification of delivery addressed to the school director, demanding that icons and their photographs be removed from the classroom and corridors and that my child be protected from the influence of their religion. I will publish the letter on my page. Based on the results of the correspondence, the general parent meeting and the reaction to my appeals, I will publish a detailed article in my magazine and in the SKEPSIS magazine about how religion is being pushed into educational institutions...