Bartholomew's Notes

From Christian Today:

A survey published by supermarket chain Somerfield has shown that many youngsters in the UK do not know what Easter signifies.

Somerfield’s survey, which was conducted as part of a marketing campaign, found that one-in-six 16 to 24-year-olds know nothing about Good Friday, the commemoration of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Alas, however, Somerfield’s somewhat unexpected foray into the sociology of religion has come unstuck. From the Times:

A supermarket chain got itself into a huge muddle over the meaning of Easter yesterday in its attempt to sell more chocolate eggs.

“Brits are set to spend a massive £520 million on Easter eggs this year — but many young people don’t even know what Easter’s all about,” said the press release from Somerfield after a survey.

It then went on to claim that the tradition of giving Easter eggs was to celebrate the “birth” of Christ. An amended version changed this to the “rebirth” of Christ. Finally a third press release accepted Church teaching that Easter celebrated the resurrection of Christ.

…Pete Williams, head of PR at Somerfield, said: “We spoke to the Church of England press office, who suggested we use the word resurrection, in keeping with the Church’s teaching. We were happy to do that.”

One consequence has been a mocking article in the Guardian, which would be fair enough had not a 2004 Holy Week Guardian report (now amended, but I blogged it at the time) told us that the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is believed to be site of “Jesus Christ’s final resting place”.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Theological ruminations from the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution:

LIBYAN leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi believes it was not Jesus who was crucified at Easter, “but someone who resembled him”.

In a bewildering speech at a mass prayer meeting in Niger, Col. Gaddafi also said it was a mistake to believe that Christianity was a universal faith alongside Islam.

Well, it’s only “bewildering” if you don’t know the Koran:

And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him. [4:157]

The story is also famously found in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, an ancient Gnostic text:

They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

But back to the Colonel:

“It is a mistake that another religion exists alongside Islam. There is only one religion which is Islam after Mohammed,” he said in the sermon.

“All those believers who do not follow Islam are losers,” he added.

The “prayer meeting” was an international conference held to coincide with the birthday of Muhammad, and it provided an opportunity for Gaddafi to position himself as a leader of African Islam: among other things, he used the occasion to mediate between some Ugandan Muslim groups. He also attacked a rival force for Islam in Africa; IslamOnline reports:

Gaddafi, who has been entrenching his influence in Africa over the past few years, launched a diatribe at Wahabis in Saudi Arabia.

He accused them of obliterating the tombs of the Prophet and his companions under the pretext to protecting Islam from superstitions.

Gaddafi also called for a “second Fatimid state” for Africa, and distanced himself further from the Arab world.

Outside observers, however, are less than impressed. Martyn Drakard writes from Kampala that

Colonel Gaddafi is wrong about Christianity in Africa. Libya is trying to win converts to Islam through grants to Islamic communities for mosques and schools. Less than one kilometer from where I sit, perched on Old Kampala Hill, is one of the most beautiful mosques in Africa, started by Idi Amin and completed recently with Libyan money. But Christian conversions are on the increase in Africa, and Gaddafi’s provocative sermons will have little effect. It will require more than impressive buildings to bring about the mass conversions he is so confident will come to pass.

One Christian writer accuses Gaddafi of being irresponsible:

…These were bewildering remarks given the religious tensions in which the world is engulfed. The world has recently witnessed a series of protests because of the “irresponsible and blasphemous” remarks against Islam and the Prophet Mohamed. Such events raised a consciousness that religious ethnocentrism is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century and religious leaders ought to be responsible.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The Historical Association has just released a report, entitled T.E.A.C.H.: Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19, which discusses some of the problems faced by teachers and gives guidance on good practice. Page fifteen has a section that has now excited considerable press comment:

Teachers and schools avoid emotive and controversial history for a variety of reasons, some of which are well-intentioned. Some feel that certain issues are inappropriate for particular age groups or decide in advance that pupils lack the maturity to grasp them. Where teachers lack confidence in their subject knowledge or subject-specific pedagogy, this can also be a reason for avoiding certain content. Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship. Some teachers also feel that the issues are best avoided in history, believing them to be taught elsewhere in the curriculum such as in citizenship or religious education.

(A class of religious instruction is a legal requirement in British schools, although parents can choose to let their child opt out. In my day, the class for those pupils not studying towards a GCSE exam in the subject was used for general discussions of ethics or racism and such.)

For example, a history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils. In another department, teachers were strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination. In another history department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils, but the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 [11-14 years old] because their balanced treatment of the topic would have directly challenged what was taught in some local mosques.

The report goes on to cite academic educationist work that suggests that teachers can be categorised as “containers”, “avoiders” or “risk-takers”, and that the “risk-takers” are the most effective. The report also draws attention to a book, Issues in Holocaust Education, by Geoffrey Short and Carole Ann Reed.

The report also notes that many schools avoid teaching Islamic history, as it is seen as “too difficult, alien or complex to teach” (p. 17).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Numerous websites have noted the new resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council, passed at the behest of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The International Herald Tribune has the details:

…The resolution, which was opposed by European and a number of other non-Muslim countries, “expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.”

It makes no mention of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries “to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence.”

Given the makeup of the UNHRC, sceptics have suggested that “incitement” is here meant to mean any mocking or criticism of Islam or Islamic governments. Actually, while this news has garnered a great deal of publicity, it pretty much repeats a similar resolution made by the old UN Commission on Human Rights two years ago, again at the behest of the OIC, which I blogged on then.

Meanwhile, the UNHRC has come under further scorn given that the only country it has managed to condemn so far has been Israel. This is, of course, a gift to pro-Israel groups, which consequently can dismiss any criticisms laid against the country as anti-Semitism and bias; Hillel Nauer of UN Watch managed an effective performance along these lines last week, further helped by a subsequent scolding from the council’s president, Luis Alfonso de Alba, who apparently objected to the most influential members of the UNHRC being referred to (correctly) as “dictators who…couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.”

De Alba’s speech on his appointment last summer can be seen here. It includes the following:

…From now on, human rights are not just going to be a priority in the work of the United Nations: they will also constitute one of its three fundamental pillars, as proposed by the Secretary-General last year.

…It is of great importance to agree on a balanced agenda that reflects our will to address all rights in all countries, to identify gaps and to avoid unnecessary duplications to strengthen the existing mechanisms. It is also necessary to improve coordination with bodies and agencies within and outside the United Nations System, and at the same time, to foster the incorporation of a human rights perspective in all their activities.

Let’s embark on the task of generating, in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation, a mechanism of universal and periodic evaluation to know the improvements and more pressing duties every State has in human rights issues. If we can achieve this, we will avoid the excessive politization [sic] and the use of double standards of which the former Commission was accused.

De Alba was also interviewed by Open Democracy, which noted that

The now defunct UN Human Rights Commission had few friends by the end. Its critics complained of an extreme politicisation that made it highly selective about the issues it addressed. To make things worse, it was easily paralysed if a minority chose to block discussion.

…The new Human Rights Council was created in its stead, with the hope that these problems would be resolved with a fresh start and a new structure.

But it seems that despite changing the word “Commission” to “Council”, and turning “UNCHR” into “UNHRC”, further efforts may be required…

(Hat tip: MediaWatchWatch)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Interfax-Religion brings news from Ukraine:

Ukrainian MP Leonid Grach accused President Victor Yuschenko of arranging a ‘fifth column’ – the Movement for Local (ecclesiastically independent – IF) Ukraine aiming at a union between the canonical Orthodox Church with the schismatics.

‘It is obvious that Ukrainian president as a politician who follows the Euro-Atlantic plan aimed at destroying our single Russian-Ukrainian national entity, feels anxious about the influence that the Moscow Patriarchate has in Ukraine. All Russia’s enemies are anxious about that too,’ the MP said in his statement published on Friday.

The Communist Grach is keen for the Russian Orthodox Church to maintain influence in the country. Lawrence Uzzell, head of International Religious Freedom Watch, explained how the ROC operates in the country to the Moscow Times in summer 2005:

“Members of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine acted as agents of secular Russian political interests” during the 2004 elections, Uzzell said. “There were many instances of members of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine using their influence with their parishioners to get them to vote” for Viktor Yanukovych, the candidate favored by the Kremlin.

Political tensions between Russia and Ukraine in the wake of the Orange Revolution have also fueled Ukrainian desires for a church that is fully independent of Moscow. Currently, Ukraine’s main Orthodox church comes under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate.

“The Moscow Patriarchate is the last surviving Soviet institution both in terms of its statist mentality and its imperialist mentality,” Uzzell said. “In a sense it is an empire-restoring institution that is used by the Russian state as a vehicle for political interference in the affairs of countries like Ukraine.”

President Yuschenko, unsurprisingly, favours a rival national church. ForUm reported a couple of weeks ago:

Victor Yushchenko has met with Metropolitan Mefodiy, head of the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church, President’s press office informs.

…Although the President believes “the unification of Ukraine’s Orthodox churches will contribute to the nation’s spiritual unity,” he said the government should not interfere with this process. He expressed hopes the country’s religious leaders would compromise without any “preliminary demands.”

Although “the government” is supposedly not directing the drive for unity, it just so happens that Yuschenko’s brother is the person taking the initiative:

Ukrainian National Deputy Petro Yushchenko, brother of President Viktor Yushchenko, will head the civic organization A National Church for Ukraine, created on 3 March 2007. The goal of the group is to contribute to the development of the unification process of Ukrainian Orthodoxy and the creation of a single national church.

Grach’s complaints about all this follow complaints from pro-ROC groups, including the Union of Orthodox Citizens:

Valery Kaurov, leader of the Union of Orthodox Citizens in Ukraine, believes the idea of Ukraine’s joining NATO has been actively used by Ukrainian nationalist groups who would like to propagate their Russophobic ideology through the bloc.

‘The ideologists of Ukraine’s membership in NATO have thrown in the slogan ‘Independent Church to independent Ukraine!’ They intend to make the Ukrainian Orthodox Church a national church fully separated from the Russian Orthodox Church…’

Kaurov discusses his organisation in more depth here, where he tells us that:

…The main tasks of the organizations headed by Kaurov include the struggle against “schismatics” (the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church), “Catholic-Uniate proselytism” (the Ukrainian Greek and Roman Catholic churches), and the “Orange regime that fights against God.” They believe they are following the directions of the church fathers, who taught to struggle against the enemies of the faith and church. In Kaurov’s opinion, “only traditional denominations should operate within the territory of Ukraine and a law restricting the activity of totalitarian sects should be passed.”

…The leader of the UOCU considers all the other denominations to be “religious formations brought to the country from abroad by order of the Washington Regional Committee [“Obkom,” which traditionally in the USSR was understood as being part of the Communist Party]. According to Kaurov, the objective of non-traditional denominations is “destruction of the spirituality and historic memory of the people of our country, elimination of Orthodoxy and separation from the Russian Orthodox Church.”

The Union is an offshoot of a Russian body which I blogged on a few days ago in relation to a nationalist take-over of the sociology department at Moscow State University.

Grach, meanwhile, goes on to make an odd complaint for a Communist:

‘The president who uses TV to actively pose himself a believer and likes being filmed near Orthodox icons, in practice follows the worst antireligious traditions,’ the deputy added.

Grach is a rather contradictory character, and a recent article on human rights in Ukraine gives a bit of background:

…We will leave Mr Grach’s political views as between him and his maker (-?). However as Head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on HUMAN RIGHTS, one would hardly expect to hear that “the State should protect people from such evil as homosexuality, lesbianism and suchlike”.

…Mr Grach’s comments have been coming thick and fast over the last few months (cf [here] for about as much detail as can be stomached in one sitting).

Grach also rails against the Tatar minority of his native Crimea, accusing them (falsely) of harbouring wahabis, Chechen terrorists, and “CIA-supported insurgents” (1).

However, Yuschenko’s supporters are not shy at bringing in religion to back their man; Interfax recently showed the following remarkable picture, painted by a Greek-Catholic priest:

Apparently, it depicts

…Ukrainian President Victor Yuschenko sitting on clouds, with the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir and Princess Olga standing on his right and left.

Also:

…a little lower on the same icon-like canvas there is another image of Yuschenko sitting now on a throne and holding a club in one hand and a vessel with a poison in the other, believed to be used to poison him during his presidential election campaign.

Spread above the throne is the revolutionary ‘orange’ Maidan square, picturing in the forefront the self-proclaimed Patriarch of Kiev, Philaret Denisenko, together with leader of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics Lyubomir Husar, as well as Yulia Timoshenko, Anatoly Kinakh, Alexander Moroz and other Ukrainian politicians.

One is inevitably reminded of this:

****

(1) See Arno Tanner, The Forgotten Minorities of Eastern Europe: The History and Today of Selected Ethnic Groups in Five Countries, p. 50.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Ultra-Nationalist MKs accept “Letter of Repentance”

Evangelist: “African Christians…would love to kiss the feet of a Jew”

From the Jerusalem Post:

In a highly symbolic move, dozens of evangelical Christian leaders will present the Knesset with a “letter of repentance” on Wednesday for crimes committed by Christians against the Jewish people over the centuries.

In fact, the letter hardly breaks any new ground; the history of Christian anti-Semitism has been readily acknowledged for decades, and Christian Zionists have for just as long used it as a justification for support for Israeli expansionism. The “presentation” is just another chance for some extra publicity, and for Christian Zionist leaders to come together for yet another conflab:

The letter,…which is being sponsored by a large number of evangelical groups and is the brainchild of the Texas-based Covenant Alliances, will be presented to the Knesset’s Christian Allies Caucus in a special session expected to be attended by a few hundred Christian Zionist leaders from around the world.

…The gala event, which will be coupled with the presentation of a “love letter to Israel” declaring their unequivocal support for the State of Israel, will be preceded by a conference on Tuesday dubbed “the Jerusalem Assembly” at a hotel in the capital that will include speeches mixed with prayer sessions.

The subsequent event itself was reported on was reported on Y-Net (links added):

Pastor Pitts Evans of Virginia read the letter out before a Knesset hall packed with Evangelicals…

Pastor Seymour Kook, of South Carolina, read out a “love letters to the God of Israel,” in which Evangelical signatories said they were “deeply grateful for the root of God’s olive tree (and) for every Jewish father of the faith… we stand in faith in our branch, without arrogance, with humility toward your God and the fathers of Israel, who took us in when we could not deserve him and could not find him.”

Speaking to Ynetnews, Apostle Zilly Aggfey [should be “Zilly Aggrey” – RB], a Christian leader from Nigeria, said millions of African Christians were keen to “serve Israel.”

Poor Zilly seems to have got rather overwrought:

“African Christians would love to kiss the ground in Israel. They would love to kiss the feet of a Jew,” he said…

Haaretz notes one MK’s involvement:

David Rotem, a Yisrael Beiteinu MK, spoke out against various plans for peace with the Palestinians. “There is a Saudi proposal, an American proposal, a European Union proposal and a Palestinian proposal which are going to endanger the state of Israel,” Rotem said and the visitors responded with “Amen.”

Rotem is the replacement for Yuri Stern, the MK close to Christian Zionists who died a few months ago. Rotem is an attorney for the Yesha Council of Settlements, and in the past (according to Ian S Lustick) he was also a lawyer for the Gush Emunim Underground, an extremist terrorist group.

The Covenant Alliances, meanwhile, is run by Jodie Anderson, who also heads the Battalion of Deborah at the same P.O. Box. The Battalion of Deborah has a particularly annoying website; whenever you click on anything the ears are assaulted by a clip of Pat Robertson pontificating on “Judea and Samaria”. The Covenant Alliances website is uninformative (but mercifully quieter), consisting of a few blog entries from 2005 and 2006. At the head of the page is the “Jerusalem Accord”, which was put together by US Christian Zionists and right-wing Israeli MKs in September 2005; the “Accord” calls for the US Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, for Palestinian terrorists to be disarmed, and for Palestinian refugees to be resettled in “the lands of their Arab kinsmen” (given that Christian Zionists see the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel, this would mean the expulsion of Palestinian refugees living in those areas, although understandably this point is not spelt out). As with the “Letter of Repentance”, the “Accord” was mainly a publicity stunt.

The Battalion of Deborah is particularly militant, and supports the building of the “Third Temple” in Jerusalem – a cause which is also dear to the Israeli far-right (such as the new “Sanhedrin“, which recently announced plans to kill a sheep on the Temple Mount). The Israeli branch of “Covenant Alliances” is run by Pastor David Decker (the Post slightly confuses the issue), who is the author of Revival From Zion:

This book uses 50 compelling arguments from the Bible to challenge Christians to take a supportive attitude toward this next major prophetic event. God is NOT finished with Israel! The coming third Temple is especially for the Jewish people. The literal Temple, once rebuilt, will be used to point many to Jesus, the Lamb of God who is the Ultimate “Once and for All” Sacrifice. This book directly tackles the subject of animal sacrifices and shows why reinstituting the full Temple service will be an exciting God-ordained event, not only for Israel, but also for the Church and the whole world.

Decker has led evangelisation work in Israel – an activity which some Israeli MKs now want to ban.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Final Call, an official website of the Nation of Islam, reports on a recent address by Louis Farrakhan in Detroit. Farrakhan touched on various points, including the following:

…One of the methods Satan uses in casting first is by reproducing himself or herself, through the creation of “dumb devils,” whom Satan hides behind and uses to carry out wicked deeds. At this point is where the group of wise persons, known as The Illuminati, was mentioned.

The Illuminati, the Minister explained, is a secret society that was established in the late 18th Century in Europe, which is comprised largely today of the richest people in the world—international bankers who control mainstream media, the work force, educational systems, companies, banks, energy supplies and governments.

Farrakhan mentioned “the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, DuPonts, and Astors”, but he also dropped a heavy hint about whom he really had in mind:

He also delved into the significance of the year 1913, when the Defamation League [sic] of B’nai B’rith and the FBI were formed, as well as Congress’ passing of the Federal Reserve Act which legalized international bankers to print money.

The report tells us about who turned up to the event:

Numerous ministers from across the Nation of Islam traveled to Chicago, and among the other dignitaries present to show their support were, Women of the Millions More Movement committee member, Julie Santos, a community activist based in Chicago; Bishop Ki Hoon Kim of the Unification Church under Rev. Sun Myung Moon; Mikhael Ben Yehuda of the Hebrew Israelite Nation; Martin E. Sanchez, Consul General of Venezuela in Chicago; and Jamaican reggae artists Luciano, Mikey General and Anthony Gadd.

The links between Farrakhan and the Unification Church are long-standing; Frederick Clarkson wrote a piece on the subject for Salon back in 2000.

The Venezuelan consul, meanwhile, was particularly impressed:

“I was very pleased to see Min. Farrakhan come back with renewed force. I think his speech reflects the desperation that’s among us to want to see a better world, and I was particularly impressed by his mentioning of how the international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, are used to going into poor countries—the countries they define as “third world countries”—and impose their will in order to give these countries loans for development projects. This is one of the ways that the international capital and the international bourgeois have tools to oppress the people in the developing world. So, I was very pleased to hear this.”

There has been some controversy in the past as to whether Venezuelan statements about international capital are suggestive of anti-Semitism; Sanchez’s enthusiasm for Farrakhan does seem to show that his “desperation” for “a better world” is indeed leading the Venezuelan regime to flirt with the anti-imperialism of fools (incidentally, the JTA ran an article on Jewish fears in Venezuela just a few days ago. I blogged on Hezbollah’s presence in the country back in September).

Of course, not all conspiracy-mongers who go on about the “Illuminati” have got a thing against Jews; just a few days ago I noted that Christian Zionist leader John Hagee also believes in the existence of the organisation and its global malignant power.

(Hat tip: Cult News Network)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Describes Israel’s attitude: “We’ll take your aid, your support and your tourist dollars, but we won’t take your Jesus”

From OneNewsNow:

Christian radio talk-show host Janet Parshall, a high-profile American evangelical known for her strong support of Israel, has dropped out of a Jerusalem conference sponsored by a Christian caucus of the Israeli Parliament. Parshall says she decided not to speak at the conference after she learned that the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus “condemns” and does not associate with groups that share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I first blogged on the KCAC here. Parshall also complains about the efforts of Shas to have evangelization banned (a development we blogged a few days ago):

…Also, Parshall points out, there is the added problem of censoring Christian evangelism, i.e., that “as Israel begins to move deeper and deeper in that direction, they start to replicate their Islamic neighbors.”

It seems the wheels have started slowly to turn in Parshall’s mind:

Unfortunately, Parshall observes, this condemnation of evangelization by the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus may mark the beginning of a new era in which Israel tells evangelical believers, “We’ll take your aid, your support and your tourist dollars, but we won’t take your Jesus.” Christians should not have to “choose between the cross or Israel,” the American evangelical says.

This follows on from a weird story I blogged a year ago, when the Jerusalem Post reported that Jerry Falwell had announced that Jews no longer needed to be converted to Christianity. Falwell complained the story was untrue, and a retraction was issued. At the time, the executive director of Jews for Jesus stated that

…the incident illustrates an “ongoing agenda” among certain Jewish leaders who he says want to “undermine Christian evangelism by trying to shape Christian theology.”

Meanwhile, Parshall’s support for Israel can be seen in this transcript of her remarks at the 2002 Israel Solidarity Rally.

The conference that she has backed out of is on the subject of women’s rights from a Judeo-Christian perspective (see cached version here). This was organised by the women’s association of KCAC, which was founded by US apocalyptic Bible teacher Kay Arthur. Back in 2005 Arthur told the National Religious Broadcaters’ Convention that

“I love America…But if it came to a choice between Israel and America, I would stand with Israel.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

A few days ago the New York Times reported on dissatisfaction among sociology students at Moscow State University:

…The students said, for example, that extremist views had become institutionalized and that conspiracy theories had infiltrated the teaching.

“The dean’s office has distributed a brochure to all students that approvingly quotes the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ blames Freemasons and Zionists for the world wars, and claims that they control U.S. and British policy and the global financial system,” the students wrote in one of their public appeals. “Studying conditions at the department are unbearable.”

The dean, Vladimir Dobrenkov, denies this. The students have formed an organisation, named the OD-Group, and its website has further complaints. Among them:

In recent years, fifteen recognized scholars have been forced out of the university, including Professor Vladimir Nikolayev, one of the few Russian experts on the Chicago School and translator of Robert Park, Everett Hughes, Alfred Schütz, Harold Garfinkel and Erving Goffman; Professor Elena Kukushkina, a well-known expert on pre-revolutionary Russian sociology; Professors Y.N. Tolstova and O.V. Ivanov, experts in the mathematical modeling of social processes; Professor V.V. Shtcherbina, a leading theorist of organization sociology and consultant to a number of large Russian companies; Professor Andrew Degtyarev, a well-known Russian expert in political sociology and member of the International Sociological Association’s research committees on Political Sociology and Urban and Regional Development; and Professor Helen Shestopal, a well-known social and political psychologist and vice-president of both the International and Russian Political Science Associations.

…To quote a student: “Every lecture starts from scratch: we start with a definition of what sociology is about and stop at the third page of the textbook. At every lecture, we ask ourselves: ‘Is this really what the social sciences are all about???'” In some cases, faculty members refuse to teach a class because they find it unacceptable simply to read out chapters from a textbook as they are told to.

Dean Dobrenkov is a conservative nationalist, who rails against globalisation and against the “liberalism” which was responsible for the end of the USSR and the rise of the oligarchs. A paper which he gave at the 37th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology in Stockholm in 2005 gives further insights into his thinking:

Let us note the most important negative consequences of liberal globalization…liberal globalization, creating a unified culture without religion, being precise, a global surrogate of culture, tries to destroy religious traditions and national cultures as well…One of the most catastrophic results of liberal reforms of 1990-s was the collapse of the USSR.

…Our country does not need liberal freedom “without boundaries”, which is identical to the right to rob, to kill, to corrupt people’s souls with impunity…In reality freedom should only exist as being limited by frames of the law and by standards of moral.

…In order to revive Russia, we need a strong government, which would be an active subject in economic life, regulate economic processes and social relations…Aggressive circles in Washington are actually waging the Third World War with subordinating the hole world to the USA as an aim. The USA have performed aggression against Yugoslavia and Iraq, and are ready to declare war with Iran, North Korea, Syria. That is why Russia needs strong armed forces.

Also:

…It is necessary to exert maximum efforts for spiritual and moral revival of Russia. Russia will never become a strong and prosperous power without a detailed system of moral upbringing of the population in the way of humanism values (real, not liberal one), collectivism, and patriotism. A complex of measures on spiritual and moral recovery supposes the total change of policy of mass media (and, most of all, television), which should exclude demonstration of scenes of violence, sex, amorality, and absence of spirituality. It requires creation of public control councils and introduction of moral censorship in all mass media. It is also necessary to correct the education plans in secondary and higher school towards spiritualism and patriotism. Orthodox Christianity and other traditional religions of Russia should play an important role in reviving the moral.

The paper, it should be noted, is not overburdened with academic references or footnotes.

Dobrenkov has links with the right-wing “Rodina” political bloc (a grouping which, as I blogged here, has some anti-Semitic associations). In December 2004 he spoke at the Rodina Congress:

The Rodina congress discussed President Vladimir Putin’s proposals for strengthening the state, an economic program for young people, and the mooted creation of a Public Chamber…Moscow State University Sociology Faculty Dean Vladimir Dobrenkov called for a push to “do everything to get liberals out of the present power structure and prevent revenge on their part, otherwise they won’t be quiet for years.”

Meanwhile, Interfax reports that Dobrenkov is getting backing from the nationalist Union of Orthodox Citizens:

…The ideology of the OD-Group, the Union states, ‘is unequivocally hostile to the Orthodox Church’ and has as its aim ‘to squeeze out the Orthodox nation-oriented ideology from MSU, to undermine the emerging scientific relations between the university and major theological colleges in Russia and to spread the aggressive-secular liberal thinking under the guise of scientific secularism and objectivism’.

‘The orange revolution’ carried out before our very eyes by the OD-Group ideologies at the Department of Sociology threatens both the prospects for the intellectual cooperation between secular scholarship and theology and the consolidation of practical relations between Moscow State University and the Russian Orthodox Church’, the statement reads.

As ever, the UOC finds particularly upsetting that

…As an alternative to Orthodox conservatism and relations with the Orthodox Church the opposition have proposed a pro-active support for sexual minorities.

An essay on this site has more about the UOC, and its support for “dictatorship [which] must develop into a full fledged autocracy”.

Interestingly, Marxism.org has a letter which Erich Fromm sent to Dobrenkov in 1969, with the following introduction:

The following letter Erich Fromm wrote in 1969 to the Russian philosopher Vladimir Dobrenkov is a most impressive document of how deeply he was interested in getting contact with socialist thinkers and to discuss with them his reception of Marx and his understanding of socialism. Dobrenkov intended to write a book on Fromm and therefore started a correspondence with Fromm. Fromm tried to clarify many topics Dobrenkov misunderstood by presenting Fromm’s ideas. But actually one cannot say that Fromm’s clarifications showed much effect on Dobrenkov’s book Neo-Freudians in Search of Truth, published in many languages in the seventies (Moskau: Progress Publishers)…

It seems that Dobrenkov is a Vicar of Bray character: Marxist ideologue under Communism, right-wing Orthodox nationalist under Putin.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

From Haaretz:

Fifteen judges were appointed to rabbinic courts Monday by a committee headed by Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann.

…The identities of the judges was determined before the committee met, in a deal between the Sephardi ultra-Orthodox Shas party and the Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox, committee members told Haaretz. Twelve of the 15 judges are considered ultra-Orthodox.

…For the past four years, the eight-member selection committee was split equally among representatives of the ultra-Orthodox camp and representatives of the religious Zionist camp and the Israel Bar Association. But when the current government took office, MK Yitzhak Vaknin of Shas was appointed to the committee, giving the ultra-Orthodox a majority.

This is a big deal because rabbinic courts in Israel are part of the state apparatus, dealing with civil matters for Jewish Israelis such as marriage and divorce. An article on a Reform Judaism website from last December gives further details:

Under Israeli law, an individual may only be married in accordance with the procedures of his religious community. Thus, Jews may only be married through the Orthodox rabbinate. Since the rabbinate implements religious law – Halacha – Jews may not marry non-Jews and a kohen may not marry a divorcee.

With several hundred thousand halachically non-Jewish Russian immigrants in Israel (who are nonetheless entitled to rights under the Law of Return), the number of couples who wish to wed in Israel, but may not, is increasing.

Even more problematic are the pesulei hitun – “non-marriables” – the child born to a Jewish mother conceived from an adulterous union or even to a Jewish mother who was divorced (abroad) in a civil proceeding but never received a get. Such a child is a mamzer and essentially may never marry at all.

The only relief available to those wishing to contract religiously unlawful marriages and to the “non-marriables” is to be married in a civil ceremony outside of Israel, which is recognized by Israel under its private international law commitments, but not recognized by Halacha.

It’s also bad news for women seeking a divorce from non-compliant husbands, as Haaretz notes:

Women’s rights organizations said Monday was a black day in the struggle for women’s rights in the rabbinic courts. Many view the rabbinic courts as favoring men in divorce cases and as failing to do enough to minimize the problem of women whose husbands refuse to divorce them.

And, as noted above, there’s the small matter of hundreds of thousands of Israeli immigrants whose Jewish status is under dispute – which is a bit of an embarrassment for a country which constantly claims that any accommodation of Palestinian refugees would undermine the Jewish character of the state, and that therefore anyone who dares to suggest such a thing must be anti-Semitic.

Haaretz believes that this will all prove to be too much:

The religious establishment must understand that all of society, religious and secular, refuses to knuckle under to discrimination and injustice. However, all the signs – especially the political wheeling-dealing power balance – indicate that this process will not take place spontaneously.

Therefore the public had better draw clear conclusions from the last appointments, demand pluralism and free choice in religious services and do without the religious establishment, thus pushing it into its appropriate place. The time is fast approaching for the silent majority in Israel, both religious and secular, to demand, by public and political pressure, to break up the ultra-Orthodox monopoly and cancel its affiliation with the state.

Apparently, the new judges are followers of the elderly Torah-sage Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »