RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS|
|
|
On the eve of the arrival in Voronezh of the "prophet" Vissarion, at the beginning of July the local religious organization of the Church of the Last Covenant concluded rental agreements with the Voronezh Opera Theatre and the Palace of Culture of Vehicle Makers for preaching meetings by Vissarion, who has renewed his evangelistic trips about Russia after a break of many years. Followers of Vissarion pasted up leaflets throughout Voronezh with an indication of the places and times of the meetings. However, two days before the scheduled time the management of the opera theatre cancelled the agreement unilaterally. The meeting was transferred to the Kirov Palace of Culture.
As "Blagovest-info" reports, according to the official version of the management of the Palace of Culture of Vehicle Makers (where the second rented premises are located), several hours before the scheduled meeting an accident occurred in the electrical system of the palace. The small number of followers and interested persons who arrived saw an announcement on the doors of the palace and they moved over to the "Mir" movie theatre where the meeting was held.
The next day near the Kirov Palace of Culture, Vissarion and his followers were met by a picket of Orthodox believers holding signs in their hands and distributing leaflets to passers by. The protest demonstration served as the basis for the management of the palace to cancel the rental agreement. Followers of Vissarion this time also moved to the same movie theatre. In all three cases the money for the rent was returned to the organizers of the meetings.
It is expected that Vissarion will appear in Moscow in the near future. (tr. by PDS, posted 18 July 2003)
Related article: "Cult leader resumes activity in Voronezh"
Russia Religion News Current News Items
For almost a year the uproar over the introduction in some regions of the school textbook by Alla Borodina "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" has dragged on. The "For Human Rights" All-Russian Public Movement, headed by Lev Ponomarev, has seen in the textbook indicators of incitement of religious and national strife.
The Ostankino prosecutor, to which the case was handed, in March of this year for a second time refused to open a criminal case on article 282 of the Criminal Code. Like the first time, the refusal was appealed by the "For Human Rights" movement in the Meshchansky district court. And again the court ruled to find the refusal illegal and to return the case for investigation.
At hearings held on Tuesday 15 July the sides pulled out the heavy artillery. On one hand, enlisted in support of the textbook were a number of bishops of RPTs and representatives of other confessions and religions, the Union of Writers of Russia and a multitude of public associations, in particular the Union of Orthodox Citizens. On the other hand, Lev Ponomarev was able to organize an open letter to Russian Minister of Education Vladimir Filippov from practically all Russian rights defense organizations from the Helsinki group to the Institute of Human Rights. It is striking that of the almost twenty appeals, expert conclusions, and open letters presented by the prosecutor's side, only two were accepted for review, since there were no originals for the rest and they were not verified in the proper form.
However all these letters and appeals did not play a substantive role in the course of the case. In fact the second finding of the refusal of the procurator to open a criminal case on Ponomarev's declaration to be illegal, as in the preceding instance, is the result of the ungrammatical juridical formulation of the prosecutor's refusal. In particular, the prosecutor did not indicate just which part of article 282 was the basis for not finding the substance of a crime, which had been the reason for finding the refusal to open a criminal case illegal and inoperative.
The process has acquired ever more scandalous and farcical characteristics. One cannot call Evgeny Ikhlov's (director of the analytic center of the "For Human Rights" movement) petition to the court anything but a farce, in which he demanded: "to establish as a circumstance that has significance for the case the fact of the crucifixion of Christ by Jews as a religious and ethnic community, or to refute it as documentarily unsupported by facts." Judge Vladimir Nikitin denied the petition as irrelevant to the case. But knowing the persistence of Russian rights defenders, one can predict that they will try to get a review in court even of gospel stories to determine their reliability. (tr. by PDS, posted 18 July 2003)
ORDER OF MESHCHANSKY DISTRICT COURT OF MOSCOW ON CASE CONCERNING "FUNDAMENTALS
OF ORTHODOX CULTURE" TEXTBOOK
15 July 2003
Judge of the Meshchansky district court of Central Administrative District of the city of Moscow V.F. Nikitin, with the participation of representatives of plaintiff, E.V. Ikhlov, A.G. Kozhanovaia, I.G. Yakovenko, and T.V. Volkovaia, and a representative of an interested person, senior assistant of the Ostankino district prosecutor's office of the city of Moscow, T.A. Khrapunovaia and of the senior prosecutor of the Department for Supervision of the Fulfilment of Laws on Federal Security and Inter-ethnic Relations of the prosecutor's office of the city of Moscow, V.V. Pybalko, with S.M. Sidorova as secretary of the judicial session,
having reviewed in open court session the complaint of the executive director of the "For Human Rights" public movement against the order of the Ostankino district prosecutor of the city of Moscow refusing to open a criminal case with regard to the incident of the publication and distribution of the publication, "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" by the writer A.V. Borodina,
HAS ESABLISHED:
On 18 June 2002 the executive director of the "For Human Rights" All-Russian Public Movement, L.A. Ponomarev, sent to the prosecutor general of RF a written request for opening a criminal case on the act of incitement of national and religious hostility and violation of the rights of citizens; and for holding accountable for such a criminal act the first prorector of the Moscow Institute of Continuing Education of Education Workers of the Moscow Committee on Education, S.B. Romanov, and the leaders of the Ministry of Education of Russia, who recommended the indicated textbook for educational institutions; and for terminating the use of the publication as obligatory text material; and for verification of the conformity to constitutional principles of the activity of the Coordinating Council on Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of Russia and the Moscow patriarchate of RPTs.
The indicated written request was sent to the Ostankino district prosecutor's office of the city of Moscow for making a decision on the substance and on 4 September 2002 the Ostankino district prosecutor of the city of Moscow issued an order refusing to open a criminal case on said request.
In view of the lack of basis for the decision that was made and violations of the standards of criminal procedural legislation that were made, said order, by decision of the Meshchansky district court of 30 December 2002, was ruled not legal and not valid.
On 15 January 2003 the Ostankino district prosecutor of the city of Moscow again issued an order refusing to open a criminal case on the above indicated written request. In judicial session representatives of the plaintiff supported the complaint and asked that the order of the prosecutor be found illegal and invalid, including also that not all of the reasons of the request had been addressed.
The representative of the interested person and the prosecutor spoke against satisfying the complaint, indicating that the adoption of the decision to refuse to open the criminal case was legal and valid.
Having investigated the conclusions of the participants in the judicial investigation, I find the order of the prosecutor to be not legal and not valid on the following bases.
As follows from the above indicated order of 15 January 2003, in its resolution portion there is an statement only of refusal to open a criminal case "on the incident of publication and distribution of the 'Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture' textbook." Other reasons of the plaintiff as a basis for opening a criminal case were not evaluated (on holding Romanov and the leaders of the Russian Ministry of Education accountable for a criminal act, verification of the activity of the coordinating council). Thus, the incompleteness of the verification actions that were conducted on the complaint of the plaintiff is obvious.
In addition, despite the decision of the Meshchansky district court of 30 December 2002 finding the order refusing to open a criminal case, issued by the Ostankino district prosecutor of the city of Moscow of 4 September 2002, illegal and invalid, said order was not subsequently rescinded by the prosecutor, as a result of which until the present time there have existed two orders of the prosecutor on one and the same written request, contradicting each other in the part on the basis for making the decision refusing to open a criminal case (in one case for absence of the substance of a crime, in the other, for absence of the commission of a crime).
Thus, said order, issued by the Ostankino district prosecutor of the city of Moscow on 15 January 2003, is not based on a comprehensive and objective investigation of actual circumstances and does not accord with the requirements presented in the criminal procedural legislation.
On the basis of what has been laid out, and guided by articles 29 and 125 of the Criminal Procedural Code of RF;
ORDERED:
The order of the Ostankino district prosecutor of the city of Moscow of 15 Janaury 2003 refusing to open a criminal case on the written request of the executive director of the "For Human Rights" All-Russian Public Movement, L.A. Ponomarev, of 18 June 2002 is found to be not legal and not valid and the prosecutor is obliged to eliminate the violations that have been committed.
A copy of the present order is to be sent to the plaintiff (his representatives), the Ostankino district prosecutor of the city of Moscow and the prosecutor of the city of Moscow. This order may be appealed in Moscow City Courd within ten days from the day of its publication. (tr. by PDS, posted 18 July 2003)
Published on the Portal-credo.ru site, 18 July 2003
LETTER OF MINISTRY OF EDUCATION STATING THAT "FUNDAMENTALS OF ORTHODOX CULTURE" TESTBOOK BY BORODINA WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY
To the executive director of the "For Human Rights" All-Russian Public
Movement
L.A. Ponomarev
Esteemed Lev Alexandrovich
Your letter about the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" textbook (by A.V. Borodina) that you sent to the Plenipotentiary for Human Rights of the Russian federation has reached the Ministry of Education of the Russian federation.
We inform you that the aforesaid textbook by A.V. Borodina was not subjected to an expert analysis in the Federal Expert Council on General Education of the Ministry of Education of Russia and did not receive the stamp of the Ministry of Education of the Russian federation.
In accordance with article 32, point 23 on the law of the Russian federation "On education", only textbooks that have received the stamp of the Ministry of Education of the Russian federation and have been included in the federal list of textbooks may be used in the educational process.
Director of the Department of General Education,
member of the collegium,
A.V. Barannikov
(tr. by PDS, posted 18 July 2003)
Published on the Portal-credo.ru site, 24 June 2003
EXPERT CONCLUSION ON THE BOOK "FUNDAMENTALS OF ORTHODOX CULTURE" BY A.V. BORODINA
Prepared by the director of the Center for the Study of Religions of Russian State Humanities University, N.V. Shaburov
16 January 2003
The book under review, as appears from the annotation, is "designated for the sixth grade and any higher grades in the first year of the introduction of this course. . . . May be used as basic and supplementary resource within culturological and humanities courses, such as history of religion, religious studies, and world artistic culture, and in the study of basic disciplines (literature, history, etc.)"
The very fact of the existence of an elective discipline of "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" within the framework of the schools' curriculum does not elicit alarm. It would be useful for secondary school pupils to become acquainted with Orthodox culture. However, the textbook under review does not accord with the requirements of academic methodological literature inasmuch as it contains incorrect expressions that facilitate the incitement of religious and ethnic strife.
Turning to such a delicate topic as religion within the framework of the secular schools, one must avoid both uncritical apologetics and disrespectful, confessionally colored expressions with regard to other religious traditions. Does the textbook under review comport with these criteria? Unfortunately, no.
In the text of the textbook one meets such expressions as the "Nestorian" and "monophysite heresy" (p. 29-31). The teaching of Nestorius and the so-called monophysites were condemned at the ecumenical councils, and from the point of view of Orthodox Christianity they are heresies. However, the term "heresy," which contains a negative evaluation, is not appropriate for a nonconfessional, school textbook. The conventionally called "Nestorian" and "monophysite" churches--the Assyrian church of the East and the Armenian Apostolic church--are represented in Russia and the assessment of the doctrine to which they adhere as heretical is insulting to the religious sentiments of believers.
In addition, in a number of cases the writer indulges in expressions that are insulting to representatives of the Jewish people. I permit myself to quote: "Pilate, who did not find Jesus guilty, called his soldiers to beat him, hoping that the Jews would be satisfied. . . . But the Jews would not be pacified and continued to insist on Christ's execution. They stirred up the people so that they would demand the crucifixion of Christ. . . . The reason for this was that this people thought only about earth, about their own independence, and power over other peoples and about earthly prosperity, and therefore the idea of eternal life through salvation from sins, passions, and evil was incomprehensible to it." (p. 112). The author should explain to school children that the accusations against the Jews in the gospels were conditioned by the polemical tasks of the authors of the gospels. One should not forget that both Jesus and the apostles were Jews. Judaism at the time of Jesus was divided into a number of streams that were strongly distinguished from one another. Only some groups were the initiators of the trial of Jesus, and the decision to execute was made by the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. In addition the author should refrain from personal arguments about the Jewish people thinking about power over other peoples, being alien to the idea of eternal life, and being blessed through "salvation from sins, passions, and evil." These arguments do not have anything in common with historical reality and they have a frankly antisemitic nature. In Judaism there were groups, in particular the Pharisees and Essenes, who did profess the idea of eternal life through salvation from sins and evil. Judaism is a living religion and thousands of its adherents have lived in our country for hundreds of years (it is no accident that Judaism is named as one of the traditional religions in the law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations"). However the image that Judaism is a false religion that has been superseded by Christianity is consciously formed in the reader of the textbook.
The following affirmation by the author facilitates the arousal of interethnic strife and xenophobia: "Why do Orthodox Russian people not shut themselves off from contact with other nations and nationalities but receive them hospitably into their church, state, and civil society, despite the fact that this is more often quite 'inconvenient' and even dangerous, since 'guests' or new residents have not always behaved so nobly on the territory of the traditionally Orthodox state?" (p. 13)
On the whole, the textbook under review represents not an academic resource for fundamentals of Orthodox culture but a confessional apology for Orthodoxy. Only apologetic goals could explain equating the concepts "Russian" and "Orthodox," even before the twentieth century (p. 14). For example, the strigolniks of the 14th and 15th centuries, the Molokans, Dukhobors, Shtundists, and others have the right to call themselves Russians. The textbook contains an uncritical description of miracles (see, in particular, p. 159, where the description of a miracle is supposed to demonstrate the superiority of the Orthodox over Armenians).
It is amazing that the book is recommended by the Coordinating Council for Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Director of the Center for the Study of Religions,
Russian State Humanities University,
N.V. Shaburov
Posted on the Religiia i SMI site, 16 January 2003
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Five years after the interment of the remains found near Ekaterinburg which were considered to be the remains of the last Russian emperor, Nicholas II, and members of his family, the Russian Orthodox church, as previously, doubts their genuineness, "Interfax" reports. "The attitude to the question about the remains has not changed, since no new information in this regard has been received," the chairman of the synodal Commission on Canonization of Saints of the Russian Orthodox church, Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, stated on 17 July. He reported that he does not know of any serious investigations that would be conducted with a goal of finally resolving the question about the genuineness of the remains that were found. "Obviously, from the moment of their burial the attention of scientific circles and the state to this topic weakened," Metropolitan Yuvenaly said. In addition he stressed that the church, as previously, is prepared to return to a review of the question of the genuineness of the "Ekaterinburg remains" in the event further studies are conducted.
Nicholas II and members of his family and several servants were shot in 1918 by bolsheviks in the Ipatiev house near Ekaterinburg. Later, human remains were found on the outskirts of the city and expert analysis gave some, although very weak, basis to affirm that these were remains of the Romanovs. The unique discoveries were interred in a chapel of the Peter and Paul cathedral in St. Petersburg on 17 July 1998, in the presence of former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, other state officials, and descendants of the Romanovs. His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus did not take part in the ceremony since the church doubts the authenticity of the "Ekaterinburg remains." Several years later Japanese scholars, who conducted an analysis of drops of perspiration found on the clothing of Nicholas II, and hair, fingernails, and bones of the remains of his brother, Grand Prince Georgi, supported the church's doubts. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 July 2003)
CHAPEL IN MEMORY OF NICHOLAS' ABDICATION OPENED IN PSKOV
Sedmitsa.ru, 17 July 2003
On 17 July, on the day of the 85th anniversary of the death of the last Russian emperor and his family, on the square of the railroad station in Pskov a chapel immortalizing the memory of Nicholas II's renunciation of the throne was opened "NEWSru.com" reports, citing "Interfax." The memorial chapel was constructed in traditional Russian Orthodox church architectural style. The small volume, 17 meter house of worship is crowned with a cupola and onion dome on which a glided cross is fixed. The cupola is covered with bronze leaf and the dome and cross were wrought from a special alloy produced in one of the defense factories of Cheliabinsk. On the side of the apse facing the railroad station a memorial marble plaque is affixed on which is etched the inscription, "Tsar's chapel, erected in the year of the 1100th anniversary of Pskov as a sign of repentance and profound sorrow of the people of Pskov for the tragic death of the last Russian emperor Nikolas Alexandrovich Romanov." On the night of 3 March 1917 (15 March, new style), from the tsar's train car standing at the platform of the Pskov station, the All-Russian autocrat telegraphed the commander of the staff of the supreme command, General M.V. Alekseev, that in the name of victory he "recognized it good" to renounce the throne. The document, later called the "act of abdication," put an end to the Russian monarchy and climaxed the February crisis. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 July 2003)
SURVEY DATA SHOW SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY REGRET MURDER
OF NICHOLAS II AND HIS FAMILY
Sedmitsa.ru, 17 July 2003
A substantial portion of Russian society regrets the murder of the last emperor, Nicholas II, and members of his family. Forty-two percent of Russian citizens call this event "the bloody misdeed of the bolshevik regime." This was reported on 17 July to "Interfax" by sociologists of the ROMIR Monitoring company. Every fifth respondent (21%) thinks that the soviet leadership had no other way out, while the same number of survey participants (21%) think that everything happened because of confusion and indecision. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The text of the explanation over the signature of Sergei Abramov, first deputy director of the Chief Administration for Domestic Policy of the presidential administration and, besides this, the vice chairman of the Council on Cooperation with Religious Associations under the president of the Russian federation, was addressed to State Duma Deputy Sergei Kovalev, a correspondent of "Portal-credo.ru" reports.
Earlier Sergei Kovalev sent a letter to the head of the presidential administration, Alexander Voloshin, requesting an explanation of the meaning of the wording "representatives of basic confessions" (whereas the law proceeds from the principle of the equality of religious confessions). The term "basic confessions" was used widely in identifying those who were invited to hear the annual report to the Federal Assembly by the head of state.
The explanation by the presidential administration states, in particular, that "existing Russian legislation does not contain the concept of a 'basic confession.'" Instead, the document indicates "in the preamble of the federal law 'On freedom of conscience and religious associations'" it is indicated that the Federal Assembly of RF adopts the present law "acknowledging the special role of Orthodoxy in the history of Russia and in the establishment and development of its spirituality and culture, respecting Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and other religions that constitute an inseparable part of the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia." Taking the above into account, Sergei Abramov writes, "representatives of Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist, and Jewish centralized organizations, which are among the religions and religious confessions that are most widespread in our country and are indigenous to the history of the fatherland, were invited to hear the annual report to the Federal Assembly of RF by the head of state."
An appendix to the explanation provides a list of religious figures invited to the Kremlin on 16 May: Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and all-Rus, chairman of the Buddhist traditional Sangkha of Russia Damba Aiushev, chairman of the Coordination Center of Muslims of the northern Caucasus Ismail Berdiev, chairman of the Council of Muftis of Russia Ravil Gainutdin, chief rabbi of Russia (FEOR jurisdiction) Berl Lazar, and metropolitans of RPTsMP Kirill Gundiaev, Sergius Fomin, Mefody Nemtsov, and Yuvenaly Poiarkov. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 July 2003)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
The council of bishops of the Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith (KhVE) of Belorussia sent an appeal to ministers and members of the churches which says that "the state is impeding the development and growth of evangelical churches." "As citizens of Belorussia we are not indifferent to what is happening in our country. We note with special concern the new wave of difficulties that have befallen the churches of Christians of Evangelical Faith," the appeal, written by Bishop Sergei Khomich of the Union of KhVE, says. Among the main problems that confront the church, the author of the document notes, are the difficulties of reregistering congregations that do not have houses of worship, fines for conducting services in homes, refusals of permission to conduct water baptism in rivers and lakes, and the textbook for the eleventh grade, "Individual. Society. State," where Pentecostals are called a "sect." "Special anxiety is evoked," the appeal states further, "by the fact that such incidents are occurring more and more often, acquiring the character of normality, and this means that by such actions the state is impeding the development and growth of evangelical churches."
Leaders of the Union of KhVE also call attention to the fact that on 21 June, on the first national television channel, a regular program by Evgeny Novikov was shown in which he called Pentecostals "satanic vermin," despite the court's having required him to apologize to the Union of Christians of Evangelical Faith and the churches in Starye Dorogi. "We view the state television's ignoring of the court's decision as the result of the agreement on cooperation between Belorussia and the Belorussian Orthodox church that was concluded on 12 June," the authors of the document declare.
On 13 July fasting and prayers "for improvement of the attitude of the government toward evangelical Christians" were conducted. In addition, on that day in Minsk, at the Bangalor square, a joint prayer service of representatives of all evangelical churches of the country was held. (tr. by PDS, posted 17 July 2003)
Related articles: "Belorussian
protestants protest propaganda against them"
"Concordat
between Belorussian government and Orthodox church"
"Belorussian
police raid Pentecostal residence"
"Textbook
misrepresents Pentecostals"
Russia Religion News Current News Items