All cults and religions have one little problem. It consists in the absence of God as such, as well as any indirect signs of his existence.
This annoying little thing, of course, makes believers nervous. True, not always. They themselves have already learned to put up with this fact, but they are very worried when others find out about it. It seems to believers that when the true state of affairs is revealed, they look silly with their candles, the cult of the dried dead and turbans.
The secret of the absence of God, of course, can be masked by the nonsense of magnificent rituals, ritual dances or demagogy about "spirituality."
Can. But only up to a certain minute. And sooner or later she comes, and then the practical absence of a deity becomes obvious to everyone. Agree, this is not a very pleasant moment for a believer. Being exposed as a fool, he, as a rule, falls into a rage, which (to the extent of his depravity) can be realized both through a simple scandal and through a queue from the AKM.
There are many different ways to expose the juicy fact of God's absence. But only good, juicy blasphemy has the universal ability to dot the i's in this matter.
Why? Because, directly affecting the personal dignity of God, blasphemy, in theory, should provoke him to immediate response.
Essentially, God gets a slap on the head. Of course, he can set his tail between his legs and remain silent, but for a creature with such a menacing bloody image, as, for example, the Judeo-Christian god, this is not a very decent pose. The silence and inaction of the deity in this case works for his desacralization, that is, for sanctification. The professional reputation of God is crumbling, firmly hammered into the consciousness of the public.
The writers of religions wrote off the main features of the gods from themselves. Therefore, vindictiveness, suspiciousness and hysteria have become characteristic features of supernatural characters.
There are variations, of course. There are softer and harder cults. But Judaism, Christianity and Islam have long been caught in the trap of their own propaganda campaign. They, unlike other religions, cut off any escape routes for themselves, inventing for themselves not only a very evil, but also an extremely capricious god. Their god is completely devoid of a sense of humor, and 80% of his vocabulary is blackmail and bloody threats.
Of course, all deities, from the Buddhist Palden Lhamo to the Chukchi Pivchunin, squabble, hysterical and exterminate people. But Zeus is at least periodically distracted by inseminating gape of Greek women, Palden spends part of his time sewing accessories from his son's skin, but the biblical god has no other occupations except self-admiration and intimidation of poor homo. He asserts himself exclusively through mass murder and rasping. Both, judging by the Bible, had crazy success among the pastoralists of antiquity:
"And I will pour out my indignation on you, I will breathe on you with the fire of my fury ... You will be food for the fire, your blood will remain on the earth, they will not even remember you for, I, the Lord, said this" (Ezekiel 21-31, 22)
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters you shall eat" (Leviticus 26-29)
"Beat the old man, the young man and the maiden and the baby and wives to death" (Ezek. 9-6.)
“He who is far away will die of a pestilence; and whoever is close will fall by the sword, and those who remain and survived will die of hunger ... and you will know that I am the Lord ... "(Ezekiel 6-12,13)
Even not offended by anything, this god throws stones from the sky, pours fire on people or sends epidemics, wars and misfortunes on them. (Nav. 10-11)
He can dry a tree without finding fruit on it in March, and with a snap of his fingers turns a lady who looks back at her burning house into a pillar of salt. (Matt 21-19; Genesis 19-26)
For no reason, he destroys entire cities and carves out peoples, and at one fine moment arranges a mass murder of all mankind as a whole. In the waters of a global flood, the biblical deity drowns everyone in cold blood, including babies, pregnant women and ancient old women, making an exception only for his confidant named Noah.
Note that the Bible offers us a very specific picture of disaster. All attention is focused on the boat, where the animals and the Noah's family are comfortably settled. Hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of children and adults who are painfully dying at this moment, are only worthy of a casual mention: “every creature that was on the surface of the earth was destroyed; from man to cattle ... "(Genesis 7-23)
The innocent joke of the village children against his other confidant (the prophet Elisha) also provokes an immediate reaction from God. But since he constantly invents some new methods of murder, the babies are not burned with sulfur or drowned, but are torn by bears. “And two bears came out of the forest and tore forty-two of them to pieces” (2 Kings 2-24).
After that, God and the bears are probably melancholy picking their teeth, leaving the mothers to collect and mourn the remains of the torn children.
In general, according to "holy scripture", children are a special weakness of the Christian god. He loves and knows how to destroy them.
We really do not know exactly how God killed all the firstborn in Egypt, (Ex. 12-29). But the mass slaughter of babies is precisely his image action, for which he carefully prepared, discussing it with Moses. The “Holy Scriptures” of Christians diplomatically only informs that “there was a great cry in the land of Egypt, for there was no home,” where there would be no little dead man.
A. Nevzorov: A moment comes when the most powerful insult to the feelings of believers becomes ... iconsGod loved to have fun on babies (1 Samuel 6-19, Ps. 136-9), but did not deprive the attention of the womb (Hosea 14-1). In this regard, in the book of the prophet Hosea, a particularly piquant expression is used - "to cut pregnant women."
However, torn children, massacres and the sending of epidemics are the regular repertoire. Just to maintain the proper degree of "fear of God" in the public and a permanent reminder of its "greatness". The real hysteria of the deity begins when he gets a slap on the head in one form or another. That is, it becomes an object of ridicule or direct mockery.
Naturally, none of the characters in the "scripture" calls God an "idiot." Nobody draws cartoons of him. Hebrew blasphemy is of a very delicate nature. But! Even an attempt to simply look into the “ark of the covenant” evokes an immediate and very vicious reaction from God: “And he struck the inhabitants of Bethshemis because they looked into the ark and killed fifty thousand seventy people from the people” (1 Kings 6-19). A funny trick of the boys Nadab and Abiud, who dared to smoke some wrong incense, leads to the fact that “fire came out from the Lord and burned them and they died in the face of the Lord” (Leviticus 10-2)
We can present many such examples, even these are enough to get an idea of the character and inclinations of Jehovah-Sabaoth-Jesus. For twenty centuries, his image of a lightning-fast and merciless punisher was carefully maintained and cultivated by the church.
Naturally, any innocent joke about God should even today guarantee the impudent transformation into a handful of ashes. And immediately. And in the case of a direct insult to the "divine majesty" the heavens must crack, and the archangels must draw out the fiery swords and chop the wicked into a hundred fried pieces.
The splitting of the cult boards (icons) at the opening day should have ended with streams of flaming sulfur from heaven. And the song in the HHS - the instant tearing of the blasphemers, at least in two. But ... songs "pussies" sound, icon chips fly, Charlie's felt-tip pens creak - and nothing happens. The six-winged seraphim do not fly and the sixteen-eyed cherubim do not open the heavens. The bloody show that the Bible promised many times turns out to be just a Hebrew tale. As stupid and evil as the figure of her central character.
This moment for any "believer" trained in the conviction that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and most importantly, extremely ferocious, is almost unbearable. Of course, the sign of "absence" is obvious to him, too. And then, with his own vanity, he tries to disguise that intolerable silence and everyday life that comes after the blasphemy. And he fills it with the howl of a million-strong rally, automatic bursts or the voice of Marina Syrova.
Believers can be understood. They really do not want to look like fools who have wasted their lives on pounding their foreheads on the floor and kissing dried corpses. Having some religious experience, they know for sure that nothing will happen as a result of blasphemy, and they undertake to do his “work” for their god.
The situation is warmed up by the priests. When it is no longer possible to disguise the fact of the absence of God in the usual ways, then new articles of the Criminal Code are written, fires are kindled, and the believers come up with some "special feelings" that other people do not have. These "feelings" today are a good substitute for God, themselves becoming an object of worship.
We will talk about whether these "feelings" really exist in the second part of our article.
There is a stereotype based on canonical and dogmatic ignorance. Believers naively divide the Old and New Testaments, probably assuming that they are talking about different gods. Not at all.
The particular piquancy of the situation lies in the fact that Jesus and the bear-tearing children are one and the same god, depending on the conjuncture, changing names, etc. "Essences".
In Christianity, not three gods and not two. He is alone.
When a simple question is asked: "Is it possible to offend the feelings of believers?" - sour even the hardest liberals. Ideological skewers are immediately sheathed. The time is coming for reservations, dozens of different "buts" and scribbling. The result is an unintelligible bleating with no response at all.
A. Nevzorov: On the territory of the Russian Federation, unfortunately, we are deprived of the opportunity to publicly blasphemeAlthough the answer to this question is extremely simple: in those territories where there is no direct legislative prohibition on such an insult, it is undoubtedly possible to do this. Moreover, it is necessary. And even necessary.
Of course, there are territories that have chosen intellectual degradation as their destiny, or have no development ambitions. Their list is known: Bangladesh, Russia, Nigeria, Afghanistan and other powers focused on identity and spirituality. There, laws protecting the "feelings of believers" are of course used and enforced.
In the codes of developed countries, such prohibitions are sometimes found (in the form of legal fossils), but in general the civilized world follows the decisions of the Venice Commission under the Council of Europe, which has long recommended "to exclude blasphemy from the number of offenses."
The meaning of this recommendation is clear. The fact is that the right to blasphemy is a much more important right than it seems at first glance. Blasphemy is an essential component of free thought, which allows one to concisely express one's attitude to the set of those archaic absurdities that underlie any religion. Moreover, public blasphemy is a great way to remind believers that they are not the sole owners of the world, culture and information spaces. That in addition to their views, there are also diametrically opposed ones.
This reminder is useful for the believers themselves. The fact is that in favorable environments, they are quickly forgotten and lose orientation in behavior. Which subsequently inevitably leads to dramas. We have repeatedly observed how priests first shove their hands under everyone's nose, importunately demanding kisses, and then take offense, contemplating their bloody stumps. Periodically bumping into the blade of atheism with an Adam's apple, believers sober up and "return to the shores." This preserves balances and avoids unpleasant excesses.
A. Nevzorov: An innocent joke about God should even today guarantee the impudent transformation into a handful of ashesWe return to our topic. On the territory of the Russian Federation, unfortunately, we are deprived of the opportunity to publicly blaspheme. Why do we say "sorry"? Because today we need to find out if believers have any special “feelings”. Of course, it would be easier to do it with some live example. Having launched the mechanism of blasphemy for a minute, we would have easily discerned the construction of the notorious "feelings". Believers are taught to respond to such provocations and always provide excellent research material in their reactions. But! For well-known reasons (Article 148 of the Criminal Code), we cannot do this, and therefore we will consider the mechanism of "blasphemy - an insult to the senses", in no case setting it in motion. Static, so to speak. However, even turned off, this mechanism is also understandable, and poking around with logic tweezers is even more convenient.
So. Let us assume that the “feelings of believers,” that is, some sensations unknown to science and inaccessible to other people, really exist. In this case, we are dealing with a phenomenon. With a paranormal activity worthy of careful study. Almost every “believer” claims that the presence of such “feelings” radically distinguishes him from all other people. This is a serious statement. Note that today it is a claim to a whole set of essential privileges.
What is the nature of these "feelings"? Logically, they should be an application to the set of dogmas, from the confession of which every believer begins. But if this is so, then they must be unchanged in the same way as Christianity itself. And have an equally ancient origin. In this case, the offensive to the believers of the 4th century should just as strongly offend the worshipers of Jesus in the seventeenth century. And what was intolerable for the Christians of the 10th century must certainly “work” in the 21st century. Is it so? Let's see.
Starting from the 3rd century, Christians were mortally insulted by Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, Aeschylus, as well as all ancient classics. Why? Because these authors mentioned or glorified pagan gods in their writings. Therefore, Homer and the other Sophocles were forbidden to teach in schools, and their writings were burned, buried in the ground, or scraped off parchments. Those who dared to recite them or just read them were killed. An endless number of books containing the names of Osiris, Zeus, Hermes, Mars and other competitors of Jehovah Jesus were destroyed.
Athenaeus Navkratissky in his "Feast of Philosophers" gives relatively accurate numbers: he writes that about 800 names of ancient writers and scientists and about 1500 of their works were lost forever during the period of reprisals against ancient literature by Jesus' followers.
In 391, Bishop Theophilus burned down the Library of Alexandria. There remained about 26,000 volumes of "offensive" literature. The pious Valens ordered specially to collect pre-Christian books throughout Antioch and to destroy them "without any trace." Pope Gregory I in 590 issued a decree obliging to put an end to the "abomination" of Homers, Apulees and Democrites. In the heaps of burned books, there was often a place for scientists of that time.
Although we must pay tribute to the Christians: at that time they still loved to contemplate the torment of their offenders and preferred to kill them in some smokeless way. For example, cutting off meat from them with sharp shells. From the living. This is how they managed to put an end to the first female astronomer Hypatia, who was killed by order of St. Cyril of Alexandria.
A. Nevzorov: Torn children, mass killings and sending epidemics are the regular repertoireIt must be said that not only books, but the entire ancient culture "offended the feelings of believers in Christ." The followers of the "sweet god" demolished temples, crushed statues, washed away frescoes, crumbled cameos and chipped off mosaics.
After just a few centuries, we see representatives of the same faith lovingly collecting ancient Roman and Greek art. They are already making glass capsules for Apollo cameos and blowing dust from Athena's marble eyes. For some mysterious reason, what tormented believers so much and caused them "mental anguish" becomes the object of their own admiration, study and trade.
Here, the first doubt about the presence of certain special “feelings” that are acutely and directly related to faith becomes legitimate.
Then everything develops even more curious. A moment comes when ... icons become the most powerful insult to the feelings of believers. Let's take a look at the Orthodox Byzantium of the 8th century for a second. Homer no longer worries anyone. But we see huge bonfires made of icons. We see icon painters who, as punishment for their work, have their fingers cut off or their hands boiled in boiling water. 338 Orthodox bishops at the Council of 754 (in the Blachernae Church) declare the icons the most terrible insult to religion and demand their complete destruction. Orthodox crowds prowl all over Byzantium, looking for an excuse to be more offended. They easily find it, since there are icons in every home. Anyone who has a pictorial image of Jesus Iosifovich or his mother in the house, this icon is smashed on his head. After breaking, large fragments of the once sacred boards are hammered into the ass of their owners. Or down the throat. It is put on stream and mockery of images. Pig-dog or "other demonic stigmas" are painted over the faces on the icons.
338 Orthodox bishops rub their paws and light up the crowds of believers even more zealously, painting in colors the nuances of the emotional pain that icon painting should inflict on true believers. But after a few years, everything changes magically. 338 Orthodox bishops, having joked, again get down to business - and all over Byzantium a round-up begins against those who pricked icons and boiled the hands of living icon painters in boiling water. As a result, the very same Orthodox who were offended by the fact of the existence of icons begin to offend even the thought of burning or splitting them. A new search for the guilty begins. They are found without any difficulty and given to drink with lead melts. The Byzantine landscape is adorned with corpses with burnt mouths and entrails. These are iconoclastic blasphemers. Now they are the ones that arouse the hatred of Christians. Exactly the same as the icon painters and iconostases called several years ago. 338 Orthodox bishops shine with happiness, and icons are again declared especially revered objects. Having played enough of iconoclasm, believers rush in search of new reasons to be offended.
Of course, the comparison of Christians with Banderlogists, who, having pounded and played a trick, quickly lose interest in the object of the pogrom and run to look for new, stronger feelings, is not too correct. Let's refrain from it for now. Let's see what happened next.
A. Nevzorov: For no reason, he destroys cities and slaughters peoples, and at one point he organizes mass murderAnd then it was even more interesting. Christians began to be offended in general at everything that came to their hand: astronomy, chemistry, printing, paleontology and botany. On the opening of pharmacies, electricity and X-rays. Let's omit the textbook and well-known examples of De Dominis, Bruno, Buffon, Miguel Servet, Charles Estienne, Ivan Fedorov, et cetera. Consider lesser known, more recent scandals.
The very beginning of the 19th century. Offended by anatomy, Russian seminarians under the leadership of the Kazan Bishop Ambrose burst into the anatomical department of Kazan University, smash educational collections, and everything that remains not split and trampled is thrown into specially prepared coffins, funeral service and buried under bells ringing and singing.
Mid-19th century. A new terrible insult was inflicted on the believers: huge bones, which, in their opinion, serve as evidence of the existence of the giants described in the Bible (Gen. 6-4, Num. 13 -34), have been declared by science to be the remains of ancient lizards. Scientists are directly accused of blasphemy, belittling the authority of the "holy scriptures" and encroachment on the "foundations of piety."
End of the 19th century. Now believers are outraged that gynecology could become a legal branch of medicine. The possibility of gazing, discussing, studying and depicting rima pudendi infuriates them with incredible fury. And just 50 years later, Christian women, sitting in gynecological chairs, cheerfully wave tickets to the fashionable paleontological and anatomical museums.
For many centuries, believers have had the opportunity to solve any issue with the help of fires. When the matches were taken away from them, they rushed into the legal abyss, demanding the protection of their special "feelings" by special laws. It is almost impossible to list everything that has caused their tantrums for twenty centuries. It is the invention of railways, radio, aviation, drilling and explaining the origin of species. Today we can confidently assert that everything that once offended religious feelings has necessarily become the pride of mankind.
But that's not the point. We are more worried by the fact that the insult of believers each time was caused by some new reason, and after a while passed without a trace. Moreover, having thoroughly humiliated themselves, Christians turned out to be very active and grateful users of what had recently caused them such "mental pain."
With all our desire, we do not see any connection between their "feelings" with the dogmas of their faith or other paranormal textures. We see only ordinary human malice, skillfully directed by their ideologists to one thing or another. This malice in the 8th century drew a pig's stigma to Christ on icons, in the 16th century it forced to smash the first printing house in Russia, and in the 19th century it persecuted Darwin. Looking more closely, we can notice (besides anger) an intolerance towards dissent and innovation. Undoubtedly, anger and intolerance are strong feelings. But they are not unique and do not entitle them to privileges.
Even this brief analysis makes it possible (with a certain certainty) to assert that the “special feelings” of believers are fiction. The same far-fetched and artificial concept as faith itself.
A. Nevzorov: In fact, God gets a slap on the head. Of course, he can set his tail between his legs and remain silent, but ...The fact is that religiosity is not an innate and inevitable property of a person. DNA does not deal with such trifles as confessional transfer. Faith is always the result of suggestion, teaching, or imitation. It is always conditioned by environmental conditions and circumstances. The same is the case with “insult to the senses”. If a believer is not taught to be offended, then he will never do it.
Let's look at this statement with a very simple example. For maximum clarity of our thought experiment, let us take the figure of the main Christian of Russia, a zealot of Orthodoxy, Vladimir Gundyaev, known under the church pseudonym “Patriarch Kirill”. Suppose (anything happens) that little Volodya at the age of two or three years old would be kidnapped by gypsies. And, covering their tracks, they would resell to another, distant camp. And from there - even further. State borders for Roma are a conditional concept. Therefore, the resale of a curly baby could end in Assam, Bihar or another state of beautiful India. Of course, raised by the jungle, Volodya would be a completely different person. He would not know his real name. His mother tongue would be Bengali. He would not have the slightest idea about any Christ, dikiri and kathisma. The elephant-faced Ganesh, the many-armed Kali and the monkey Hanuman would become his gods. His feelings would never have been offended by the Pussies' prank. And from the splinters of the cut down "Femen" cross, our hero would have made a fire and cheerfully roasted a fat festive cobra on it.
with the correspondent of the portal Credo.Ru Alexander Soldatov. Part one: about serving in the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, about an unsuccessful attempt at baptism, an "interesting case" at the altar, and why Nevzorov is not a professional atheist.
"Portal-Credo.Ru": After a number of your recent television appearances, you have become almost the banner of the new Russian atheism. Does this mean that you became a professional atheist?
Alexander Nevzorov: No, I did not go to professional atheists. And I am engaged in atheism, shall we say, with my left foot, for various reasons. The first reason, probably, is that since childhood, I really do not like blockades. All sorts of blockades, and when I see some kind of blockade, the old hunting instinct wakes up in me - to break the blockade. The priests turned out to be so stupid that they nevertheless organized this information blockade in Russia, and a situation arose in which no words, except for strictly complimentary or completely colorless words, are unused and impossible ...
That I experienced once on myself. I had a friend, the editor-in-chief of one of the main Moscow magazines, who for a long time persuaded me to write. I wrote to him at one time ... At the same time, you need to know how I write: as from a patient with mastitis, goats are milked out of me an hour before the release of the issue of some text. And there I suddenly experienced for myself what Orthodox censorship is, and realized that the situation was rather bad.
- Of course, you are not ready to name this magazine?
I don’t know what it’s called now. Misha Leontyev's magazine is always called differently.
And then I looked around. In general, the topic of religion interested me very little after 1991. At the same time, I am not an "Internet" person at all. As the guys from "Sanity" popularly explain this, I have nowhere to "warm up". They are trying to dump some materials for me, and I find out with great surprise that, it turns out, passions are simmering.
- Yes, and what!
I find out that during the same "NTVshniki" program, it turns out that someone "left the studio."
- Didn't you have a picture in front of your eyes then?
I had a picture, but I didn’t notice anyone leaving. And I have a very rich studio broadcast experience, I saw a lot of people who had an attack of diarrhea and who jumped out of the studio, but then they could come up with some kind of lofty explanation for this, or they could just honestly say that it was urgently needed for the potty. Therefore, I do not pay attention to such things. I don’t understand what to leave, I didn’t offend anyone.
Let's talk in more detail about this "NTVshniki" program. Do you think that this was not the first case when a program with some "hitting" on the official Moscow Patriarchate was broadcast on the central channel, which was actually financed by the Kremlin? Before that, the rather sensational "Spotlight Paris Hilton" was released on Channel One, where Fr. Vsevolod Chaplin was criticized, and the patriarch, in a pseudo-satirical manner - but, nevertheless, this is Channel One! Now this issue, a big program on Channel Five, then the program was on Radio Rossiya, a semi-official channel, about the failure of the experiment with the introduction of "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" in schools, with the military clergy. And finally, these "NTVshniki". Prime time, Sunday evening ... Don't you think that this is still an application for a new Russian trend of decllericization, shall we say, coming from the authorities?
I don’t know, I don’t appreciate it. But I can say that NTV employees persuaded me personally for a long time. I had a very bad relationship with NTV throughout all these years. And any informational participation and, in general, participation in NTV programs was excluded. It was forbidden even categorically to pronounce this abbreviation for my deputies. When they called and asked to speak, everyone knew that we were not dealing with NTV. Some cunning ways they recognized my direct telephone number, they began to persuade me.
- How long did it last?
Almost two weeks. I'm not very willing to go to all these demarches. I have absolutely no desire to be "the main priest of the country."
- "We'll do it"?
What a "bastard", have mercy! I didn't even take a camera in my hands. When they tell me that I am at war with some church there, I shyly pay attention to the fact that I really did not take the camera in my hands. Given that now, of course, when passions have already flared up, when it turned out that I am in the epicenter of these passions, I suddenly "flooded" incredible material.
Recently came a film from a beauty salon. Girl, beauty salon administrator ...
- Is it posted on the Internet?
No, I prohibited posting it on the Internet. Nothing is posted there. Nobody would dare to post anything without me. This is a film from a beauty salon where two boys are epilated. Two 18-year-old boys who epilate their legs, stomachs, butts, explaining that otherwise "the bosses will be angry." But now everyone is nimble, cunning, everyone has phones, with which everything can be filmed and photographed. The girl captured one of these epilations - partially, with the observance of propriety - on video, and then got into a conversation with these guys. She was sure that the guys were working for some sexually preoccupied sinister ...
- Is it here in St. Petersburg?
No, it's in another big city. ... The evil one who rapes her young employees. And then it turned out that these were two subdeacons! And I contacted her, sent her directly to the service in the cathedral, and she captured me these same two boys, who epilate priests and legs in the beauty salon, explaining that otherwise the authorities would be angry, captured them during the service, with ripids and other things. No, we don’t put anything like that into this Internet of yours.
- Yes, I'm sorry, there was a girl on the Internet who talked about how priests came to consecrate a nightclub ...
No, these are trifles. With epilation, everything is much more picturesque and plus - absolutely documentary. Moreover, this is one of those young bishops who now seems to have not been noticed in this "blue" spectrum and who, in this capacity, is completely unknown. Although I have a lot in my memory ... Well, I saw a blowjob in the altar ... I can't say that it made a strong impression on me.
- At the Smolensk cemetery?
- Well ... we know a little your biography, you did not hide this episode of your ministry ...
But in addition to the Smolensk cemetery, I also had the St. Nicholas Cathedral, the Church of St. John the Theologian at the Leningrad Theological Academy, a church at the Volkovskoye cemetery ... Let's omit a specific geographical point. But one of the rulers served there, and, as you know, there is such a wonderful moment when all the clergy come to Solea, and the royal gates are closed. The singers are running to smoke at this moment ... And so, I heard that rustling in the altar, which, in theory, should not have been. And I saw this scene with the subdeacon. I didn’t look closely at her. I have a traditional orientation, and it was disgusting to me to look at it. I saw only the fat, freckled paw of one of the bishops and the head of this subdeacon, the movements of which he "rhythmized", let's say. And how they managed to lift up the sakkos, I do not understand at all, because it is almost impossible. But somehow they managed. Unusually talented guys.
At the same time, I understand where pedophilia and pederasty come from in the church, I understand that girls are a problem. This is always fraught with hysteria, smeared with mascara on the face, standing under the walls of a church or academy with tears, curses, demands to clarify the relationship, and so on, and so on. And the subdeacon is an unrequited being, he either climbs this ladder, or does not climb.
But this, again, does not concern me much. This is all disgusting.
-Was it a shock for you, did it somehow affect your life?
No, it didn't affect me in any way. I was not a neophyte, I was even unbaptized.
- And at the same time you served, and were even a reader?
- That is, you perceived it only as a job?
Absolutely. Those were fierce, hard Brezhnev times, when it was exotic, when it was like running away to the Indians. Wandering around monasteries with some funny alcoholics, painting icons with Archimandrite Tavrion (Batozsky), being expelled from some nunnery for a funny story with nuns, etc. It was all wonderful, and then it all naturally passed away.
And they didn't baptize me, as my grandfather told me, that's why. I had a nanny who planned to take me to baptize, but my grandfather, who was a general of state security, found out about it. They descended upon this church, interrupted the process by dipping the priest in all his clothes into the baptismal font. And as compensation for the moral trauma that I had to endure, I was sent to the cinema for the "Magnificent Seven" two times in a row (!). So I had a different type of baptism, much more understandable for me.
You see, then it was impossible to believe or not to believe at all. Because faith or disbelief is not the lot of 17-18 year olds. This is the choice of an adult who, in general, already understands the seriousness and weight of this choice. I was not an adult at 17.
Work on the draft law "On the transfer of religious property to religious organizations" began in 2007. And everything proceeded relatively quietly and peacefully, until on September 21 on Channel Five Nika Strizhak's program “Shall we give up all the churches?” Aired. We decided to clarify the position of one of the persons involved in the program - publicist Alexander Nevzorov.
Work on the draft law "On the transfer of religious property to religious organizations" (we are talking, in fact, about the return of property nationalized during the years of the USSR) began in 2007. And everything proceeded relatively quietly and peacefully, until on September 21 on Channel Five Nika Strizhak's program “Shall we give up all the churches?” Aired.
The representatives of the interested parties were invited to the air of the Open Studio: the Orthodox director and actor Nikolai Burlyaev, the chief curator of the Hermitage Svetlana Adaksina, the rector of the church, Archpriest Georgy Polyakov, publicist Alexander Nevzorov.
Nevzorov agreed on the one hand, and Burlyaev and the archpriest on the other. Alexander Glebovich categorically opposed the transfer of not only museum property, but also any other property to the church. "Don't give a damn thing to the priests!" - he threw, leaving the studio. Unsurprisingly, the program generated a lot of buzz. Nikolai Burlyaev even called it a provocation, into which he was involuntarily drawn. Today, when the passions have subsided, we decided to clarify the position of one of the persons involved in the program.
- On the Internet forum of the Fifth Channel, almost 90 percent of the responses support your position. What is the reason for this, Alexander Glebovich? Has the Russian Orthodox Church really lost the sympathy of the people?
- Christianity, let's be frank, has one huge advantage: it is an excellent management system. But it only works with the complete ignorance of the governed. The problem is not with the parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church - the problem with ignorance. It is not a question of who is the enemy, but who is the supporter of the church. This is largely a question of who adheres to the medieval principles of worldview and behavior, and who still lives in the 21st century. Now there are many more people who have received, albeit superficial, but education, who think, if not independently, then at least try.
- Or maybe the society sees few real deeds of the church aimed at supporting the disadvantaged?
Supporting the “orphaned, humiliated and insulted” - according to world practice - is always hypocrisy, it is the most sophisticated form of theft. If you dig into any charity, for some reason you can see Makarov's pistols, soldering irons and gold rings under it. So that's not the point. It's just that religion can exist only in strictly defined institutional and intellectual conditions, and these conditions do not exist now. That is why there are so many of those who support me.
When the development of the bill began, the state did not hide that it wanted to save money on the maintenance of the former property of religious organizations. After all, the budget spends a lot of money on current and major repairs, on payments for electricity, gas, water supply, etc.
At one time, for example, I climbed all our monasteries, starting with Konevetsky, and I assure you that it is very difficult to find at least one state penny there. Therefore, I suspect that this position of the state is slyness and hypocrisy. In addition, many of the former church buildings are in very good condition and even generate income.
- Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church say that the return of its former property will lead to a reform of the church economy. If new churches are handed over to the Churches, local parishes will not be able to maintain them. Thus, wealthy parishes (mainly in big cities) will share money with them.
I do not believe in such a reform. First of all, because economically it is ephemeral and illiterate. Yes, there are a huge number of poor parishes, but their problem can be solved simply: the priests must go to work. If they have a favorite activity, they can do it in their free time from work.
You said that the Church's receipt of a "bonus from the state" is dangerous, since with these funds it can "buy matches" again. What did you mean?
When I say that it is very dangerous to provide the Church with serious financial assistance, I mean that there is no need to provoke them to use the methods that they, in principle, use. We see aggression. We see a priest in the studio yelling "Bite your tongue!" We see the Orthodox Nikolai Burlyaev, who calls me Sasha, reads poetry to me, and after losing the debate, he runs to scribble a denunciation to the prosecutor's office. You know, I have no reason to believe that the churchmen have seriously changed since the XIV century, when they burned and gouged out their eyes. Let us recall how recently they staged a show trial over Moscow artists who, I don’t know, successfully or unsuccessfully painted what they wanted to paint. We see how the opera "The Tale of the Priest and His Worker Balda" is prohibited from staging. We observe how the anniversary of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy, who was once anathema, is being hushed up. We see how the Baba Yaga museum in the Vologda region is closed on charges of devilry. And when such an aggressive structure as the Church has financial opportunities, there is also a serious opportunity to influence social life. In fact, they need to increase the production capacity for the production of grace and its accompanying accessories (let's call them "magic"). This is normal business.
Why, in your opinion, when returning property nationalized during the years of the USSR, priority is given to the Church, and, say, not to the former owners of factories and factories, homeowners and dispossessed peasants? Many call this a violation of the Constitution, which declares the secular nature of our state.
Because, as I said before, there is an illusion that Christianity is a good way to govern. Now, with the help of some Christian leaders, the state is looking for the keys to its own people, looking for ways to govern it. There are no complete fools in the Kremlin ... But within the next two or three years, deep disappointment will come. The authorities will realize that they are losing more than they are gaining, since it turns out that yes, there are 3-4 percent of church-going, fanatical people, but in fact they mean nothing either in elections or in the system of government.
- After the debates on Channel Five, amendments were made to the bill prohibiting the transfer of items to the Church from the state part of museums, archives and libraries. Is there no more problem?
There is a problem. Because there is real estate. For example, there is a road management department - a kind of city institution, a structural subdivision of power. Can it claim its right to own even a kilometer of city roads? But the Church was the same structure. She never had anything of her own. Because it was a structural unit of the state. And she wants to be him again. But at the same time he does not admit a single comment in his address. For some reason, criticism of the road management is called criticism, and against the Church - blasphemy. But what is the fundamental difference between these organizations? One takes care of the roads, while the other provides magical services. That's all. Seeing that everyone was silent, I had to intervene. I think you understand that it was not only Nika Strizhak who invited me to the broadcast. And, of course, this broadcast was a touchstone to find out what the true mood in society is. Therefore, I think we made a lot of progress with that program. We are not going to offend believers. Let them live their lives, pray, perform rituals. But let them not creep into our social life.
There is also a criminal aspect of the problem. There is such a thieves' profession as "cranberry", a specialist in theft from churches and monasteries. Wouldn't it be easier for them to work if church valuables are returned from museums back to churches?
I think that these "cranberries" will not have time to steal anything. Because as soon as people have the original in their hands, making remakes is no longer a big problem. How did this happen under Soviet rule? Suppose you have an icon "St. George the Victorious" of the fifteenth century. There is an inventory number on it. You take any icon of the 19th - early 20th century with the same plot, rip off the inventory number from the old icon and attach it to this one. Everything. You have an icon "St. George the Victorious" with the same inventory number. The mosquito will not undermine the nose.
It is common knowledge that in your youth you were a chorister in a church choir. It is less known that you, Alexander Glebovich, studied at a theological seminary.
It is loudly said, although I was quite densely installed in the seminary. I didn’t make any church career there. If only because I have a traditional sexual orientation. But I considered it my duty to investigate this issue comprehensively and very seriously. And one must always investigate from the inside, deeply immersed. And I must say that all the metropolitans with whom I was, if not on friendly, then in rather serious relations, knew about my intentions, my doubts and that I was doing some kind of research.
- So, your sharply critical attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church is largely based on personal experience?
Certainly. I really know all of them well. It is difficult to find the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, with whom I am not familiar. Let them have fun as they want.
- Last question. What is your relationship with religion today?
Absolutely none. For me, the ideas of God are of little interest. I believe this is a narrow question for professional astrophysicists. Let them decide whether in the beginning there was some intelligent activity that provoked the "big bang" and the expansion of the universe, or not. Stephen Hawking, this genius physicist in a wheelchair, came to the conclusion that there was no such "divine push" from the outside. And he, as the heir to the throne of Einstein, can be trusted.
P.S. The word "God" in AG Nevzorov's direct speech is written with a lowercase letter at his insistence.
Interviewed by Andrey Yudin,
Alexander Nevzorov
Alexander Nevzorov
Can you imagine a situation in which this not commendable trick of the girls in the HHS would give the believers pleasure? At least satisfaction? Such a situation is not difficult to imagine. Everything is the same: the same dance, the same priests turning to the altar, the same lifting of the legs and incomprehensible texts, but at the end of this whole procedure, respectively, lightning, incineration of the blasphemers to the state: either handfuls of ashes, or just bloody pieces meat with scraps of knitted hats interspersed. But that did not happen. This did not happen again. And judging by the reaction of the believers themselves, they understand that this will never happen.
Alexander Nevzorov
What is fasting? Why is there a post? Where did fasting come from and the reasons for fasting? It is clear that physiologically this is a completely absurd action, not only not useful, but also extremely harmful, since the era of deprivation is followed by a time of monstrous unbridled gluttony, which has a corresponding name in various religious practices. Where did the posts come from? Where did the need to fast come from?
Alexander Nevzorov
Living with believing, church-going parents is torture and a huge problem. Boys and girls sincerely and perplexedly ask what to do, how to be. How can they coexist with such parents? Alexander Nevzorov answers one of the most difficult questions of the younger generation.
The legend of Russian journalism Alexander Nevzorov is known as a consistent and uncompromising critic of the church. Millions of people watched his programs “Lessons of Atheism” on the Internet. And finally, all the texts are collected under one cover. How to talk with believers, what Christian values are, how the relationship between science and the church has evolved from century to century, for which it was necessary to protect the feelings of believers - about this and many other things Alexander Nevzorov discusses in his trademark sarcastic manner on the pages of the book. The book "Lessons of Atheism" was published by Eksmo Publishing House together with an audio version of the lessons in October 2015.
Alexander Nevzorov
Today I will try to answer the extremely curious questions that, as paradoxical as it may sound, an underground (underground !!) atheistic circle of one of the St. Petersburg universities offered me. There, it really comes to insanity, and to such insanity that libraries are forbidden to give out Yaroslav Golovanov, Taxel, Lametrie and various works of Rousseau on this matter. And now the students, who are already the most intellectual, the most independent and reasonable, unite in some atheistic circles, and questions have come from them. It must be said that the questions differ, indeed, in some knowledge of the subject and a certain kind of acuteness.
Alexander Nevzorov
Today we can observe the deepening hysteria around this simple life reality, which is, was and will probably be a very important sign of a person's freedom in matters of deciding both his own fate and in matters of deciding the fate of the derivatives of his body. The right to this decision, to this freedom, is probably one of the fundamental freedoms of man. It is very important to know and understand. In the same way, it is important to know and understand that science in this matter has long ago said its word, having determined, moreover, with a large safety margin, the terms of termination of pregnancy that are safe for the woman's body, as well as the place and status of the embryo.
Alexander Nevzorov
There is also such a delicate and wonderful topic as insulting the feelings of believers. Of course, the feelings of believers should be protected from all insults, and we must watch this very carefully and understand that believers are special people, they dart everywhere and everywhere looking for an opportunity to be offended. They scour the afterwords and prefaces of books, websites, magazines, exhibitions, and everywhere eagerly look for opportunities to be offended by something and throw another tantrum. But, they have the right to these tantrums, and of course we must cherish these feelings. This kind of reverent attitude towards their feelings absolutely, however, does not prevent us from digging into the history of what, throughout world history, has offended believers and offended Christians. What factors were the most offensive for them, and what caused them the most massive, prolonged and noisy tantrums?
Alexander Nevzorov
Well? As, as a matter of fact, I warned, another skeleton fell out of the cabinet of the Russian Orthodox Church. But I must say, the skeleton is quite weighty. I mean the homosexual scandal, the details of which were announced by Deacon Kuraev. To be honest, I don't really understand the hype about this. But not only did everyone seem to have been warned about this and had to be ready for this, but I do not really understand the hysteria about this. Since everything that happens is so normative, so in church circles, in principle, it was not even discussed from the outset.
Alexander Nevzorov
All cults and religions have one little problem. It consists in the absence of God as such, as well as any indirect signs of his existence. This annoying little thing, of course, makes believers nervous. True, not always. They themselves have already learned to put up with this fact, but they are very worried when others find out about it. It seems to believers that when the true state of affairs is revealed, they look silly with their candles, the cult of the dried dead and turbans.
As you know, it was psychiatry that assumed the role of the most objective evaluator of a person's actions. She also claims to be the last resort in assessing his thoughts.
At first glance, psychiatry seems to be a good arbiter of religion and religiosity, but this impression is deceiving. The fact is that she does not hesitate to label a lot in human life and culture as "pathology."
Of course, analyzing religiosity using the parameters of psychiatry, we get rough and very generalized estimates. Nevertheless, these will be at least some primary guidelines necessary for understanding such a delicate subject as religious faith. However, we will have to cunning and maneuvering, avoiding a head-on encounter with the tenets of fundamental classical psychiatry. The fact is that she does not condescend to discuss the intricacies of the phenomenon of interest to us, but immediately pronounces a verdict.
W. Hellpach strictly states that “the religious element has almost always appeared in history in a painful shell. It spread and underwent its decisive transformations always on the wings of a massive mental illness ”(W. Hellpah. Die geistien epidemien Frankfurt am Main: Rutten & Loening, 1907).
Another classic of psychiatry E. Kraepelin notes: "In patients with a religious direction of thought under the influence of" revelations ", things can reach the delusion of prophecy, to the idea that they are the chosen ones of God and the Messiah; according to the book of V.E. Pashkovsky, Mental Disorders with Religious and Mystical Experiences, 2006).
R. Kraft-Ebing (not requiring introduction and recommendations) considered all the main religious manifestations as "delirium about a mysterious union with God", "sensual delirium of a religious-mystical nature" and did not admit any other origin of religious faith, except pathological.
The pillars of the Russian school (V.P.Serbsky, S.S.Korsakov) used only clinical terminology to characterize religious manifestations.
V. P. Serbsky generally "raked up" all questions of faith under the term paranoia religiosa (religious insanity), noting that "hallucinations containing the faces of Christ, saints begin to dominate in the sphere of perception, auditory hallucinations arise that tell the patient about his high mission, the main the content of thinking becomes religious delirium about a divine vocation "(Serbsky VP Psychiatry. Guide to the study of mental illness, 1912).
At the same time, it should be noted that none of the classics almost ever singles out "religious faith" in some special category of insanity. There is no such disease as "religious faith". By clinical standards, this is just one of the manifestations of "delusional affective psychoses and hallucinosis, typical for phasophrenia, paraphrenia and schizophasia" (according to Kleist). In other words, it is a symptom of the disease, but not the disease itself.
Depending on the national-cultural specifics of the patient's environment, this symptom of severe CNS damage can be "painted in the colors" of any religion. For example, the Chukchi, suffering from an acute form of schizophasia, will concentrate his passion on the tiny god Pivchunin, the inhabitant of the Russian world or Catholic Europe - on I. Christ, and the inhabitant of India - on the elephant-faced Ganesha.
This concludes our summary of the "classic view". As you can see, fundamental psychiatry was not inclined to deal with the nuances, but immediately and severely "closed the question." In her opinion, one should study not one of the symptoms, but the problem of schizophasia or paraphrenia in general.
The categorism of the classics could deprive us of any freedom of maneuver, but, fortunately, the situation has changed. The current status of "faith" allows us to use both parameters and logical tools of modern psychiatry for its study. Faith can be congratulated. In just a hundred years, she has made a brilliant career. From a simple symptom into a separate phenomenon.
It is easy to see that modern psychiatry not only crouches in obeisances to faith, but is sometimes touched by it. Of course, psychiatry "keeps in mind" the formulations of Serbian, Kleist and Kraepelin, but differentiates the manifestations of religious faith into "pathological" and "quite healthy", and sometimes even "healing".
This tenderness is another riddle that we will try to solve in our short essay.
The concept of "pathology", which was founded in the 19th century, as applied to some of the manifestations of "faith", of course, has not gone anywhere. There was no internal contradiction in the assessment of religiosity by psychiatry.
Let's see what still falls under the term "pathology" today?
First of all, those properties fall within which, from the point of view of Christianity, are an example for any believer. The very ones that are inscribed in the history of religion as standards of piety, to which a religious person is obliged to strive. Namely: categorical intolerance to other cults, sacrifice, rigid asceticism, reaching the point of self-harm, adamant and extremely emotional devotion to the religious ideal, as well as visions, "voices from above", etc.
We have excellent material that contains all the main "symptoms" of true faith. These are the lives of the saints. They clearly, in detail, consistently demonstrate what the behavior and thinking of a believer should be by the standards of the church. And by the standards of both classical and modern psychiatry, 75% of the saints of the Christian Church are subject to immediate hospitalization and compulsory treatment with chlorpromazine and haloperidol, increasing the dose to 30 mg per day.
It is not difficult to predict the diagnoses that would have been made (for example) by St. Simeon the Stylite, St. Blessed Laurus, St. Nikita Pereyaslavsky or St. Angela da Foligno. In all likelihood, these would be the same "delusional affective psychoses and hallucinosis."
Let us recall what exactly the mentioned characters are famous for. (These names are taken at random from the many hundreds and thousands of Catholic and Orthodox saints who have become famous for similar deeds.)
St. Simeon deliberately bred worms in the "ulcers of his bodies," resulting from the saint's habit of rubbing himself with his own feces.
St. Laurus was covered with such a thick layer of lice that under it the features of his face were barely discernible, and he could not brush off the lice, for he constantly held his hands in a cruciform manner.
St. Nikita "for 40 years irreparably wore a large stone hat."
St. Angela became famous for the fact that she regularly burned her vagina with a burning log in order to "get rid of the fire of voluptuousness."
It is clear that all the saints mentioned (if they fell into the hands of psychiatry) would be forever placed in strictly controlled hospitals.
It is more difficult to predict what daily doses of clopsixol would have been prescribed by St. Arseny, whose eyelashes fell out of constant crying for the Lord. Apparently, to stabilize his condition, they would have to (within reasonable limits) exceed the "threshold" 200 mg.
Origen, the "father of the church", who publicly cut off his penis in the name of the "kingdom of heaven", would probably have been immobilized by means of a straitjacket with metal rings (for being tied to a bed), and the Reverend St. Macarius, who, in order to get rid of sinful thoughts, “immersed his butt and genitals in an anthill for a long time,” would spend the rest of his days fixed in a geriatric chair.
The pious ecstasies of ordinary believers (favorably received by the church) would also probably be assessed by psychiatry as severe mental disorders.
Let us recall one of the examples of such piety left to us by Margaret-Maria Alakok: "He, God, took possession of me so much that once, wanting to cleanse one patient of vomit, I could not refrain from licking them with my tongue and swallowing them" ( quoted from A. Corben's “History of the Body”).
In other words, in the actions of the saints and the pious, we clearly see the ability to very easily step over the barriers of complex reflexes established to protect both the most important functions of the body and its integrity.
A natural question arises. Why doesn't the present and reliably foreseeable past offer precedents of this type? Where are they, the real manifestations of what the church itself considers to be the models of true faith?
There is none of them. But why?
Has dogma or the very essence of Christian teaching changed? No. Are the saints disavowed and decanonized? Have they lost their status as role models? Also no.
Perhaps, "faith" in the true sense of the word has remained far in the past, and today we are dealing only with its imitation, with a complex pretense, generated not by "the burning abyss of Hebrew revelations", but by conformism, ignorance and fashion?
In all likelihood, this is exactly the case.
Here we finally understand why modern psychiatry classifies religious faith so friendly and condescending. Today's faith does not contain any extreme emotional manifestations, "unearthly voices" and visions. Its adherents do not have the slightest desire to become like Christian saints in unsanitary conditions and self-harm. She (almost) does not arouse the desire to sacrifice herself or others to a religious idea.
She outlined her circle: a cake, a candle, an icon, a tear of affection, as well as abstract conversations "about God and spirituality." But everything that goes beyond the boundaries of this circle is still treated as pathology.
In other words, the tolerance of psychiatry extends only to the state of formal imitation of "faith." On that state, which, in fact, has nothing to do with the standards of living or canons.
It is precisely against such formalism, or, in the Gospel language, “lukewarmness,” that God strictly warns Christians in the “Revelation of John the Theologian” (Rev. 3-15,16), promising to “vomit” such a character “from his lips”. The luscious pathos of God is naturally echoed by saints and theologians.
A simple analysis of patristic texts leaves no doubt that such a highly conventional "faith" by the church fathers is interpreted as something that is "worse than unbelief."
The imitation we are talking about can be quite conscientious, lengthy and thorough.
It can consist in the punctual performance of religious rites, in declarations, dressing up, in the careful selection of accessories and vocabulary. She is still capable of generating anger towards dissent and some intolerance.
She never prompts to rub with feces, put on a stone hat for forty years or burn the vagina with a burning log.
This is probably for one simple reason: the pathological component is almost completely absent in the actions of modern believers. Basically, we are dealing only with the reconstruction of the state of "faith".
And the reconstructor of "faith" is incapable of substantial self-torture or voluntary martyrdom. For one simple reason: he is healthy. He is only an imitator, never overstepping the boundaries of reality. The very borders beyond which St. Simeon, St. Macarius, Origen and many others were once called "delusional affective psychoses and hallucinosis."
Of course, all of the above does not rehabilitate religion. Even devoid of meaning and content, it remains a force capable of substantially and successfully resisting human development. If only because it still offers examples of undoubted pathology as the main worldview and behavioral guidelines.