RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS
|
Copyrighted material. For private use only. If you quote material, please credit the publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit this Web page for any print use of the material. If any electronic reproduction is made, please acknowledge the URL: http:www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/ |
|||
|
|
|
|
Information |
Ukrainian Pentecostals harassed
POLICE AND SPECIAL FORCES SOLDIERS BREAK INTO PROTESTANT CHURCH IN CRIMEAPortal-credo.ru, 10 August 2007
Soldiers of the "Berkut" [security agency] and criminal police wearing masks and carrying weapons on 1 August broke into the premises of the house of worship of the Church of Christians of Evangelical Faith in the city of Evpatorii during a worship service, the Christian Internet portal invictory.org reports, citing the church's press center.
According to an eyewitness, one of the Berkut soldiers demanded that the pastor stop praying and the other soldiers searched all the rooms and premises of the house of worship: "After this they ordered that everyone stay in their places. A list was composed of those present. All the men with ordered outside and photographed, and this was videotaped. The pastor of the church was arrested without any explanation of the reason of his detention, and he was taken to the police station. After several hours of intensive interrogation he was allowed to go home without any charges being issued. The majority of members of the church were shocked by what happened and the children were not able to settle down for a whole day. We do not know whether to view this as a mistake or as the beginning of new relations." (tr. by PDS, posted 12 August 2007)
PASTOR DESCRIBES DETAILS OF ATTACK ON CHURCH
Invictory.org, 10 August 2007
The pastor of the Ukrainian church of "Living Water" in the city of Evpatoria described for a correspondent of the portal Invictory.org the attack on the church by employees of "Berkut." "On Monday evening a police officer came to the house of worship and began questioning me about the activity of the church; how many years we have existed; who are members of the church. He explained his questioning by stating that a dangerous mental patient had appeared in the city and one of his victims saw him enter our church. I asked the officer to show me official permission for his interrogation. The next day he came with an official inquiry and began asking for me to show him lists of church members. He did not respond to my question why he needed the names of women and children and my suggestion that he summon all the men of the church. On Wednesday, during a service, around 18.10 ten armed employees of "Berkut" broke into the church. Elderly folk, many of whom had endured persecution during soviet times, and the children were very frightened. Behind the Berkut soldiers came police officers. They ordered everybody to remain in their places and they showed me something like a search warrant, but they did not let me read it. Without witnesses, they began searching the building and demanded five or six rooms for interrogation of church members. They posed mainly religious questions of a provocative nature. Then all the men were ordered outside the church and they began photographing. They questioned me separately; I was held about 4-5 hours; they took fingerprints and said to return on the next day. When I refused to sign some documents they began threatening. After a call from attorneys they released me, but I still have not received any charges. They promised to phone members of the church and they said that they will summon them. What was this about? At the police station they said that they are trying to find a dangerous maniac. We have another version; our church building is located in a very advantageous spot, a historical site in the center of the city. Thus such a 'raid' could be simply someone's banal order. For now we do not know this." (tr. by PDS, posted 12 August 2007)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Scientists' letter still around
QUANTUM METAPHYSICS. Arguments swirl about the letter of the academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences
by Vasilina Orlova
Moskovskie novosti, 10 August 2007
The polemics which were evoked by the letter of the academicians to President Vladimir Putin against the clericalization of society have not quieted. It seems that indignation erupted after a long silence. Previously such widespread protests somehow did not arise; the often derisive tone when religion came up really can be bracketed.
The academicians, respected people, cannot be suspected of seeking publicity. Their authority even determines the scope of the verbal battle since in general the concern they expressed has already been heard in one or another form. What is this concern? First of all, dissatisfaction "with the penetration of the church into every sphere of public life," supported by an appeal to the constitution of the Russian federation, which proclaims the secular character of the state. Then the problem of religious education and the inclusion of theology in the list of academic specialties of the Supreme Accreditation Commission [VAK].
At this point a definite "leap" occurs. The inclusion of theology in VAK is viewed as nothing other than the attack of the church on the sphere of science proper, at a time when the Catholic church "has practically completely renounced interference in the affairs of science." In the letter it is stated that all achievements of modern science are based on a materialist view of the world, and regarding the religious profession of scholars are marshaled the words of American physicist Steven Weinberg:: "The experience of the scholar makes religious completed insubstantial. The majority of scholars whom I know do not think at all about this topic. They think so little about religion that they cannot even be considered active atheists." It would be possible to recall also other legendary expressions on this theme. LaPlace answered Napoleon's question about the place in his scientific system for God that he has no need for God in the hypothesis.
Thus "the monopoly of the materialist view of the world," against which the Russian Orthodox church speaks, which is stated in appropriate propositions of the documents of the World Russian People's Assembly, is, in the opinion of the academicians, the only worldview base on which scientific discoveries are possible.
And still the academicians' thinking is concentrated in the first place on the educational system. The fact that the church is engaged with the military chaplaincy is mentioned in passing, although this also evokes disapproval; but the greatest concern condenses around "Foundations of Orthodox culture" in the school curriculum. They cite the resolution of the assembly requesting "recognition of the culturological significance of the teaching of the foundations of Orthodox culture and ethics." The idea of the introduction of foundations of Orthodox culture, which the academicians equate to the Law of God, as a required subject in the schools is viewed as "Orthodox chauvinism." They also mention Masha Shraiber (true, without the surname, but as a certain generic school child Masha) and her request to the Ministry of Education on the basis that she does not want to study the theory of Darwin on the origin of species, and they mention the words of Patriarch Alexis II: "There will be no harm to a pupil if he knows the biblical teaching about the origin of the world. And if someone wants to believe that he has descended from monkeys, let him think it, but don't force it onto others." This obviously polemical passage finally met a half year later a response not only on the part of the news media but also by the scientific community itself: "Incidentally, to be precise, neither Darwin nor his followers ever maintained that man descended from monkeys. It is maintained only that monkeys and man have common ancestors."
Between "biblical teaching about the origins of the world" and "facts firmly established by contemporary astrophysics and cosmology," irreconcilable contradictions are perceived. In conclusion one more time it is stated that nobody is trampling upon faith because it is a matter of conscience and the convictions of the individual and nobody is trying to fight against religion as such, although the academicians cannot "remain indifferent when attempts are made to cast doubt on scientific Knowledge." Just soÑKnowledge with a capital letter. Well this is clear. After all the chief method of the growth of knowledge with a small letter, practically final knowledge, is nothing other than Cartesian doubt.
The letter consisting of harsh expressions, as has already been said, evoked a flurry of debates about the relation of science and religion in the modern world. Patriarch Alexis II declared that "the church observes strictly the constitutional principle. The church does not interfere in the political life of the state and the state does not interfere in the church's life," but, he said, the church cannot be separated from society and the people. The patriarch's statement can hardly in fact "place a period" at the end of the argument as the advocates of "creeping clericalization" would wish (the expression of Viacheslav Glazychev's) as if the advocates can find the process named by such frightening words.
Earlier the Moscow patriarchate already thanked the academicians for initiating a broad discussion. As the vice-chairman of the Department for External Church Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin suggested, for the church the letter became a kind of informational occasion in order to state its principled position on a number of questions. In Fr Vsevolod's opinion, in the course of discussion they have already managed to state that the church does not aspire to become a part of the state apparatus.
Assessments of the letter on the part of the Orthodox community have varied from the extremes of a grand "new totalitarianism" (Natalia Narochnitskaia) to a dry "imposition of the materialist understanding of the world" (Deacon Andrei Kuraev). The tone of many "responses to Chamberlain" breathes of intolerance, hostility, and anger. There also were among these responses quite unacceptable ones that reeked of something like the torture chambers of the inquisition, which only made difficult that dialogue between representatives of science, the church, and culture for which society had so hoped at the beginning of such a multifaceted polemic. The "People's Assembly" Orthodox movement and the "Center for national defense" organization sent to the Moscow prosecutor's office neither more nor less than a declaration for opening a criminal case against Academician Vitaly Ginsburg, one of the most prominent authors of the letter. Supposedly the academician was guilty of inciting religious strife. And the "United Russia" site "Russian project" made out of the image of the academician a collage; he was dressed in prison garb and wore the number of the beast. The "Orthodox community" by the hands of its especially zealous representatives practically smothered the hope for a constructive conversation. In seeing all of this one involuntarily thinks that you do not want to bump into these people in a dark alley, since they may be let into the schools.
But statements in support of the academicians also had a certain inadequacy. It is unknown whether the authors of the letter counted on such support. Thus, the coordinator Maria Arbatova accused the clergy of "impermissible PR" and called for substituting "sex education" for the discipline of "Foundations of Orthodox culture" in the secondary schools, which should teach youth to use contraceptives wisely for the benefit of the general demographic situation in the country.
The letter was supported by literally the entire flower of our rights defenders. The leader of the gay movement Nikolai Alekseev raised his voice in support, and Viacheslav Glazychev advanced the idea that the Public Chamber declared its protest against clericalization. The head of the Congress of Jewish Religious Communities and Organizations of Russia, Rabbi Zinovii Kogan, however, did not support this idea. "The church is a part of society and thus to speak out on such vital questions is the church's sacred duty. I think that fear of God and love for traditions is what can unite Russia. I do not know of instances of interference by the church in governmental affairs," he said. And the cochairman of the Council of Muftis of Russia Nafigulla Ashirov, who once spoke out against the state symbol of Russia, in a letter to Patriarch Alexis II posed the question still more sharply: "Since when were representatives of RPTs in Russia given the prerogative and authority to decide the fate and future of other religions in the country?"
Minister of Education and Science Andrei Fursenko also spoke out in support of the academicians' letter. Despite the fact that his words were rather restrained, they provoked a regular flood of dissatisfaction. This was connected with the fact that Fursenko often has taken an irreconcilable position with regard to the prospects for teaching foundations of Orthodox culture in the schools.
The famous scholar Professor Sergei Kapitsa declared: "With regard to religion, science is the next stage on the way to knowledge of the world, the transition from a mythological or mytho-poetic description of the world to a scientific one."
This week in Moscow roundtables have been held and the participants have discussed the mutual relations between science and religion; all over the Internet the letter is being discussed, and on "Living Journal" they are collecting signatures against the clericalization of society, and no end is in sight. The open letter to the president has decidedly not been closed.
Apparently, in the very near future we will hear something yet more interesting in the discussion. On the whole, the bitterness and the argumentation of both sides testify to the almost tragic impossibility of agreement; and this is a sign of the serious division of society. Let's admit that science has no need of God as a scientific hypothesis, supplementing its picture of the world, but is it possible to say the same about humanistic knowledge? (tr. by PDS, posted 10 August 2007)
Russian original posted on Portal-credo.ru site, 10 August 2007
ATHEISTS QUARREL PEACEABLY WITH "MEN IN ROBES"
"Delo" roundtable of Academician Ginzburg in St. Petersburg: Russian scholars against clerics
by Aleksii Lebedev
Portal-credo.ru, 9 August 2007
Academician Ginzburg's "Delo" roundtable, "Russian scholars against clerics," was held on 8 August in the IA Rosbalt press center in St. Petersburg. Its participants included one of the signatories of the famous "academicians' letter" Evgeny Aleksandrov, physicist and academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN), and representatives of scientific and public organizations. Expression of the position of RPTsMP was entrusted to Archpriest Alexander Sorokin, president of the publishing department of the St. Petersburg diocese of RPTsMP. A correspondent from Portal-credo.ru followed the proceedings attentively.
Having phoned Rosbalt the day before for credentials, I heard from one of the workers the casual words: "Don't worry; we will admit everybody; for now about five people are registered." Nevertheless, after St. Petersburg's traditional cannon shot, at the Kochubei house of Konnogvardeisky boulevard, where the agency conducts its public events, there was a complete sell-out: around thirty journalists, four television cameras, and three photocorrespondents. The media community has taken lively interest in the growth of clericalism in society and the public allergy to this trend.
It became immediately clear to a general "confessional" glance that if one takes the sociological data which Patriarch Alexis II and Metropolitan Kirill usually cite, which say that 80-90 percent of the population of the Russian federation is Orthodox, the hall was occupied by representatives of the remaining 10 percent with the "non-" prefix. Thanks to my robe and cross I was able to find a place in the first row and I almost immediately heard a part of a conversation behind me: ". . . And if one still recalls the fires of the inquisition. . ." It became clear that society, in the persons of its representatives, whose fate has been delegated to the news media, craves satisfaction.
"It's the dead season; there is almost no news," a neighbor from the North-West News Agency shared his impressions. "The people have come."
The table, like at a good wedding, was abundantly festooned with speakers. The main figure of the briefing, the target at which the press has actively pecked, Academician Evgeny Aleksandrov, appeared bold and firm, while the representative of the clerics, Archpriest Alexander Sorokin, was like a flushed second grader. His sufferings were known only to me, of all the people in the room, since it was not easy to sit in the 30-degree (Centigrade) heat in the black and buttoned up clerical garb. In addition to these representatives of the opposing positions, at the table sat Marianna Shakhnovich, a professor and chair of the philosophy of religion and religious studies of St. Petersburg State University, Leonid Iliushin, representing the Committee on Education for the government of St. Petersburg, rights advocate and attorney Arkady Chaplygin, Roman Mogilevsky, director of the Agency of Social Information, Svetlana Zabeliaeva, representative of the regional department of the "Civic Force" party, and a young man, Dmitry Izbitsky, representative of the oppositional "Nashi" youth movement, "Oborona."
Instead of "King of Heaven" with which meetings of Orthodox clerics usually begin, an excerpt from an interview of Vitaly Ginzburg by Rosbalt was read. The academician, who apparently was already accustomed to the "war" situation, was noticeably militant. In the interview he spoke about "an invasion of RPTs into those spheres of life which have nothing to do with it," and about "penetration of the church into the armed forces" and "consecration of war ships with nuclear weapons on board," and about the difficulties of publication "of the letter," which Izvestiia and Rossiiskaia Gazeta refused to print. "Unfortunately, a whole series of Orthodox organizations decided to make of me some kind of 'scapegoat,'" the Nobel laureate complained.
As if to dispel my sociological suspicions Mr. Mogilevsky was given the first word; his organization specializes in sociological surveys. Everyone learned that on 5 August of this year 501 inhabitants of the northern capital were questioned regarding their attitude toward the "letter" and the problems raised in it. Briefly, their answers were discomforting for the sole representative of the Moscow patriarchate who was suffering from the heat, Fr Alexander, who still had to "answer for the scapegoat." The survey showed that only 10.7% of the inhabitants of the city are profoundly believing people, 47.3% are simply believers, and 4.3%, 13.7%, and 20% called themselves atheists, nonreligious, and undecided people, respectively. In the city the average believer is a woman younger than 34 or older than 55, with high school education. It should be noted that these data diverge markedly from my observations among Orthodox parishioners of the "old" Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the contemporary Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (RPATs), where in the St. Petersburg parishes people of higher education clearly predominate. The number of citizens surveyed who support or do not support the "academicians' letter" turned out to be approximately equal: 39.3% for and 37.7% against. For 23% it was difficult to answer. In addition, 31% of those who support the academicians' argument believe in God.
To the question "Do you support the introduction of the course 'Foundations of religions' in secondary schools as a required subject?" 27.7% answered affirmatively and 31.3% negatively, while 39% agreed to the study of such a subject on an elective basis. But when they were forced to choose between the study of "Foundations of religions" and "Foundations of Orthodox culture (OPK)," 50% favored the tolerant religiosity, 30% were for OPK, and 20% were undecided. Thus, Mr. Mogilevsky drew the conclusion that people on the whole are ready to study religion culturologically and, with a slight edge, they support the academicians.
Mr. Aleksandrov was the next to be given the floor. The academician complained about the attempts on the part of news media to boycott publication of the letter and he revealed to the audience the secret that many more academicians were ready to sign the letter. "The ones who signed were those who were contacted by phone," he said in sharing the technique of collecting signatures. The respected physicist complained to Deacon Andrei Kuraev that he had called the authors of the letter "technologists," ("well among us were a physiologist, biologist, and cosmophysicist, who cannot be called technologists") and he characterized the responses from representatives of the Moscow patriarchate as "argumentative" and he reported that President Putin is a "very pious man." At this, Fr Alexander somehow put his hands on his hips and, it seems, began to bear the heat more bravely. Despite the fact that the scholar did not grant sociology the designation of a science, the data of the sociological survey still were placed in doubt.
"There are so many believers because our people know well how to produce 'what the ruler wants.' In the period of USSR, 95% of the members of the Academy of Sciences were also members of the Communist party, but now there are many believers among them. But in the Department of Physical Sciences (which the respected scholar heads upÑA.L.) I do not know of any believers," Evgeny Aleksandrov said.
The academician said that the medicine that can heal clericalization is the modern scientific community which can oppose religious myths. This mixture combines ethnology, conflictology, psychology, and sociology. Frankly speaking, listening to the prescription from the member of RAN, "religious myths" became a shame. I recalled a statement from a movie about curdled milk: "We know you well; and this is the first time we have seen this dog."
At this point I exchanged glances with Fr Alexander and he was given the floor (intentionally or accidentally, it should be stressed).
The priest quoted the words of Patriarch Alexis II: "The church is separated from the state but it cannot be separated from society." "Indeed, recently the RPTs has been in a very favorable situation," he said, and it seemed to me that at this time he prayerfully recalled the "very pious" president elected by a general, secret, and democratic election. "And it is good that the discussion bears a cultural character."
The father tried to keep his position closely aligned with the latest statements of the hierarchy while pleasing both the roundtable participants and the journalists.
The professor of biblical archaeology at the St. Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy and Seminary unraveled the puzzle: "The sense of the letter is that society is experiencing a new wave of interest in the church. So then let's live together as friends and work for the good of society, as the academicians who signed the letter have done successfully."
The position of the representative of the Department of Public Education came down to this, that St. Petersburg education bureaucrats give more support to Foundations of religious culture and not Foundations of Orthodox culture, and as an elective rather than a required subject in the curriculum.
However the next participant in the discussion, Attorney Arkady Chhaplygin, successfully displayed his designation as a defender of rights by declaring that OPK even as an elective subject "is a slap in the wallet of non-Orthodox taxpayers." A gasp of excitement spread through the room. I think that many shared my happiness that Mr. Chaplygin is a rights defender and not a prosecutor.
Svetlana Zabeliaeva, a representative of the "Civic Force" party, began reading a statement by the party regarding the "academicians' letter." But the question of the leader of the roundtable: is this statement in electronic form? The answer was: "not yet." From this I understood that the "Civic Force" political party is still weak.
Professor Marianna Shakhnovich called for people to treat more calmly the appearance of professors of theology in the academic community, but not by means of creating expert advisors for the accrediting commission but by introducing "degrees in specific universities," for example, "doctor of philosophy of St. Petersburg University," and not doctor "in general." "Thirty-six institutions of higher education in the country, including 21 state universities, now grant bachelor's and master's degrees in theology. Thus religious educational institutions should receive state accreditation. The scientific community will only gain from this," she said. At the same time Ms Shakhnovich vigorously opposed the creation of academic councils in theology because the number of such academic councils would have to equal the number of existing denominations.
Toward the end of the exchange of opinions the atmosphere in the room heated up noticeably. This came about both because the appearance of more "people in robes" who appealed to the theological tradition of European universities and because of protests from the academic community. In particular, Leonid Borkin, a zoologist and chairman of the administration of the St. Petersburg Union of Scholars, declared that the textbook "Orthodox Biology" that he discovered in Belgorod province is antiscience and ignorant.
The young Dmitry Izbitsky, as one might expect from his appearance, exposed the intentions of clerical circles and described the divisions that are evoked by the imposition and demonstrative mutual relations of the Orthodox church and the authorities in a multinational and multiconfessional country. It was clear that he had been invited to the "scientific" roundtable for good reason since such talk befits a young teacher.
Archpriest Alexander Sorokin, whom students of the St. Petersburg ecclesiastical schools characterize as a very kind and sensitive person, tried to appear as much of a peacemaker as possible. He acknowledged the impermissibility of an "Orthodox" textbook in biology and the undesirability of a merger of the church with the government and the significance of the services of the letter's authors for society.
However, to my clerical view, it seemed that this was unconvincing. Every person who is even slightly acquainted with life in the center and in the provinces can observe that the Moscow patriarchate is trying with all its might to establish itself with the government and to play as great a public role as possible. But the paradox is that for the church all such games will be played on the opponents' field. The theory of "symphony" between the church and kingdom which was created by Orthodox theologians of Byzantium, which tries to present the Kingdom of Heaven to its members and to help it achieve this by earthly means, does not work in a democratic, post-Christian society. The modern state does not pose questions about the Kingdom of Heaven. Yesterday I read through a report about the social and economic development of Russia in the first half of 2007, prepared by the office of German Gref, and I did not find anything there about this.
Therefore, when out of the mouths of hierarchs of RPTsMP flows the oil of conversations about public good, patriotic education, and the moral health of society, I begin to be tormented by doubt about the religiousness of this organization in general. Otherwise why does RPTsMP run on about OPK? After all, they will not be able to preach the gospel about Christ because it is not allowed. It will just fill the ranks of ritualists, completely. And, it should be added, also of nonbelievers. Most of all its activity reminds one of auditing (in the sense of the founder of Scientology Ron Hubbard where the technique of auditing permits one to restore and improve the functioning of the human brain) of one sadly notorious "science"ÑDianetics or Scientology, which successfully arrays itself in religious garb while actually engaging in business. The problems of business in modern society are well known. Therefore it readily places the social stress on public health and it is ready to pay. But at the same time, RPTsMP, as the supplier of services, must bear responsibility to the buyer, which also demonstrates the heat of the discussion evoked by the "Academician Ginzburg Affair."
While it is well known who in our country and society is the main buyer. "In our country everything is decided at the level of the president. Thus the letter to him," said Academician Evgeny Aleksandrov.
Of course, the respected physicist is correct. Only he forgets that games of "symphony" in our times of a democratic secular state, are popular not only on Chisty Lane but also on Old Square. This is why the tone of commentaries on the letter from representatives of RPTsMP are not only "argumentative" but also "peacemaking." They are waiting. Here comes the lord; the lord will judge us. . . and he will set up the auditing . . . or procedure. (tr. by PDS, posted 11 August 2007)
Aleksii Lebedev is a priest in the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church.
Scientists and church hold round table
CHURCH ATTACKS 'IDEOLOGY OF SCIENCE'by Mansur Mirovalev
Moscow Times, 9 August 2007
A spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church said Wednesday that the country's schools should teach religious principles and moral values, and accused some leading scientists of trying to impose the "ideology of science" on the school system.
The church spokesman, Father Vsevolod Chaplin, was rebutting a group of prominent scientists who recently protested the church's growing influence on Russian society.
Chaplin, in reply, urged teachers to instruct children not to follow the examples of "homosexuals and prostitutes."
His remarks come after 10 leading academics wrote to President Vladimir Putin in late July to protest the introduction of a new class on Orthodox Christian culture. The group also opposed an initiative to give Russian universities the power to award degrees in theology.
"The scientific viewpoint cannot be a state ideology," Chaplin told journalists at a round-table discussion between clerics and scientists Wednesday. "It never made anybody happy and has failed to answer fundamental questions about human existence."
The church, he said, should play a leading role in setting moral standards for youth.
"We have to show them an unhappy homosexual in his 40s and an aging prostitute," he said. "Otherwise, in 30 years our children will turn into animals influenced by the cult of glamour and debauchery."
Government and religion are separated under the Constitution, but some who consider themselves atheist claim that religious symbolism is as omnipresent as atheism was in Soviet times.
An outspoken Orthodox cleric at the conference called on the government to exercise more control over religious affairs and help the church fight superstitions spread by poorly educated priests.
"We are ready to put part of our life under government control," said theology professor Andrei Kurayev. "The Church has been living without censorship for too long."
The revival of the Orthodox Church's centuries-old ties to the state, meanwhile, have prompted concern among religious minorities and scientists.
"Education of schoolchildren should be based on teaching scientifically proven knowledge," Andrei Vorobyov, a leading medical researcher and one of the authors of the letter to Putin, told journalists. "Interference of the church in government affairs has always been deplorable in Russian history."
Over half of the country's population identifies itself as Orthodox Christian, but church attendance is falling, according to a survey published by the Levada Center on Wednesday. The number of Russians who said they were Orthodox Christians was 56 percent, 11 percent said they were members of other religions, including Islam, and 33 percent said they were atheists, Levada Center said, Interfax reported.
But 59 percent of the 2,000 people surveyed for the poll said they never attend religious services, up 4 percent from a survey by Levada conducted two years ago. © Copyright 2007 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.[posted 9 August 2007]
ROUNDTABLE DEVOTED TO LETTER OF TEN ACADEMICIANS
Portal-credo.ru, 8 August 2007
Despite widespread opinion, priests generally are not eager to teach in the schools and be engaged in training in the army; society itself is calling them to do this. That opinion, as reported by a Rosbalt correspondent, was expressed on 8 August at a roundtable by Deacon Andrei Kuraev, a professor of the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy.
The roundtable was a continuation of the discussion over the infamous letter of ten academicians against clericalization of science and education. Present at the meeting was one of the authors of the letter, the director of the Center of Hemetology Academician Andrei Vorobiev. He expressed the opinion that the education of school children should be conducted "on the basic of scientific knowledge confirmed by the centuries."
According to Vorobiev, "intrusion of the church into governmental power has occurred in Russian history more than once and each time it ended badly for the church itself."
Other participants of the roundtable spoke in favor of religious education in the schools. President of the Russian Academic of Education Nikolai Nikandrov noted that the constitution of Russia does not forbid a teacher to express in school his religious convictions. Academician Nikandrov himself is an Orthodox believer.
Deacon Andrei Kuraev expressed thanks to the atheist academicians for beginning an extremely vital discussion "about the role of the church in conditions of freedom of conscience." Deacon Kuraev recalled the recent statement by Patriarch Alexis II that ROTsMP wishes to see Russia as a secular democratic state and he tried to assuage fears about the actions of the MP. In his opinion, in schools there should be "no preaching but culturological information."
Another participant in the conversation, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin of RPTsMP agreed with the words of thanks addressed to the academicians. However he expressed the opinion that the task of religious education still is broader than culturological information. "The task of the church is to change the world by love," Fr Vsevolod recalled. (tr. by PDS, posted 9 August 2007)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Church supports dialogue with science
MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE THANKS ACADEMICIANS FOR DISCUSSION OF ROLE OF CHURCHInterfax, 1 August 2007
The letter of ten academicians with a criticism of the public activity of the church permitted representatives of the latter to declare loudly their position on a number of questions of principle, according to the vice-chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin.
"We said for another time that the church is millions of citizens of Russia, people of various ages, professions, and estates. Praying people, reading people, thinking people, acting people. Nobody can deprive them of their right to act in accordance with their worldview and to affirm it in the life of society," Fr Vsevolod told "Interfax" on Wednesday.
He expressed thanks to the authors of "the letter of the ten" because they created the occasion for a philosophical discussion that developed in the news media, stressing that, as a rule, "our newspapers and radio stations seldom talk about the profound questions of religion and ethics."
"And now, in summer, when political and economic froth is not so vigorously stirred up, the question of the place of religion in the life of society and of its relations with science have become one of the main things in the media," the priest noted.
The discussion that has been created, in his words, permitted Orthodox persons, both clergy and laity, to recall for all to hear, in particular, that "no worldview, including materialism, can be called 'the only scientific one.'"
"Science and worldview are different things, and this is recognized by the best minds of the world, even such critical ones a Mr. Glazychev (Viacheslav Glazychev, a member of the Public Chamber of RF, who also spoke out against 'interference of the church in governmental affairs'-Interfax). There are not enough firm facts in the natural sciences for an adequate world view, and there cannot be. The humanities are an area of debates, hypotheses, and conflicting theories, but there is not a single 'scientific truth,' much less a single world view," Fr Vsevolod emphasized.
In connection with this he said that the constitution of Russia "is correct when it speaks of the impermissibility of establishing a required or state religion or ideology. Including, naturally, even materialism, positivism, agnosticism, or atheism. And this includes in the higher or secondary educational institutions."
In addition, in the course of the discussion of the Russian Orthodox church, as its representative noted, it could be clearly said that it "does not strive to become a part of the state apparatus and an organ of authority."
"The secularity of the state consists uniquely in the fact that religious administrative structures do not have governmental authorization and do not participate in party and electoral activity, while the state does not intervene in the confessional choice of a person or in the internal life of religious associations," Fr Vsevolod stated, stressing that this is the essence of the understanding of the principle of secularity in article 4 of the law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations."
The priest recalled that "army and prison chaplains, theology in state institutions of higher education, recognition of diplomas and scientific degrees for theologians, teaching of religious culture in public schools on a voluntary basisÑall of this can be in secular states, all of this extends throughout the world and does not evoke conflicts, all of this, de facto and in many cases de jure, has existed even in Russia," and he expressed the hope that this will continue to exist "in so far as many people want this."
The dialogue of the church with society, including with scholars, should, in the opinion of Father Vsevolod, expand and "the most diverse people" should participate in it.
"After all, without thinking about such important things as the basis of law, ethics, and social structure and the worldview factor in the life of society our politicians and our people will be like blind kittens, credulously heeding any guide," thinks the representative of the Moscow patriarchate. (tr. by PDS, posted 1 August 2007)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from
which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material is transmitted
electronically, please include reference to the URL,
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.