Connect with us

Culture

Why Russians Hate the Idea of the Separation of Church and State

Voice Of EU

Published

on

This article originally appeared on a new site about the Christian renaissance in Russia, called Russian Faith. Their introductory video is at end of this article.

President Putin of Russia and President Lukashenko of Belarus in the throne room of the Moscow Patriarch. Together with Ukraine, Russia and Belarus form Holy Rus’. Note the blue and gold Ukrainian Flag displayed proudly between Putin and Patriarch Kirill, along with all the other flags of Russian Orthodox Lands.


One of the most common criticisms of organised religion is that it involves itself in the affairs of politics and war.

People say: “Why are religious leaders getting involved in political discussions? Politics is Politics, religion is religion, never should the two meet.”

Non-religious people point to the Papal States and the Spanish Inquisition as examples of religion being too political. Likewise, many religious people have reasonable concerns that religion could be corrupted by politics and used for nefarious ends.

Meanwhile, throughout history, there has always been a close relationship between the Orthodox Church and various states; this is true from the times of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire to the Russian Empire and even in modern countries such as Greece, Romania, and, of course, Russia.

“Should the Orthodox Church have a close relationship with the State?”

In Orthodox countries, the answer is obvious – of course, it should!

But should the Church involve itself in the State, which may involve itself in the dangerous affairs of politics and warfare?

Yes, because the Orthodox Church, does not see itself as much as an “invisible church, a body of the elect” but as a spiritual hospital.

Our Father Among the Saints, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople says:

Enter into the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed again to enter the Church, be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent.

The Orthodox Church always saw it first and foremost as a place to heal people from a mortally ill condition, the disease of sin.

In Orthodox theology, the term mortally ill is quite literal; Orthodox people believe that death is the direct result of sin.

This is the Orthodox understanding of original sin, rather than making us all born “guilty”, we believe original sin infected the human race with a terminal illness – death, and a fondness for death.

Where are hospitals and clinics most needed in the world more than anywhere else? In places where people are the sickest, in places of war and suffering.

While the Church cherishes her dignity as an ivory tower rising from a city surrounded by seven hills and seven walls, she is also a missionary church.

Her people, especially her clergy, go where they are called and most needed.

If politics and war are where the darkest human actions are expressed, then that is exactly where the Church must be, to be a lighthouse on moonless nights to lead souls to safe harbour.

One might go as far as to say it is the opinion of Orthodoxy, especially Russian Orthodoxy, that the Church must involve itself in war and politics to prevent war and pacify the darker side of political intrigue.

Although Americans and their relatively young civilization assure the world that the Church and State must be separate, Russians actually believe that removing or separating the Church from the State destroys another ideal Americans hold very dear, namely: checks and balances.

For Russians, the Church is a moral check on the State. Were it not for the Russian Orthodox Church, Russia could have been destroyed many times by both foreign enemies and domestic fifth columns.

One could say that the Russian State – one of the most ancient states and the birthplace of patriotism – originated from the Orthodox Church because it was by the Baptism of Rus’ that Saint Vladimir of Kiev united Russia.


These two entities cannot be truly separated in Orthodox countries because in many cases it was the Church which first formed the national consciousness of the nation itself, or preserved it during times of occupation. As President Putin himself has said, it is not possible to imagine Russia without the Orthodox Church.

Moreover, Russians remember what happened when Russian revolutionaries implemented Communism, a foreign ideology (invented by German and English thinkers) which, first and foremost, tried to sever the ancient relationship between Church and State.

Communism, really foreign to the Russian context, was physically imported into Russia, when the German Empire, during WW1, secretly returned Lenin to Russia so he could spread the plague of revolution, something more effective and deadly than any biological weapon.

The Russia-hating revolutionaries tried to separate the Church from the State because they knew that it would destroy both. And because they knew they could never corrupt the State without first attacking its moral foundation.

Russians remember well what it was like to live under a system that hated the Church.

When Lenin and his Bolshevik elk tried to remove the Church from ALL aspects of Russian life, these saboteurs and traitors promised that without the Church corrupting the state, politics could become truly focused on helping humanity, and Russia would thrive.

The result, however, was actually the endless destruction of Russian lives.

“The Market Place of Our Democracy” by Glazunov depicts the inevitable result of not only Communism, but the pernicious result of the “westernizing” trend we experienced in our country in the 1990’s. Russia, her people, and culture were effectively prostituted like Biblical Israel in heathen Babylonian or Egyptian captivity.


It is when the Russian Church and State operate in symphony, that the reflowering of Orthodoxy in Russia becomes possible.

The Russian State and Church are like two heads on an eagle with the same body, they operate differently, but they are both crucial to the survival of the whole.

This relationship is very practical as well.

Patriarch Kirill spoke perfectly when he addressed sailors of the Northern Fleet in Severomorsk in 2016. His Holiness said the Church attaches “[a] very great importance to cooperation with the Armed Forces”.

Critics immediately stop here, and use this as an example of the Church being overly politicised, or supportive of violence, but if they would only read on, they would see the Patriarch believes this relationship helps ensure peace!

The Patriarch said that the condition of servicemen’s souls is “an essential part of maintaining peace.”

Have cynics ever stopped to consider that maybe if the Church were more involved with the state, and if Priests were amongst the soldiers in their darkest hours, they could bring light into the nights of war?

Russian servicemen certainly do, when asked if they wanted more Priests in their ranks, the result was an overwhelming Da!

The Church maintains the spiritual well-being of Russian servicemen because this is not only good for them and Russia, but as Russia is a nuclear power, the presence of the Church and her mission for peace amongst the Russian military is a guarantee of world peace.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and Ignatius IV of Antioch (+2012), the leader of Syrian Christians. Antioch, the ancient capital of Syria is where, according to the Bible, the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christian. (Acts 11:26). Syrian President Assad, (pictured in signs), is a protector of Christians in Syria, believing them an inseparable part of the countries history.


Patriarch Kirill urged President Putin to protect Christians in Syria, and Putin answered the call.

Just like Saint Vladimir Svyatoslavich of Kiev sent his elite Varangian “Viking” Guard to the Roman Empire to fight jihadists, Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin] is combating terrorism to save Christians in Syria.

If you disagree, I dare you to go to an Antiochian Orthodox Church, and ask Syrian immigrants to tell you their stories, and to ask them which country is really helping them.

What you hear may surprise you.

So next time you think to break a thousand year union, ask yourself this, when was the last time you’ve seen a western leader bow and kiss the relics of Saint Nicholas himself?


A video introducing Russian Faith

Source link

Culture

President’s decision to decline invite to centenary an ‘own goal’, says Senator

Voice Of EU

Published

on

President Michael D Higgins’s decision to decline an invite to a centenary church religious commemoration of partition and the establishment of Northern Ireland has been branded an “own goal” by Independent Senator Gerard Craughwell.

The move was “uncharacteristic” of the President, who has “always been the man to step forward for reconciliation and to do his bit to try to bring this country together”, said Mr Craughwell on Saturday.

The event in Co Armagh next month is not a celebration, but a commemoration, he said, adding that the declination has brought about a “deep sense of disappointment” in some unionists.

“I think we have missed an opportunity to extend the hand of friendship to the more moderate unionists and we have actually enraged the more radical unionists,” he told RTÉ’s Saturday with Katie Hannon radio programme.

Mr Higgins was invited to a “service of reflection and hope”, the Senator noted, adding: “Any of us sitting in this country today, north or south, would want to reflect on the history of this country with the hope that we might have for the future of the new Ireland- an Ireland that would embrace all traditions.”

Mr Higgins’s statement politicised the situation, which was “so uncharacteristic of the President it is difficult to accept”, he added.

Mr Craughwell was one of six Independent Senators who signed a letter to the President on Thursday voicing concerns that he had declined the invitation.

In their letter, the Independent Senators said: “We earnestly suggest, if possible that you should reconsider the matter with a view to attending the event as we believe your attendance has significant potential to advance the cause of reconciliation between the different traditions in Northern Ireland and on this island.”

‘Serious mileage’

Mr Craughwell said there will be “extreme unionists who make serious mileage out of this and the more moderate ones will be deeply hurt”.

Sinn Féin’s David Cullinane told the programme he could not see “any circumstance” where the President of Ireland would mark, commemorate or celebrate partition.

Mr Cullinane said there is a “fine line between commemoration and celebration”, and he said partition of the island is not a historical event but contemporary, as the country “is still divided and our country is still partitioned”.

Social Democrat co-leader Róisín Shortall said she agrees with the actions of the President, who was “completely within his right” to decline the invitation.

“The partition of Ireland and the formation of Northern Ireland is not something that most people would consider good developments or something that we should celebrate in any way,” she said.

There would be a “very different discussion” to be had, with other concerns expressed, said Ms Shortall, if the President had accepted the invitation to the event with its current title, which stated it would “mark the centenaries of the partition of Ireland and the formation of Northern Ireland”.

Minister of State for the Department of Health Mary Butler said the discussion around the issue has been “a little bit unhelpful” as it overshadowed the President’s visit to the Vatican.

“Unfortunately something that was really positive turned into a negative … The President of our country is entitled to make a decision on any invitation he receives,” she said.

Source link

Continue Reading

Culture

OPINION: France’s Australian submarine row shows that Macron was right about NATO

Voice Of EU

Published

on

First, which country is immediately west of Australia? Second, which country is immediately east of Australia? Thirdly, which country sprawls most widely over the globe?

The answer to all of these questions is the same: France.

The nasty row which has broken out between Paris, Washington, Canberra and (to an extent) London, is about more than a €60bn French contract to build 12 submarines for the Australian navy.

It is about France as a Pacific and Indian ocean nation; it is about France’s desire to play an important role in Indian-Pacific affairs, containing China without antagonising China; it is about America’s willingness to treat allies as allies, not vassals; it is about honesty and openness in international affairs.

President Emmanuel Macron has withdrawn the French ambassadors to Washington and Canberra after the US,  Australia and Britain announced a new security pact, called AUKUS, after 18 months of secret talks. As part of the pact France’s 2016 deal to supply 12 diesel-powered, Barracuda-class submarines to Australia has been replaced by a US-UK promise (not yet a deal) to supply nuclear-powered, but not nuclear armed, subs.

France accuses the three English-speaking nations of a “stab in the back”. But it has not withdrawn its ambassador from London. Some commentators suggest that is because France has so many important interests in common with the UK, Brexit or no Brexit.

Other commentators and French officials suggest that, au contraire, it is because Paris regards the UK involvement in AUKUS as something “opportunistic” and irrelevant.

French officials told Le Monde that NOT withdrawing the French ambassador from London was a way of expressing contempt for Boris Johnson’s role as a “stowaway” in a US-Australian submarine.

But why is France so furious?  Arms deals are a murky business. The bigger they are, the murkier they become. One friendly nation beating another to a huge arms deal is hardly new.

Let’s return to our pub quiz question. Australia’s nearest significant neighbour directly to the west is the island of Réunion in the Indian Ocean. To the east it is the archipelago of New Caledonia. These islands are constitutionally and legally not French colonies: they are as much part of France as Corsica or Calais.

READ ALSO ‘Confetti of an empire’ – a look at France’s overseas territories

The torpedoed submarine deal was commercially important to France but also politically important as the cornerstone of a new Pacific and Indian Ocean security partnership with Australia agreed in 2016 and re-asserted this year. That,  in turn, was crucial to France’s hopes of building an Indo-Pacific strategy which would make it the most important European player in the region.

The commitment to both was restated by Paris and Canberra as recently as June 15th when the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, visited Macron in the Elysée.

 “Every element of our partnership is about reinforcing the values and beliefs that we hold dearly,” Morrison said at the time. He gave Macron no hint that the submarine deal was in trouble. Problems with cost over-runs and design details appeared to have been resolved.

In fact, it now emerges, the US has been involved in talks with Australia and the UK to blow both the French deal and  the Franco-OZ pact out of the water for 18 months. In other words, the secret talks began under President Donald Trump and continued and were completed under President Joe Biden.

“And we thought we were mates,” the departing French ambassador Jean-Pierre Thebault  said in interview with Australian newspapers today. “This is not what you do a partner and even less to a friend.”

Which was more important to the United States? Stealing the submarine deal? Or destroying French hopes of playing an allied role with the US , Japan and others in Indo-Pacific affairs and coping with an increasingly aggressive and confident China?

Some people suggest that AUKUS is just a vulgar  arms deal dressed up as a security pact. The US and Australia already have a security agreement. Why do they need another one? And what can Britain do to help with a tiny Royal Navy and an Army that can’t fill Wembley stadium?

Others commentators suggest that Washington was too ignorant or too inward-looking to grasp that AUKUS would humiliate and infuriate the French. Australia, they say,  grew unhappy with the conventionally-powered French subs. It secretly approached Washington – even though France had offered to upgrade its own deal to nuclear-powered submarines.

One of the many oddities of this affair is that US arms companies already stood to earn more from the French deal than French ones. Only €8bn of the €60bn was to be spent in France (for the submarine hulls mostly). The rest was to be spent on US armaments and high-tech equipment and Australian labour.

The suspicion in the Elysée Palace is that AUKUS is a deliberate and well-planned hit on French ambitions in the Pacific (which precede Macron but have been emphasised since he came to power) Hence the extreme, though symbolic, measure taken by Macron to withdraw ambassadors from allied countries (and the first time ever from the US).

Macron finds himself in a strange place – both vindicated by what has happened and humiliated by it. He has been saying for almost four years that Nato is “brain dead” and Europe can no longer rely on the United States to defend, or even consider, European interests.

He wanted to strengthen  France’s role in the Pacific partly because he feared that Washington – whichever President might be in power – would stumble into a confrontational approach to China. He wanted Europe to have its own voice in western-Chinese relations.

Arguably, he over-reached himself. The US has now, in effect, slapped him down.

There is nothing much he can do about it. Germany is preoccupied by its election. Most other European countries are reluctant to face the consequences of quarrelling with Uncle Sam. None of them have islands in the Pacific or Indian Oceans.

All the same, the AUKUS affair, coming so soon after the debacle of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan,  proves that Macron is right. Nato is brain dead. Washington doesn’t have allies, only junior partners.  Britain has willingly accepted that role. It is time that for the European Union to consider how (to coin a phrase) it can take back control of its own security and prosperity.



Source link

Continue Reading

Culture

‘No country for working parents’

Voice Of EU

Published

on

Even before the pandemic, childcare was one of the biggest challenges facing young families. “It cripples families financially,” says Lucia Ryan, a school principal and parent of three-year-old twins.

Covid-19 has intensified the pressure on parents and providers, launching them into a new world of regulations, “play pods” and resulting staffing pressures.

“Our creche couldn’t find staff. So they reduced their hours to finish at 4pm,” Ryan, the principal of Hartstown Community School in Dublin, tells The Irish Times.

She was left trying to “run a school from home in the afternoons” and look after two-year-old twins, Matilda and John, though they are now enrolled in the State’s Early Childhood and Childcare Scheme, along with an afternoon childminder.

But she worries about the pressure facing parents and the “absolute heroes” who are the country’s childcare workers. Her third child is due in three weeks. She’s trying not to think about what happens when her maternity leave ends. “I don’t know what I’ll do.”

For many, the complications of the post-pandemic world of work and childcare are only beginning. A new era of flexibility is supposed to free people but, in practice, things could get worse, not better.

Up to 200,000 children are in early years services, with parents paying €800 per month for a creche place, and up to €1,200 a month in some areas. Now, some are discovering that their needs do not always align with either a childcare provider or their employer.

Michelle Walsh, who works with the Health Service Executive, recently returned to work after maternity leave with her second child, and considered herself lucky to get a place for the baby in the only creche in her rural town, where her three year old already attends. “On my first day back at work, the creche called to say they had to cut hours for my one year old and could only provide childcare until 1pm.”

Juggling schedules

The three-year-old could still stay full days. Walsh runs clinics in primary care four days a week, so “it is impossible to change hours to facilitate this. I’ve now had to find a childminder for the afternoons and start settling in again. To say the situation has been stressful is an understatement.”

The combination of a creche in the mornings and childminder in the afternoons is proving more expensive than full days in the creche would be. But it is her last option and she may have to take a career break if arrangements falter.

Other parents have similar stories, telling of the difficulty of juggling the same hours at work with reduced hours in childcare, the fees which haven’t changed and the dread felt that a child could be sent home with a sniffle.

“Our creche has reduced its hours. They haven’t reduced fees,” says Olivia, who doesn’t want to use her real name because she does not want to be perceived as critical of her creche or her employer, when she’s just frustrated by the system. “It used to be 7.30am to 6pm. Now it’s 8.00am to 5.30pm, which can be challenging . . . I know management are keen not to raise fees, but they say with the pod system, it’s impossible to have the staff for longer hours.”

Consequently, she has to finish work at 5pm. “Right now I’m still WFH [working from home] but it will be even more challenging once I go back to the office in a couple of weeks. In the old days, I used to drop three kids to creche for 7.45am, where they got breakfast and two were brought to school from there. Then I could work from 8am to 5.30pm. Now, we need to split drop-off for school and creche, make it to work for 9am and rush out of work at 5pm for pick-up.”

Regina Bushell, managing director of Grovelands Childcare: “There is a sustainability problem if parents only want to do five hours, but there are staff there who need to be paid for 10 hours.”
Regina Bushell, managing director of Grovelands Childcare: “There is a sustainability problem if parents only want to do five hours, but there are staff there who need to be paid for 10 hours.”

Her employer is understanding, but the hours have to be made up. “It’s just back to the same old juggling – logging in early morning or after kids go to bed.”

So what exactly is going on to put Ireland’s already-struggling childcare infrastructure under such additional strain? “The pre-Covid pressures are back with a bang,” says Frances Byrne, policy director with Early Childcare Ireland, which represents 3,900 childcare providers providing care for 120,000 children.

Irish parents already pay the third-highest proportion of their income on childcare of OECD countries, due, provider say, to the lack of spending over generations by successive governments.

Scant investment

According to the OECD, Ireland was spending just 0.1 per cent of gross domestic product on early years prior to Covid, the lowest investment of any developed country. During Covid, additional government funding “kept the show on the road” and meant that creches were able to keep staff employed and stay open, Byrne says. But as the world returns to normal, there’s no certainty over how long that funding will be available.

Meanwhile, although the pod system is supposed to offer some flexibility – allowing staff to move between pods to cover breaks for each other for example – in practice many creches feel they’ve been left with a choice of hiring more staff or reducing hours. Regina Bushell, who is the managing director of Grovelands, which operates six childcare centres in the midlands and runs the Seas Suas group representing independent childcare providers, explains how it has reduced the places available to babies.

“The regulations require a ratio of three [babies] to one [staff member]. But realistically for governance, I need a three to two ratio, because that one person has to have annual leave, lunch breaks, their comfort breaks, they may go out sick. I require those three babies to be in on a full-time basis to cover the cost.”

“Service providers would love to be able to provide as much flexibility as required. But there is a sustainability problem if parents only want to do five hours, but there are staff there who need to be paid for 10 hours.”

One mother in a different part of the country, Sinead, said her daughter used to attend after-school care from 2.30pm to 5.30pm five days a week. She had been hoping to use the care for two days, not five because of Covid-prompted changes to her work, but the provider can only do all or nothing.

Sinead is understandably annoyed, but, explains Byrne, “It’s not an inflexibility by choice; it’s an inflexibility imposed by the funding models.”

Funding is tied to attendance, says Byrne. So the National Childcare Scheme is the most flexible, but it can only offer flexibility “for up to eight weeks”, says Byrne. “If someone is saying I’m not going to need care on a Wednesday because I’m working from home or I reduced my hours, it’s really difficult for providers to offer that flexibility. Over time, their public funding will be withdrawn.”

The answer, believes Early Childhood Ireland, is more money and more flexibility. The Government has committed to doubling spending by 2028, but a five-year budget is needed, says Byrne.

And the models must adapt to post-Covid working. In Scandinavian counties, the provider is not “punished” if a parent is in a position to reduce their child’s hours. “We need to move to a Scandinavian model, where everybody pays something, but the richest pay more – but even the richest only pay up to a certain amount.”

As things stand, says Olivia, Ireland is no country for working parents and “definitely no country for working mothers.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates 
directly on your inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!