RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS|
|
|
Links
to Useful
Information |
And so, the sentencing in the Okhotin case has nevertheless been carried out. And it was carried out in just such a form as could have been predicted. When the question of the "seizure of material support" was finally decided and there was something to be reported to superiors, our bureaucrats and justices tried "to give the minimum." Such a scenario was worked out to the slightest element and each detail was prepared and known beforehand. It is sufficient to recall episodes of the bureaucratic struggle against "nontraditional confessions" (Catholics, Baptists, "Alternative" Orthodox, and Old Believers), a struggle that our site has followed, and it becomes clear that the systemic bonds that once held the soviet machine together and prevented it from breaking up have not gone away but continue to bind and compress society without giving it the possibility of conducting internal reconceptualization and reforms.
Actually, it is difficult to believe that even such an ideocratic society as the soviet one was held together by proletarian consciousness. The support of all regimes based on the specific understanding of freedom as "freedom to fulfill the orders of the party and government, and the freedom in the event of their nonfulfillment to be sent to the national (variant: "Komsomol") structures" was, is, and remains the undivided and almost uncontrolled power of the bureaucratic apparatus that takes upon itself in these conditions security functions that are not proper for government workers in a democratic society.
Okhotin did not notice a sign about the limitation on the sum of money and he filled out his declaration and he walked along the "green corridor." And there his own habit of looking down at the ground with his head bent forward served him badly. The alert customs official, standing on guard not only for the coffers of the motherland (so that nothing be taken out) but also guarding against a surplus piece of bread for those to whom it was not allotted, did not fail to do his official duty. He simply acted within the framework of a programmed scenario whose ideological goal was maintaining the stability and homogeneity of the system.
Our survey showed that an insignificant majority of our readers tended to favor the answer: "The fault lies in the corruption at customs of which the pastor became a victim." Unfortunately Russians are accustomed to deceive, conceal, and skirt the laws even when there is no need to. A Russian who had secret petrodollars in his shorts would go through customs with a proud look but a drunken gait. And he would come out and surrender everything that someone demanded. The corruption at customs is the corruption in the heart and soul of modern man who lives a lie, invents a lie, and consumes a lie. And when some writer (a prophet is not followed in his fatherland) suggests to him "to live not by a lie," then our contemporary only smirks: if "not by a lie" than by what should one live?
The judge in the trial, trying to maintain the honor of the officials, stated that "it is possible to import contributions if this action is not concealed, for example, by a check," understanding quite well that Russia was, is, and remains a country of "cash" and no normal person (except prominent businessmen) trusts any "credit card" there. Just recently a hypnotist thief who had confused the mind of the athlete Yulia Shestakovich forced her to take this very thief to her home. And what was at the home of this simple soviet swimmer? Thirty thousand dollars in pure cash, dear readers! And after this the judge seriously pondered what should and should not be done!
Actually the defendant was not quite right when he said that "the legal system has covered over the iniquities of the customs officials." The legal system in Russia is now a pure fiction, as any attorney will tell you. If some bureaucratic brethren want to convict someone in order to please the more highly placed bureaucrats, then no "dictatorship of law" will prevent them. Just like Valentin of Suzdal was convicted (conditionally) on absurd and falsified accusations, and like Apolinary of Kursk was found guilty of smuggling, and like Catholic priests were deprived of their residency permits, that is how Andrew Okhotin has been treated.
At the beginning of our discussion we spoke of how an unhidden mechanism that maintains the equilibrium of the system in the absence of democracy and legality works to marginalize and restrict those who are distinguished from the rest (this rule was written by Herodotus). It is necessary to make here one correction: Orthodox Christians and clergy of RPTsMP, like the "conditionally sentenced" Okhotin, have exported and imported and will export and import money for church needs simply because the church can have its needs, decisions, and rules which require a rapid transfer of funds and this may not always be in accordance with civil, legal norms. It is just that while the "dominant church" brand may protect (although not always) its bearer from the bureaucratic reflex, the other believers do not have this prerogative. After all any bureaucrat understands that if he detains a wastrel priest or, God forbid, a solid bishop, that person will still find a way to come out clean but he will be in hot water. One must not touch one's own. It's like the traffic police; even if an officer is behind the wheel in a drunken state no officer on duty will fine him. Otherwise the system will fall apart. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 August 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
A Moscow court on Friday found U.S. missionary Andrew Okhotin guilty of trying to smuggle $48,000 through Sheremetyevo Airport and handed down a suspended sentence of six months, as requested by prosecutors.
The court also ordered that the money -- which Okhotin said was from donations intended for Russia's Baptist congregations -- be turned over to state coffers.
Okhotin, 28, was detained with the cash after flying in from New York in March. He testified at the trial, which started two weeks ago, that he had inadvertently chosen the customs corridor intended for travelers with nothing to declare but had made no attempt to conceal the money.
Judge Igor Yakovlev ordered the confiscation of the $48,000 along with $10 in personal money that Okhotin had carried with him.
"The money is being taken away from believers. This is simple injustice!" Okhotin's brother David cried out at the judge after the verdict was read.
Yakovlev said in his verdict that he had handed down a mild sentence due to scores of excellent character references that Okhotin had received from religious leaders and university professors in the United States, and to the fact that he was the main breadwinner for his small child.
In that, the judge confused Okhotin with his brother.
David Okhotin and his wife have a nine-month-old daughter, whom they brought to Friday's hearing, but Andrew Okhotin is childless.
"This just shows their [lack of] attention to details," Andrew Okhotin said. "If they wrote the verdict with so much diligence that they ascribed a child to me, no wonder they ascribed some other things to me as well."
Okhotin and his lawyer, Vladimir Ryakhovsky, said they would appeal, up to the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary.
Okhotin's Russian visa expires Sept. 1, but he said he hopes to get an extension and would stay in the country as long as it takes to get the verdict overturned.
"What else can I do?" Okhotin said. "If you got robbed and that illegality was covered up by law, what would you do?"
Okhotin has said airport customs officials tried to solicit a hefty bribe from him, and threatened him with imprisonment or worse if he refused to pay. No charges on the bribe allegation were filed.
Okhotin called the verdict "a gross miscarriage of justice" and said it presented "a very tragic picture of the realities of Russia."
He insisted that the only reason he was charged was due to a mistake or wrongdoing on the part of customs officials, and accused the court of covering up the action.
"I saw [corruption] all the way along, but I hoped that the court would put an end to that," Okhotin said. "Today I saw that the court endorses illegality."
The law places no restriction on the amount of cash that can be brought into the country, as long as anything above $10,000 is declared. If Okhotin had chosen the right customs corridor -- the "red" one for those with items to declare -- officials would have simply stamped his declaration form and waved him through.
But the mere entering of the other, "green" customs corridor is regarded as tantamount to a statement that the traveler has nothing to declare, customs legal expert Alexei Ionov testified at the trial. If something subject to declaration is then found, the person may be charged with smuggling contraband.
Okhotin had a properly filled-out declaration form, which he said he presented at the officials' request. But customs agents insisted that Okhotin had dodged their questions about how much cash he was carrying and failed to immediately present his declaration form.
"The court does not trust the testimony of the defendant, and believes that his statements were made with the goal of avoiding punishment for a crime and ensuring the return of the smuggled money," Yakovlev said in his verdict.
A six-month suspended sentence is the lightest allowed by the law in contraband cases, and prosecutors asked the court to impose it last Wednesday. Okhotin's lawyers interpreted the request as an acknowledgement that the prosecution did not have much of a case.
Okhotin's mother, Lyudmila, sighed audibly and shook her head when the verdict was read out. "I had in no way expected such a decision," she said.
Defense lawyers argued that bringing into the country something that is not banned or restricted by law does not constitute contraband, even if the traveler mistakenly enters the wrong customs corridor. They also insisted that the prosecution failed to prove Okhotin's intent to commit a crime -- an essential requirement for a conviction on contraband charges.
Okhotin, a student in Harvard's Master of Theological Studies program, had a letter showing that the money was from donations collected in the United States by the Russian Evangelist Ministry. The group was founded by his father, Vladimir, who emigrated to the United States in 1989 after serving two years in a Soviet prison for his "anti-Soviet activities" -- a common charge for religious believers who refused to work as informers for the secret police.
David Okhotin said after the verdict that no charges would have been filed if Okhotin had been bringing money for the Russian Orthodox Church.
"If he had carried drug money for the needs of the Orthodox Church, they wouldn't have said a word," he said. The Russian Orthodox Church enjoys warm relations with the state and pushed the government into adopting in 1997 a law that enshrines the church as one of Russia's four main religions and sharply curtails the rights of other confessions.
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Today the Golovinsky court found twenty-eight-year-old Andrew John, a member of the Russian Evangelical church from USA, guilty of contraband in accordance with article 188, part 1 of the Criminal Code of RF and sentenced him to six months imprisonment. However, even this minimal term is not to be carried out and is considered conditionally postponed for six months, a Portal-credo.ru correspondent reports. As indicated in the ruling of the court, on 29 March 2003, after arriving at Sheremetevo on flight 031, New York to Moscow, Okhotin tried to bring in 48,010 US dollars, "intentionally" concealing this money and "not presenting a customs declaration." The court decided to turn the money over to the government since it was a contraband object.
For almost five hours Andrei Okhotin and a small group of reporters waited for the reading of the sentence. During this time Judge Yakovlev, as the attorney Vladimir Riakhovsky later said, "established the intent" of a crime, since the American guest brought to Russia contributions "from Christians of USA to Christians of Russia" and had in his possession a letter from the presbyter of the Russian Evangelical church which indicated the purposes for which this money was sent. Okhotin testified that he went along the green corridor, because the stewardess in the plane told him that since he did not intend to take the money out of Russia it was not necessary to declare it.
Among the advertising billboards and announcements he did not notice a sign indicating that one could go along the green corridor only with a sum not exceeding 10,000 dollars. "If he had understood, then he would have gone along the red corridor," the ruling of the court notes. "He immediately presented the letter and declaration for this money. During the customs inspection he never answered negatively." In this situation Judge Yakovlev found criminal intent in "Okhotin's forethought, being afraid of his accompanying letter and declaration." The judge declared that it is possible to import "contributions, if this action is not concealed, for example, in the form of a check," and the attempt to bring them in "secretly" is a criminal motive.
Trying at the same time to give a minimum sentence for an obviously serious crime, the judge even wrote in the ruling that he "recommends himself by virtue of his place of residence and his work in the church," and he even took note of the presence of a minor child in the person of the ten-month old nephew whom Okhotin's brother, David, brought to the trial, who had met him at the airport. The affidavit not to leave the city was extended to the time when the sentence takes effect. Andrei Okhotin's visa expires on 1 September, so that after that date he will have to decide whether to extend it again or to fly home. However he thinks it necessary to remain in Moscow until he achieves acquittal.
"In establishing intent, the court did not gave an assessment of the defense claim that the action does not constitute a crime when a customs response is not required," attorney Vladimir Riakhovsky declared. "According to law, it is possible to import an unrestricted sum and no permission for its importation is needed. Contraband is something that is restricted, and which is forbidden to import, when 'I did not declare it in order to bring it in unnoticed.' We will file an appeal and the case will be reviewed in the college for criminal affairs of the Moscow city court. Then it will be possible to prove in the Supreme Court that this cannot be contraband."
"The legal system has covered up the iniquity of the customs agents," Andrei Okhotin told Portal-credo.ru: "The court did not believe my testimony, believing the testimony of the customs agents, and the customs agents refused to hand over the video tapes because the tapes contradict their testimony."
According to Okhotin, the money was collected by relatives living in USA for distribution to families with many children living in Russia. It is well known that the majority of families who are members of congregations of the Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists have more than three children, while the expenses for children in poor families in the provinces of Russia run 70 rubles a month. "If he had brought contraband money here for the sake, let's say, of official religions, nobody would have said a word, but since this is for the sake of believers who have always been hounded and who do not yield before the authorities, then they do everything possible to get him out of the country and to seize the money for themselves," David Okhotin noted. "As regards the money, it was documented that it did not belong to him. The owner has been deprived of his property by decision of the court in which he did not participate himself. The court should have identified the representative of the church to whom this money belongs," attorney Riakhovsky noted. (tr. by PDS, posted 22 August 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
On 21 August the "For the moral rebirth of the fatherland" public committee sent to [Mayor] Yury Luzhkov and the chief conductor of the Malyi Theatre, Yury Solomin, a letter demanding that the showing of Anzhelen Prelzhokazh's ballet "Annunciation" [Blagoveshchenie] be prohibited. The performance is supposed to be presented to a Moscow audience on 26 August as part of the "First festival of Grand Pas Ballet" on the stage of the Malyi Theatre.
The reason for the committee's action is that two dancers in the ballet portray the Angel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary in a clearly expressed sexual encounter and it promotes same-sex love.
The committee classifies the performance as "inciting religious strife." "Such provocations," the appeal of the public committee says, "represent a danger for our whole society and our constitutional system of government. This time the blasphemy being prepared is being conducted under the aegis of the government of Moscow and this makes the city authorities and primarily the mayor of the capital responsible for the crime and its consequences." In the letter to Yury Solomin the public committee affirms that "the performance of a blasphemous ballet on the stage of the Malyi Theatre will cause incomparably greater harm than its performance on any other stage. It will be viewed as a recognition that what is a blunt provocation has the right to be called art worthy of the art of Ermolova, the Sadovskys, and Sumbatov-Yuzhin who brought fame to the Malyi Theatre and Russian theatre." (tr. by PDS, posted 22 August 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
On 11 August 2003 the Zamoskvorechie district court issued an order that halted the criminal case on an accusation of commission of hooligan actions by Orthodox activists who participated in the pogrom of the "Beware, Religion!" exhibition that was conducted in the "Andrei Sakharov Museum and Community Center."
The court cited procedural violations committed in bringing the accusation and the absence of information "which would point to evidences of a crime." At the same time the citizens arrested by the police did not deny the fact of their violent actions with respect to the displays of the exhibit. Thus the court, in effect, expressed its solidarity with the position of the makers of the pogrom who insisted that their actions were justified and legal, since they were stopping a crime that supposedly was being committed by the exhibit's organizers.
The court's decision has created a dangerous precedent. It has opened before citizens the possibility of committing violence under the guise of statements that this violence is a response to actions that offend their religious or other feelings.
Substituting violence for legal forms of protest and protection of one's interests is, from our point of view, nothing more than a manifestation of extremism. Thus the decision of the Zamoskvorechie court in the case of the ransacking of the "Beware, Religion!" exhibit facilitates the expansion and justification of extremist actions.
The Moscow Helsinki Group perceives here a manifestation of an extremely dangerous tendency and it calls higher judicial instances to take note of the decision of the Zamoskvorechie district court and to initiate procedures in the case of hooligan actions with regard to the "Beware, Religion!" exhibit. (tr. by PDS, posted 22 August 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
In recent months an unceasing judicial process has been going on of the rights defense group "For human rights" against the textbook by Alla Borodina, "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture." The sides have filed countersuits and the case has been transferred from one court to another. Our correspondent met with the leader of the rights defenders, Lev Alexandrovich Ponomarev, in order to investigate the causes of such a negative reaction.
--Lev Alexandrovich, your "For human rights" movement has conducted a judicial process against the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook. What is the cause for such a harsh position?
--The appearance of this textbook is a natural event, if one considers everything that has happened in the country. In Russia there is an attempt to create a new state ideology based on Orthodoxy. It is not surprising that this illiterate, carelessly written textbook was recommended by the commission of the Ministry of Enlightenment and has begun being inserted into the schools gradually. I think that the ideological association of the state and the Orthodox church violates the constitution of the Russian federation and cannot lead to anything good for either the state or the church itself.
The crisis of 1917 occurred largely because the Orthodox church was a state church and did not have the possibility of putting up moral resistance to the bolsheviks. Nevertheless now there are in the church itself many people who I call Orthodox bolsheviks, who want to get everything, and right away: money, approval of the authorities. But this is incorrect; society itself should resist such attempts.
--What specific claims do you make against the text of the book?
--First of all this is incitement of interconfessional strife. It is clear that a book with the title "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" has to reflect the position of the Orthodox church, but at the same time it is quite unnecessary to call every other confession or religion a sect. Obviously the authors of the textbook put a negative tone on this word. As a result very many ancient churches, for example the Armenian Apostolic, are declared sectarian or heretical, which can have a negative effect on relations among people.
Then Anna Borodina too zealously and ardently defends all positions of the Orthodox church. A textbook for a secular school has a clearly apologetical character. In spirit this is not "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture," but the "Law of God." It seems to me that it is impermissible to have in a textbook for general education schools such assignments as "Explain what satanism is," or "What is the heresy of the monophysites?" Very many facts are conveyed as indisputable truth and this also seems not quite correct. When the subject is the Turin shroud the writer says that the image was formed as the result of a nuclear explosion and cites NASA, but alternative points of view are not at all introduced.
Finally, this book incites interethnic strife. It is shot through with antisemitism. The story about how the Jews demanded the crucifixion of Christ is completely incorrect. The book makes no attempt to give an historical explanation of events; actually the greater part of the people loved Christ and his execution was demanded only by the ecclesiastical and political leaders.
In addition, speaking of the causes of the crucifixion, Alla Borodina adds: "This is understandable, since this people could not recognize Christ as the true Messiah." This is direct disrespect for the nation that could lead to both antisemitism and racism. This one phrase is all it takes for this book to be prohibited, since all conclusions of the author are laid onto the children who take a textual resource as truth in the last instance.
--Yes, but the teaching of this subject is voluntary, so that any child can refuse the class. Is it worth taking recourse to such harsh steps as going to court?
--This elective subject is in the state schedule and it uses the resources of the state schools, which already speaks for itself. We have the sad example of the teaching of the fundamentals of Orthodox culture in the Nogin district of Moscow province. Parents of those children who did not want to take this class had to write a declaration to the director of the school. So that actually it turned out to be "voluntary compulsion," since who is going to risk writing such a paper out of fear of unpleasant consequences. In addition, the very recommendation of the Ministry of Education leads to a director of a school taking this text as very authoritative and he will consider himself obliged to put this subject into play.
In general in a multiconfessional and multiethnic country the fundamentals of Orthodox culture should hardly be promoted with state help, even if this were a remarkable textbook and the teaching really did have a voluntary character.
--That is, you think that in the secular schools it is wrong to introduce a course that acquaints the children with the fundamentals of religion?
--It is wrong to tell children about faith from the point of view of one confession only. There is another version that has been drawn up by the Ministry of Education--to introduce into the schools a "Fundamentals of World Religions" course. Such a textbook should be written by a group of famous culturologists and religious studies experts, and they should not have a confessional agenda.
It is possible to teach the fundamentals of humanism. After all, in the final analysis all religions teach respect for the human individual and helping people, and such an approach can only be welcomed.
--Proponents of teaching Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture in the schools give an example of the experience of the Nogin district you mentioned. In their words, after the introduction of this course the number of crimes by children dropped and pupils began using fewer drugs.
--It is impossible to use reports of bureaucrats. I am confident that this is absolute stupidity. This is a very dangerous bureaucratic approach to complex religious problems, and it cannot be based on the adoption of an illiterate textbook.
--Your opponents think that you and Evgeny Ikhlov are fighting not against a specific textbook but against the entire Orthodox church as a whole. What can you say to them?
--Such accusations against us are baseless, despite the fact that our opponents also went to court. On the contrary, we are protecting the Orthodox church by fighting against this illiterate textbook. That Alla Borodina's book cannot withstand any criticism was admitted by such a famous Orthodox figure as Deacon Andrei Kuraev. We are not acting against the Orthodox church as a whole. If someone wants very much to deal with us on a legal basis, then we demand strict observance of the constitution.
--Aren't you violating the very rights of Orthodox children and their parents, who want to learn more about their faith?
--We do not have a single appeal from parents who would testify that they cannot satisfy the need to study the fundamentals of Orthodoxy. It seems to me that Sunday schools and Orthodox gymnasia fully cope with this. At least, no one has said that these institutions are overcrowded and are not coping with an enormous flood of persons wishing for it. The fundamentals of the Orthodox and any other religious tradition can be taught in Sunday schools. Secular education should be free from confessional prejudices. (tr. by PDS, posted 20 August 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
On Monday, 11 August, hundreds of picketers welcomed the decision of the Zamoskvorechie court of the city of Moscow that found the instigation of a criminal case by the prosecutor of Tagan district with respect to Roman Frolov and Mikhail Liukshin on the "hooliganism" article to be illegal. We recall that on 18 January of this year they and another four persons broke up and smeared paint on displays in the "Beware, Religion!" exhibit that was being held in the Andrei Sakharov Museum. The opening of the criminal case against the six persons who attacked the exhibit evoked a stormy reaction by clergy and laity of RPTs. Recently the prosecutor of Tagan district initiated a criminal case against the Sakharov Museum on article 282 (incitement of religious strife). We have given the floor to two participants in the conflict, Archprist Alexander Shargunov, rector of the church of St. Nicholas in Pyzhi, who heads the "For the moral rebirth of the fatherland" public committee, and the director of the Sakharov center, Yury Samodurov.
--Fr Alexander, in one of your statements you wrote that what happened at the "Beware, Religion!" exhibit was a "conspiracy against the Russian Orthodox church." Do you consider that this event was a part of some kind of global campaign?
--Yes, without a doubt. This is why we used such a loud statement. Under the mask of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, at the present time the formation of a Russian "church of Satan" is underway. But freedom of conscience is not freedom from conscience. We understand that this is also connected with the political process and with the personal interests of many people. Take pornography: this brings in million. It may be that those who distribute pornography do not consider themselves satanists; their god is money, the Golden Calf, but it is one and the same.
Blasphemy was committed in a public place, open for adults and children to attend. It was widely advertised even in the news media. One can say that the boil has been lanced. And on this, as further events develop, depends either the healing or, on the contrary, the fatal infection of the entire social organism.
These people care little about the flood of immorality and obscenity on television. They go further. After all, to destroy a sacred object means to leave nothing sacred for humanity. They want to ignite a flame of opposition in our society. Our people are golden; they will go even to death for their faith. Three thousand people gathered around the building of the Zamoskvorechie court. I saw their calm, bright faces. They sang paschal songs and this was natural.
--In your view, how justified was the attack on the exhibit? Why shouldn't they complain against it is a judicial manner?
--Appeals were made to the prosecutor even before the attack. However the law enforcement agencies did not act. The law grants citizens the possibility of stopping the commission of a crime before their eyes.
The holy prelate Ambrose of Milan wrote of two forms of evil: "committing evil and not protecting others from evil." There was good reason for the use of the words "tools of crime" with regard to the exhibited works. They were compared to a knife, axe, or pistol. Both Mikhail Liukshin and Anatoly Ziakin and the others acted completely correctly and appropriately. After all, you cannot pass by when a woman is violated or a man is being killed next to you.
Take the spiritual aspect. Evil is growing in the world, becoming outrageous, and beginning to act openly. It has become more organized. New technologies permit instantaneous entry into any home with falsehood and obscenity. And when opposition to evil fails it is like the infection of the public organism with AIDS. Society becomes accustomed to evil. And this is horrible because to help a person recognize evil and view it with alarm and disgust and to react to it is the last hope.
--Is the interference of the church and believers in the life of art legitimate?
--The church does not interfere in art. However the "Beware, Religion" activity represented a crude violation of public order. There was no art as such in the exhibit; there were only monstrous collages. What was especially disturbing was the use in them of sacred icons. For us it does not matter that they were "mass produced and cheap," as defenders of the exhibit have written. For believers any icon is a sacred object that has value not by money but by the blood of Christ. Just as it does not matter whether a church is wooden or stone. Thus the desecration of sacred icons it absolutely the same as destruction of churches.
--In your opinion, what are the prospects for the criminal case on article 282 against the organizers of the exhibition?
--If the investigation is conducted professionally and if the court is honest, then we have no doubt about a guilty verdict. There are now in the Tagan prosecutor's office 7,000 appeals from citizens for opening a criminal case. I will not be surprised if the appeals to the prosecutor number not 7,000 but 7,000,000.
But in principle life has shown that it is necessary to pass a legislative standard "on offending believers' feelings." Even the atheistic government considered this a crime. Who can be against such a law? Only satanists, for sure. With maniacal persistence they continue their blasphemies. Among the blasphemers are the repeat offender Oleg Mavromati and Avdei Ter-Oganian, who acted four times.
Feofan the Hermit wrote that if "insults to the Lord and the Mother of God have appeared in the press, Russia cannot avoid great problems." "Rivers of blood will flow," he predicted, "because we have permitted this iniquity." Although he was distinguished by extraordinary love for people, he demanded strict punishment for atheist propaganda, since he knew what this could turn into for the country. And he turned out to be correct in the end.
It is very important to stop this crime and show the whole society that it is not only dangerous for spiritual health but also fraught with other harm. It is the business of the court and investigation to assess the seriousness of the situation. (tr. by PDS, posted 20 August 2003)
ORTHODOXY HAS BECOME AGGRESSIVE
NG-religii,
20 August 2003
--Yury Vadimovich Samodurov, how did the idea for the "Beware, Religion!" exhibit arise?
--Exhibits conducted by the Sakharov Museum are divided into two types. One of these is initiated by the museum itself and the others are ones artists offer to do if we give them space. The idea for this exhibit was brought to us by artist Arutiun Zulumian. His basic idea was that the aggressive aspect of religion is dangerous, while at the same time aggressive atheism and an aggressive attitude toward religious itself is also dangerous. I consider this idea extremely important and correct, because in the soviet period I saw priests who served people, overcoming a mass of difficulties, and for this I very much respected them. Now the recognition has arisen that Orthodoxy has become aggressive with respect to other confessions and it is trying to push Orthodox ideology as the only true and saving one.
The pendulum has swung to the other side. There have appeared the preconditions for the creation of such an unpleasant phenomenon as Orthodox totalitarianism that discriminates against atheists and believers of other confessions and religions. Aggressive proclamation of the idea that only a believing person is a moral person and only he is a bearer of the spiritual and cultural heritage of the country is for me absurd and pretentious.
--Did you not expect such a reaction on the part of believers?
--No, we did not even imagine such a development of events. Before this exhibit, for the most part, I simply did not know the authors. When I began talking with them it turned out that many of them, in particular the authors of the most criticized works, were Orthodox believers.
They were trying in a clear visual form to convey their concern that religion is becoming for certain church and parachurch circles a trade mark, a brand, or a political lever. The reaction of some representatives of the church also completely discouraged me. For example, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin has never come to our museum. He knows quite well that we do not fight against religion, and thus his harsh criticism against us was completely unexpected for me.
From my point of view, the most interesting and talented works were the ones subjected to the greatest criticism. For example, the advertising poster of Kosolapov with the stylized representation of Christ and the inscription "This is my blood," and the can of Coke. The artist expressed his rejection of the activity of those who try at all costs to push their wares and ideas onto people.
--Did it not occur to you to invite some expert religion scholar in order to get an evaluation of the extent to which the displays of the exhibit might be offensive for believers?
--But why? This can offend the feelings of believers only if they do not understand the meaning of the artist's creation. And even in that case, a believer does not have the right to destroy works. It is possible that I and our museum will be condemned for sacrilege. The question is whether in modern, secular society people can be convicted of sacrilege.
What is essential is this. If many of these works were hung in a church, then I myself would consider that an intentional insult. After all, in church one does not suspect intentional commerce in symbols that have meaning for believing people; you cannot give them a different meaning. But the space of an exhibition hall is intended for a different interpretation of a diversity of meaningful symbols.
An interpretation of religious symbols that is different from the church's should by no means be suspected of blasphemy. In art, the more meaningful a symbol, the more meaningful is its placement in a different context. This is a different interpretation, but it is not sacrilege. The main question in this situation is whether there exist in Russia legal limitations on the use of religious symbols for the creation of artistic forms and expressing different meanings and significance. If there are, then we, as law-abiding people, would not have begun showing some works in the "Beware, Religion!" exhibition. However I do not know of such restrictions. Indeed could they exist in a society where the church is separated from the state? If they introduce them, they will put prohibitions on the use of meaningful cultural, national, and other symbols.
--Would you repeat such an exhibition again after all that has happened?
--We have discussed what happened with our experts and we came to the opinion that this topic is even more critical than we thought previously, and it is so important that it is necessary to continue. And I think that if no legal restrictions on reinterpretation of religions symbols are published, then it is quite possible there will be another artistic exhibition. One would want to express in it a protest and alarm in connection with the way certain forces in the church are trying to create a state ideology in Russia out of Orthodoxy. Of course, the exhibition would have to be protected by security from possible pogroms. (tr. by PDS, posted 20 August 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items