“Against the background of the fusion of the Church and the state ...” with these words, my friend, a secular journalist, begins his sentence.
“Yes, but ...” I begin, out of habit, to oppose.
Stop. Wait a minute. Why immediately?Yesbut ... "? Why did I automatically take the fact that the Church is merging with the state as an initial premise? Why did I make this mantra the entry point to the discussion?
I foresee the question: “You will not argue with the obvious?” I will.
There is such a journalistic trick: “It’s quite obvious that ...” This is convenient: he expressed his thought and does not need to argue. For example, "it is quite obvious that the Church has become too close to the state." Who is obvious? Who are all these people who are obvious? For me, for example, it is completely unobvious.
In January 2011, the Church sent to the Ministry of Health and Social Development “Proposals for improving the national policy in the care of the family and childhood.” A document of 25 points. In the ministry, there was only one thing that was “encouraged” - about the introduction of a “week of silence” before an abortion. The Church rejoiced in this. Is this a fusion of church and state?
A new subject in the school is “Fundamentals of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics”. By law, a parent must decide which course his child will study: religious - the basics of Orthodox culture (Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish - to choose from) or non-religious - the basics of secular ethics. But the Moscow priest, who ate the dog on this topic, tells me in an interview that in most Moscow schools they solve the problem from above, administratively: the director said - and everyone is teaching secular ethics. It is understandable: it’s easier to find teachers on it than on the basics of Orthodox culture. Is this a fusion of church and state?
My spiritual father has been trying to build a church in Moscow for seven years - having all the necessary documents, permissions, approvals in his hands, constantly getting more and more new ones. It took seven years for the bureaucratic machine to turn and begin to build the temple. Seven! Is this a merging of the Church and the state?
Who appointed the thesis of "merging" - an axiom? Apparently, the one for whom life is big politics, where the word “Church” means only Patriarch Kirill, and the word “state” means only Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Or at worst, under the "Church" - the chairmen of the synodal departments, and under the state - the ministers. And under the "splicing" then - that during the working meetings they all politely greet each other, according to the protocol, and shake hands.
Yes, some church hierarchs have good relations with some representatives of the authorities. And what - they certainly have to swear?
But I'm not even talking about that. Once again, having heard the phrase: “It is obvious that the Church is merging with the state”, I would not answer: “It is obvious that there is no.” Unlike big politics, in real life everything is always not so obvious.
And you know, the ice still broke and even the most “bright, kind and good” will have to notice and admit it
A study by the very reputable French Institute of Public Opinion (IFOP), just published in the central press, produces such amazing and shocking results that it continues to tell the European citizen how sweet he sleeps, eats deliciously and does not suspect anything from now on, not only unreasonable but also almost impossible.
Keep track of numbers, judge interpretations.
First of all, note that statistical polls were conducted among absolutely all sections of the population and representatives of the political electorate: they did not forget anyone and did not exclude them, so blaming the unaccounted for the good and the good, for the sake of the dark and the bad in this case, does not work.
And this unspeakably worries the entire handshake press, which does not know what to blame for the shameful results.
The study was conducted with the aim of sensing the sensitivity of the French to conspiracy theories of all kinds, from the Kennedy assassination, to the emergence of the AIDS virus, the events of September 11, or the secret deeds of pharmaceutical corporations, including obscure vaccinations of the population.
And it revealed such curious surprises.
72% (!) Of French people think that “today's migration is a very disturbing and dubious process, causing serious problems in the coexistence of very different cultures and, in the long-term development, threatening European culture as a whole.”
You may be grinning at such simplicity sincerely, not knowing that such a bold and direct wording is used in the official press for the first time: the vast majority of the media do their utmost to convince their “clients” that the European population, by and large, is supporting migration with all its might and approves wholeheartedly.
48% believe that the migration that is being introduced is the result of the scandalous "theory of the Great Substitution", which all European political corrections do not recommend.
That is, 48% seriously believe that this migration "is a political project to replace one civilization with another, consciously organized by political, intellectual and media elites, and which must be put to an end by sending the entire newly arrived population to where it came from."
In addition to such scandalous statements, the study revealed an even more scandalous tendency to replenish among the French adherents of the most incredible conspiracy theories.
So, 35% of French people think that the elections in France are not “clean” enough, 29% think that the US government is involved in a scam on September 11, and 32% believe that the AIDS virus was developed in secret laboratories and tested on the African population before found a way into the wide world.
All these last details somewhat soften the very first and most important information, somehow attributing its scandalously politically incorrect character to the general trend of the popularity of conspiracy theories in modern tattered France, and throughout Europe.
But this consciously “obscurantist” aspect is not able to cancel the reality that is unpleasant for the whole European political correction: no matter how much you feed the wolf, you don’t teach Europe, but she still understands what cliff she is so diligently pushing and which pill they are trying so hard to force swallow.
So, contrary to the most pessimistic forecasts, it may very well turn out that not everything is lost at all.
As in my beloved, as a mantra, the quote repeated: “Where there is danger, salvation also grows” ...