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 |
Siberian officials partial to Russian church
IN DEFENSE OF ORTHODOXYOmsk Baptists upset by bureaucrats' attempts to call them "unfriendly organizations"
by Tatiana Ilina
Sobkor.ru, 23 July 2007
Omsk Vice Mayor Alexander Golev, who is director of the department of informational policy and public relations, presented at a staff conference in the city hall an "account" of the religious situation in Omsk. As reported by a Sobkor.ru correspondent, the news media loyal to the administration, citing the account, called several completely legal, but not "traditional" (according to the terminology of the preamble of the law on freedom of conscience) confessions, "unfriendly religious organizations," sectarians, and "aliens who conduct ideological work against Orthodoxy."
This list also included the Omsk church of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (EKhB) which two weeks ago marked its 110th year. Representatives of EKhB there expressed decisive disagreement with such an inadequate assessment of their activity. In an appeal delivered to the editorial office of "Omsk Gazeta" they noted that categorizing them as nontraditional or unfriendly in speeches of public persons and reporting seems like a search for enemies. The Baptists recommended "to urban official Golev" that he talk more often with those of whom he delivers such sharp judgments or employ competent aides who understand religious questions.
"It is very bad that Golev, a leader of such high rank, is searching out among people of Omsk 'enemies of the people.' Even in a family there are different natures among the children, but a true father loves them all, and wants good for them, and does not treat some as favorites and others as derelicts. 'The Handbook of unfriendly organizations" in city hall is a 'witchhunt,' which we have already experienced in Russia in 1937. It is very dangerous trend," Presbyter Viktor Shcherbakov thinks.
In solidarity with him is the director of the "Kolosok" Christian children's camp, Anatoly Nikonov. He recalls the long history of the Baptists of Omsk and their social activity: "I do not agree that Baptists are a nontraditional religious association. Omsk people who are interested in religious questions know that the Omsk association of Baptists celebrated their 110th anniversary this year. The social and spiritual work of Baptists with respect to both the authorities and citizens of Omsk is extremely friendly. We bless the authorities for their good work for people of Omsk and we pray for the governor and mayor. We regularly conduct work with children from 'risk groups,' those who live in hallways, in attics, and in dumps (of which there are many in Omsk) and we talk with them about love for the motherland and respect for parents."
Although Omsk authorities have already more than once demonstrated discrimination with respect to religious and public organizations, several observers have recommended with regard to "ideological" examinations by bureaucrats to follow the premise "do not hasten to explain as evil intent that which is fully explainable as stupidity."
Meanwhile Russian scholars have appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a letter in which they recall that the Russian constitution proclaims the secular character of the state and the principle of separation of the church from the educational system. In the letter the academicians pose the question of what basis there is for theology to be included among the scientific academic disciplines? The scholars devote special attention to the intrusion of the church into the armed forces of the country, in particular they have in mind the christening of new military technology.
We recall that in a number of regions of Russia the subject of Orthodoxy has been included in the curriculum for school children. (tr. by PDS, posted 27 July 2007)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Uproar over academicians' letter continues
ACADEMICIANS' PROTESTS BETRAY THEIR COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF THE OBJECT OF
THEIR CRITICISMÑDEACON ANDREI KURAEVPortal-credo.ru, 27 July 2007
Protests by a number of academicians against the introduction of theology into the list of academic specialties betray their complete ignorance of the object of their criticism, notes the theological scholar, professor of the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy Deacon Andrei Kuraev, "Interfax-religiia" reports, citing "Echo of Moscow."
"There is in the life of the modern church a scientific component. It is theology. It is theology that is the way in which logic is present in the irrational world of religion. So why renounce relations with your ally! Theology is an ally of science; it is part of science. Why ever should one anathematize it!" Father Andrei said on air with radio station "Echo of Moscow," commenting on the letter of ten academicians of RAN against the interference of the church in the scientific and public spheres.
He said that in the academicians' protests against the study of theology, "there is nothing other than ideology." The Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy professor recalled that science is not defined at all by the object of investigation but "by the use of the scientific method of investigation," including the study of a text, its history and meaning, and the history of its apprehension by its readers. In his words, this "includes the history of the text, including both theology and the history of the biblical text or patristic texts."
"I can attest that the methods of contemporary theology are the same as the methods of any other humanistic investigations. And the criteria of its scientific nature are the very same," Father Andrei stated.
He said that opponents of the study of theology would deny, by their system of argumentation, to even Sergei Averintsev himself, the greatest Russian philologist of modern times, the right to defend his dissertation devoted to St. Ephrem the Syrian, although it would accord him the right to defend on Plutarch.
"The question isÑworks written by one and the same person, on an equivalent level, using identical scientific methods. Why is the first work deserving of recognition and the second not?" the theologian asks.
He also reminded the authors of the letter that the RF constitution "forbids any ideology to be established in the capacity of generally obligatory, including both the atheistic and the so-called materialistic ideology."
"And here is the serious falsehood of the academicians' letter, because they write all the time that both science and education must be based on a materialistic view of the world," Fr Andrei declared. (tr. by PDS, posted 27 July 2007)
DECLARATION OF "OTHER RUSSIA" COALITION IN SUPPORT OF ACADEMICIANS' POSITION
The "Other Russia" coalition expresses its support for the position expressed in the open letter by academicians of RAN to Russian President V. V. Putin. As Russian scholars we also are concerned about the attack of RPTs upon the secular bases of the state and society. In our opinion, religious life, as well as questions of faith, should be separate from science and education, and also from other spheres of public and secular life. This is guaranteed by the constitution of the Russian federation.
It is an impermissible situation when bureaucrats, using administrative resources, collect compulsory contributions from enterprises and businessmen for solving problems of the RPTs.
Questions of faith also should not be mingled with politics. There are known cases when clergymen have called for voting in elections for specific candidates or a party.
As a multiconfessional state Russia must respect and establish equal conditions for all religions and their adherents. The opposite situation can lead to the growth of religious protest, especially in regions of the northern Caucasus. In addition, this threatens the destruction of the state specifically upon a religious principle.
The church must be strong in its spiritual component, through its example of service and aid to needy people. This sphere is important, but it must not be enforced on the part of the state. (tr. by PDS, posted 27 July 2007)
Source: Press service of the "Other Russia" Coalition of oppositional forces.
Russian original posted on Portal-credo.ru site, 27 July 2007
"RUSSIAN PROJECT" SITE ASSIGNS TO NOBEL LAUREATE VITALY GINZBURG "THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST."
Portal-credo.ru, 27 July 2007
The internet site "Russian Project" of "United Russia" published on 24 July an anonymous article illustrated with a photograph of Academician Vitaly Ginzburg that, using computer montage, represented him in prison garb with the serial number 666, "Kasparov.ru" reports, quoting Sobkor.ru.
The photograph of the Nobel Prize winner Vitaly Ginzburg in the form of a "prisoner-Antichrist" (the number 666 traditionally is considered the "number of the devil") illustrated an article of an unknown author regarding the way the "People's Sobor" movement and the organization of the "Center for National Defense" demanded of the prosecutor's office that it open a criminal case against the scholar on the basis of article 282 of the Criminal Code ("incitement of hatred or strife"). This happened after the Nobel laureate Zhores Alferov, Academician Mikhail Sadovsky, and another seven scholars published on 22 July an open letter to President Putin with the demand to put an end to the interference of RPTsMP in the secular life of Russia, science, and education, and particularly to renounce the teaching of Orthodox in secondary schools and not to assign to theology the status of an scientific academic discipline.
We recall that immediately after this a number of leaders of the "Orthodox community" issued a statement against the scholars who signed the letter.
We recall also that on 26 July the "Other Russia" coalition spoke out in support of the demand of the scholars to observe the principles of the equality of all confessions and the separation of church from state. (tr. by PDS, posted 27 July 2007)
BISHOP OF EGOREVSK MARK COMMENTS ON ACADEMICIANS' LETTER
Sedmitsa.ru, 27 July 2007
The Moscow patriarchate considers the letter by atheist academicians to the leadershi of the country a "propaganda campaign" with the goal of compromising the Russian Orthodox church. This was declared by Bishop of Egorevsk Mark.
Bishop Mark thinks that the authors of the letter are not acquainted with the situation. Thus, he refutes the opinion of the scholars who think that religious disciplines are being taught in secular schools.
"What we are talking about is only a culturological subject, 'Foundations of Orthodox culture,' which presents what Russia is and what are its spiritual bases which explain the indestructibility of the spirit of the Russian people, who achieved the victory on Kulikovo plain during the time of the Tatar-Mongol invasion and helped them to maintain the integrity of the state in the Time of Troubles," the bishop explained.
As regards theology, he said "in Oxford they study this subject much more than economics." Bishop Mark recalled that there also is a theology faculty at Cambridge and in universities in Germany and Belgium.
On the whole, he emphasized, the arguments advanced by the atheists are absolutely unconvincing. The position of several academicians reflects the opinion of a group of people who have their own convictions, but that does not mean that "their views are the final truth," said the vice-president of the Council of Muftis of Russia, Marat Murtazin. He expressed the necessity of a dialogue of traditional religions and society for the resolution of moral, social, and educational problems of society. (tr. by PDS, posted 27 July 2007)
Russian original posted on Religiia i SMI site, 27 July 2007
OMBUDSMAN LUKIN CALLS ACADEMICIANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF RUSSIAN CHURCH TO DISCUSS DISPUTED QUESTIONS AT ROUND TABLE
Interfax, 25 July 2007
The plenipotentiary for human rights in the Russian federation, Vladimir Lukin, called academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences and representatives of the Russian Orthodox church not to exchange accusations, but to discuss disputed questions which this week have become the cause of sharp polemics between them.
"This kind of question: which is more important, God or natural laws, will not be decided in any court. Thus if such problems arise in society, they must be discussed in a moderate way; in essence they will not be decided by cavalry charges. Here dialogue is needed," V. Lukin told "Interfax."
So far, in his opinion, both sides "are trying more to exchange epithets."
"I consider that here it is possible to organize one or a serious of round tables for an exchange of opinions on the substance, and I am ready to participate in them," the ombudsman said. (tr. by PDS, posted 28 July 2007)
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Open Letter by Academicians of Russian Academy of Sciences to Russian President V.V. Putin
DOCUMENT: POLICY OF RPTsMP: CONSOLIDATION OR DOWNFALL OF COUNTRY?Profoundly respected Vladimir Vladimirovich!
With increasing alarm we have observed all the growing clericalization of Russian society and the active penetration of the church into all spheres of public life. The constitution of the Russian federation declares the secular character of our state and the principle of separation of church from the state educational system. With this letter we turn to you as to the supreme official of our country who is the guarantor of the observation of the basic provisions of the constitution.
In March of this year in Moscow was held the XI World Russian National Sobor. Among its decisions attention was drawn to the resolution "On the development of the national system of religious education and science." The title is somewhat strange. If religious education is an internal affair of RPTs, then why on earth is the church concerned about the development of science? Does science need such concern? Everything becomes clear from the rest of the text. The resolution proposed to send to the Russian government a request "for the introduction of the 'theology' specialty into the list of academic specialties of the Supreme Accreditation Commission [VAK], and to maintain theology as an independent academic direction."
As regards attempts to introduce theology into VAK, they didn't start only today. But previously VAK experienced heavy pressure not visible to the outsider's eye. Subsequent to the sobor it is no longer hidden. But on which basis, it may be asked, is theology, the totality of religious dogmas, properly listed among academic disciplines? Any scientific discipline is determined by facts, logic, and proofs, but not by faith by any means.
Meanwhile, the Catholic church refuses just about entirely to interfere in the affairs of science (in 1992 it even acknowledged its mistake in the case of Galileo and "rehabilitated" him). In a conversation with Academician V.I. Arnold (March 1998) Pope John Paul II recognized that science is one means for establishing truth, and religion, in the words of the pontiff, considers itself more competent in assessing the possible use of scientific discoveries. Our RPTs holds to a different point of view: "Dialogue between the authorities and society is necessary so that the monopoly of the materialistic view of the world, that developed in soviet times, will finally be broken in the Russian educational system" (from the resolution of the sobor).
In general all achievements of contemporary world science are based upon the materialistic view of the world. There is simply nothing else in contemporary science. This was excellently expressed by the famous American physicist, Nobel laureate S. Weinberg: "The experience of the scholar makes religion completely unessential. The majority of scholars whom I know just do not think about this topic. They think about religion so little that they cannot even consider themselves active atheists" (New York Times, 23 August 2005). So why do they suggest for us to change the "monopoly of the materialistic view of the world"?
But let us return to the Supreme Accreditation Commission. The intrusion of the church into a state organ is an obvious violation of the constitution of the country. However, the church already has penetrated into the armed forces. News media advertise religious ceremonies of christening new military technology (sprinkling water on surface and underwater vessels is a part of obligatory procedure, but alas it does not always help). Religious ceremonies are widely shown with highly placed representatives of the government participating, and so forth. All these are examples of the active clericalization of the country.
In the already mentioned resolution of the sobor there is another insistent request "for the recognition of the culturological significance of the teaching of the bases of Orthodox culture and ethics in all schools of the country and of the inclusion of the subject in the appropriate place of the federal educational standards."
Hierarchs of RPTs call the government to introduce into all school of Russia an obligatory subject, "Foundations of Orthodox culture." It must be said that the idea of plunging religion into the schools of the country was advanced long ago. In a circular of 9 December 1999 sent "to all diocesan clergy" Alexis II noted that "we will not solve the problem of the spiritual and moral education of future generations of Russia if we leave the state system of education without attention." In the concluding part of this document it is stated: "If difficulties are encountered with the teaching of 'Foundations of Orthodox belief,' then call the course 'Foundations of Orthodox culture.' This will not evoke alarm among pedagogues and directors of secular academic institutions, who have been trained on an atheistic basis." From the quoted text it follows that under the guise of "Foundations of Orthodox culture" they are trying to introduce to us (and again in violation of the constitution) the "Law of God."
Even if one suggests that we are really talking about a course on the "Foundations of Orthodox culture," then it has already been stated more than once that in a multinational and multiconfessional country, introduction of such a course is impossible. But nevertheless the sobor thinks that the study by school children of "Foundations of Orthodox culture is necessary in our state, where Orthodox believers constitute an absolute majority of the population." If one considers atheists of Russian nationality all to be Orthodox, then apparently you get a majority. But if you leave out the atheists then, alas, Orthodox believers turn out to be in the minority. But that's not the point. Is it really possible to treat other confessions with such contempt? In the end, it would be bad for church hierarchs to contemplate where such a policy would lead: to the consolidation of the country or to its downfall?
In the European community, where interconfessional strife has already been manifested in all its glory, after lengthy discussion they came to the conclusion about the necessity of the introduction into the schools of a course on the history of the basic monotheistic religions. The basic conclusion consists in the fact that acquaintance with the history and cultural heritage of other confessions will facilitate the improvement of mutual understanding among representatives of various nationalities and religious convictions. Nobody even imagines, for example, to demand the introduction of "Foundations of Catholic culture." At the last Christmas Readings Education and Science Minister A.A. Fursenko reported that work has been completed on a textbook of "History of World Religions." Lobbyists for Orthodoxy met the announcement with sabers. Meanwhile a textbook written by colleagues of the Institute of History of RAN (it is titled "Religions of the world" and intended for pupils of the tenth and eleventh grades) is well balanced and contains a lot of information that every person considered cultured should know.
But what do we have now? A year ago a St. Petersburg pupil, Masha, and her papa turned to the court with a demand to include in the biology curriculum of the secondary school the theory of the creation of humans by divine power ("creationism") instead of "antiquated and mistaken" Darwinism. An absurd situation has developed. For some reason the court was supposed to decide whether the theory of evolution is true, which affirms that life on earth began more than three billion years ago, or whether the theory of creation is correct, which in contrast with evolutionary theory cannot present a single fact, but nevertheless affirms that life on earth has existed several thousand years. It would seem that this is a question that pertains only to the competence of science. However Masha and her papa received support from Patriarch Alexis II, who at the Christmas Educational Readings stated: "There will be no harm for the pupil if he knows the biblical teaching about the origin of the world. If someone wants to think that he has descended from a monkey, let him think it, but don't force it onto others." And if any proofs are removed from the schools and one forgets about elementary logic and completely eliminates the last remnants of critical thinking and begins the parroting of dogmas, will this also be no harm to anybody? Incidentally, so that everything be clear, neither Darwin nor his followers ever maintained that humans descended from monkeys. It is maintained only that both monkeys and humans have common ancestors. But indeed the church does not only have problems with Darwinism.
For example, what does the "biblical teaching about the origins of the world" have to do with facts that are firmly established by contemporary astrophysics and cosmology? What should one study in schoolÑthese facts or "biblical teaching" about the creation of the world in seven days?
Whether to believe in God or not is a matter of conscience and the convictions of the individual person. We respect the feelings of believers and we do not intend to struggle with religion. But we cannot remain indifferent when attempts are being undertaken to subject scientific Knowledge to doubt and to extract from education "the materialistic view of the world," and to replace the knowledge acquired by science with faith. One must not forget that for the state to declare the development of a course can be done only in the event that the schools and higher educational institutions arm young people with knowledge attained by contemporary science. No other alternative to such knowledge exists. (tr. by PDS, posted 26 July 2007)
Russian original posted on Portal-credo.ru site, 23 July 2007
Russia Religion News Current News Items
Scholars' letter evokes antisemitic outbursts
VITALY GINZBURG: "I REGRET THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD"by Alexander Fishman
Jewish.ru, 26 July 2007
For a fourth day the pages of the newspapers and information Internet sites are pouring streams of filth upon Nobel laureate in physics, Academician Vitaly Ginzburg. The prominent scholar who all his life as labored for the welfare and prosperity of his country is accused of inciting an antispiritual mood within Russian society. In a telephone conversation with a "Jewish.ru" correspondent, held this morning, the scholar again stressed that he is an atheist and does not lobby for the interests of any religious, political, or ethnic groups and organizations.
"I regret that I do not believe in G-d," the ninety-year-old scholar admitted. "I am very seriously ill and I cannot walk. . . I would very much like to believe that G-d is, so that He could help me. . . . But unfortunately I do not believe in G-d; I am an atheist. However I am not a militant atheist; I do not advocate struggle with religion; I advocate the study of science and enlightenment." [tr. note: "G-d" represents the way the Jewish.ru site rendered the Russian word "B-g" (Bog means God), deliberately avoiding spelling out the full name, in their quotation of Ginzburg. The elipses in the translation exactly reproduce elipses in the Russian original.]
One of the leading Russian newspapers published on Wednesday on its Web site an article under the title "To whose pipe does Academician Ginzburg dance?" The authors of the material enterprisingly accompanied the publication with a photograph (obviously taken from an archive) on which were represented flaming Hanukah candles and the Nobel laureate for physics Vitally Ginzburg standing alongside the chief rabbi of Russia, Berl Lazar. It would seem to be an innocent illustration of a Jewish holiday. . . But comparing the title of the article and the photograph, the reader should have no doubts about "whose pipe Academician Ginzburg is dancing to." And one can do that even without reading the article itself. What is more, the article does not even mention either the chief rabbi, nor the Jewish community, nor the Hanukah holiday. It leads to the conclusion that on the pages of a well known national Russian newspaper there is an attempt to deceive the Russian reader by cheap means. However if this had happened on the pages of only one publication, however respectable it may be, then perhaps this would not attract the fixed attention of the writer of these lines. But in the past couple of days practically the entire Russian news mediaÑboth print and electronicÑhave been up in arms about Academician Ginzburg. Usually in order to define such a campaign one uses a rather unambiguous and definite termÑpersecution.
It all began with the publication on Sunday evening of an open letter of Russian scholars to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ten academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences affixed their signatures beneath the appeal: Physicists Evgeny Alexandrov, Zhores Alferov, Lev Barkov, Vitaly Ginzburg, Eduard Krugliakov, and Anatoly Cherpashchuk, Biologist Garri Abelev, Hematologist Andrei Vorobiev, Geophysicist Mikhail Sadovsky, and Genetecist Sergei Inge-Vechtomov. In the letter the scholars expressed their concern over "growing clericalization of Russian society" and "active penetration of the church into all spheres of public life." In particular, the RAN academicians spoke against the introduction of the "Foundations of Orthodox culture" subject into the curriculum of Russian state schools and against including a "theology" specialty in the list of academic specialties of the Supreme Accrediting Commission. The scholars also expressed their concern over the penetration of religion into governmental institutions, including the army, which violates the14th and 28th articles of the RF constitution, establishing the principle of a secular state and the equality of all religions and freedom of conscience. The academicians emphasized in their letter that the process of the return of the Russian Orthodox church into Russian society should not go too far. Thus, according the a corresponding member of RAN and member of the Public Chamber, Valery Tishkov, who was quoted in the "Vedomosti" newspaper, the influence of religion in society may be beneficial, but widening the sphere of the influence of the church should be done very carefully.
Reaction to the appeal of the prominent Russian scholars ensued immediately. By the next day after publication of the letter, news media sparkled with indignant headlines. The authors of the letter were accused of attempting to destroy society and the state, of inciting interethnic and interconfessional strife, of lobbying for the interests of certain ethnic and political groups of the population, and even that the scholars were fulfilling some kind of order from the West. And what is characteristic, practically all the accusations were addressed specifically to Academician Ginzburg, although there were nine other scholars who, besides him, placed their signatures under the appeal to the president.
In the opinion of Duma Deputy Dmitry Rogozin, the Nobel laureate is also guilty of provoking the stream of criticism upon himself. "Orthodox activists are upset with the declaration not only of Ginzburg himself, but also with the fact that this is Ginzburg. . . They had in mind that he does not have the right at all to attack Orthodoxy by virtue simply of his . . ."ÑRogozin did not finish his sentence, in answer to questions in a broadcast from radio station "Echo of Moscow." "I think that Mr. Ginzburg is not correct here, even though he is an academician, a worthy man, particularly because he understands quite well what kind of wave he would provoke against himself. And those who are stirring up this wave just expect that Ginzburg will say something on this topic."
There is no doubt that answers to the academicians' letter came not only from the so-called "Orthodox activists" from radical nationalistic organizations. Even the Russian Orthodox church itself issued an official statement (one must acknowledge, against the background of the general hysteria, that it was extremely correct and restrained). Thus, the deputy head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, stated in the name of RPTs that "the church cannot be confined within the limits of parish life." "The RPTs has dealt with and will deal with everything that moves people; that is how any religious society acts in the free world."
And the director of the press service of the Moscow patriarchate, Priest Vladimir Vigiliansky, in response to the academicians' letter, suggested that the letter could be "a political decree of a certain ministry not to permit people and our society to learn about their own culture."
But going beyond all were popular television shows of the First Channel, which are known for their extreme loyalty to the leading structures of the government. Famous journalists, condemning the letter of the ten academicians, accused the scholars of acting upon the orders of the Ministry of Education in the interests of anti-Russian forces. But how in any way can people, whose service to their own government is restricted to vile insults against imaginary enemies of their motherland, twist the language into accusations of anti-Russian activity against scholars who all their lives have worked for the welfare and prosperity of Russia? Nevertheless, without even raising what would seem to be such obvious questions, the Russian news media in several hours managed to publish the statement of the new exposers of the atheist scholars.
But probably more devious than the others was one of the most authoritative information agencies of Russia, which issued as, so to speak, the outrage of the day excerpts from an article by Vitaly Ginzburg that was published three years ago in a little known Web almanac "Hebrew Antiquity," where the Nobel laureate, without in any way contradicting his atheistic convictions, wrote: "For Jews the synagogue was not only a house of worship but also the center of the community. In this regard it is understandable why even Jewish atheists, at least many of them, including me, consider it possible and justified at the present time to give some material support to the synagogue." At the same time the academician expressed his own dissatisfaction with the extreme influence of Judaism on public life in Israel, where, in his opinion, religion also should be separated from the state. Undoubtedly, the bone that was thrown by an authoritative information agency was received gladly by the Russian journalistic community, and new accusations rained down upon the Jew Ginzburg, from publications of the radical type with headlines like "Militant atheist Ginzburg is an avid Jewish nationalist" to the almost innocent (against this background) manipulation of photographs in well known Russian national newspapers, which the writer of these lines mentioned at the very beginning of this article.
In 2003, after the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Vitaly Ginzburg, he stressed in a conversation with a "Jewish.ru" correspondent that he considers himself an atheist, and he carefully clarified his position regarding the so-called national question: "I am an internationalist and I do not think that the Jews are a chosen people. In my opinion, all peoples are equal. And my national feeling, if one can define it so, consists in the following: "if a Jew is bad, then I am embarrassed; if a Jew is good, then I am pleased."
The hysterical reaction of the news media to the appeal of the prominent scholars, who represent the intellectual elite of Russian society and who are guarantee of the progress of the state, must disturb not only society itself but also the head of state. And what will be more interesting in light of the developing uproar is the response of the president of the country. If only he does. . . (tr. by PDS, posted 26 July 2007)
Russian original posted on Portal-credo.ru site, 26 July 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/.