Thread: Russian Pirate Church formally requests to be an official religion

Originally Posted by Hanna

I used to be all in favour of state churches (like each of the Scandinavian countries have, and UK, to an extent).
Mainly because it's just a nationalistic thing and because they look after the actual churches; many of which are fantastic historical / art treasures. If the didn't, the churches would start to decline.

However I changed my mind after hearing some Americans describe the USA's strong views on separating church and state, and why they came to that conclusion. I thought their views were sounder at the end of the day, and stood up on their own merits. Mine were based on subjective feelings and hopes.

Plus, the faith of state churches quickly become either opressive, prescriptive and stifled, like happened a few hundred years ago.
Or they become populistic, trying to please everybody and sacrificing their own dogma, like today, when their policies are nothing but state policies, cloaked in supposed Christianity.

Plus, state churches only work when >99% have the same religions, and that's just not the case anywhere anymore.

I really appreciate your candor and honesty, Hanna. I grew up in a strict, fundamentalist church where children died of things like appendicitis because it was considered a lack of faith in God to take them to a doctor. Amazingly, in this day and age, that STILL goes on! Many religions also practice "shunning" (which I read was made illegal in some Eastern European countries) - ie, the practice of disfellowshipping or excommunicating those who leave the fold. This is widely practiced by many fundamentalist sects, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and other "mainstream" religions. I myself was disfellowshipped when I left the church I grew up in. That amounted to losing my family and my entire social network all in one shocking blow. It is so devastating to be "shunned" that many people commit suicide. I came close to killing myself over it, too, but thankfully I held on and got to the place where I made new friends, who are closer to me than my own family was or is.

Churches have so many rules like this, that the idea of an official state religion scares the hell out of me. Once church and state are in bed together, they produce oppression, witch-hunts, and ignorance on a vast scale. We can see that clearly in many Muslim countries, where women are not allowed to drive cars or show their faces in public (among many other misogynist practices). I imagine those countries will reach enlightenment on their own and I am not in favor of invading them or trying to force them to change, since that inevitably results in an even stronger religious stance and more oppression.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Many religions also practice "shunning" (which I read was made illegal in some Eastern European countries) - ie, the practice of disfellowshipping or excommunicating those who leave the fold. This is widely practiced by many fundamentalist sects, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and other "mainstream" religions. I myself was disfellowshipped when I left the church I grew up in. That amounted to losing my family and my entire social network all in one shocking blow.

Yikes! I'm truly sorry you were put through that kind of craziness, Deborski.

I would note, by the way, that the actual meaning of "disfellowshipping" or "excommunication" can vary from one church to another. In some cases, the "excommunicated" person is still welcome at church services, but simply can't partake of certain sacraments. For instance, excommunicated Catholics are encouraged to continue coming to Mass, but they're forbidden to take the Eucharist/Communion (unless and until they repent). However, their families and friends aren't required to "shun" them socially.

I can understand the rationale for saying to a "disobedient" member: "Well, you're not allowed to deliver the public scripture reading" or "You can't have your wedding in the temple" -- that's about the enforcement of the ritual standards that define the religion.

On the other hand, a church policy that "Anyone who talks to Deborski will get her apostate-cooties, and anyone who talks to someone who talked to Deborski is also at risk for cooties" is just insane and cultish.

(I was just thinking about how one would translate "excommunicate" into Russian -- and possibly you'd have to use different phrases depending on whether you were talking about Russian Orthodox Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc., because the actual, practical effects are different.)

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

(I was just thinking about how one would translate "excommunicate" into Russian -- and possibly you'd have to use different phrases depending on whether you were talking about Russian Orthodox Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc., because the actual, practical effects are different.)

It's отлучение

The wiki article

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Yikes! I'm truly sorry you were put through that kind of craziness, Deborski.

I would note, by the way, that the actual meaning of "disfellowshipping" or "excommunication" can vary from one church to another. In some cases, the "excommunicated" person is still welcome at church services, but simply can't partake of certain sacraments. For instance, excommunicated Catholics are encouraged to continue coming to Mass, but they're forbidden to take the Eucharist/Communion (unless and until they repent). However, their families and friends aren't required to "shun" them socially.

I can understand the rationale for saying to a "disobedient" member: "Well, you're not allowed to deliver the public scripture reading" or "You can't have your wedding in the temple" -- that's about the enforcement of the ritual standards that define the religion.

On the other hand, a church policy that "Anyone who talks to Deborski will get her apostate-cooties, and anyone who talks to someone who talked to Deborski is also at risk for cooties" is just insane and cultish.

(I was just thinking about how one would translate "excommunicate" into Russian -- and possibly you'd have to use different phrases depending on whether you were talking about Russian Orthodox Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc., because the actual, practical effects are different.)

A lot of Churches, more than people actually realize, practice full-blown shunning and urge their members to "resist the temptation from Satan" to talk to their own families. This happened to a lot of people in my Church. Parents refused to talk to children who had "gone astray" and so forth. This article sums it up nicely:

The Gilmer Mirror - Extreme Shunning

I could understand not being invited to a funeral or a wedding due to conflicts over religion, but I would add that I find that very sad and hypocritical really. Especially since Christians claim to know all about "love." I do not see how shunning anyone or purposely not inviting them to an important event is a representation of love in any form.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I was just thinking about how one would translate "excommunicate" into Russian --

the verb would be "отлучать от церкви". But it's true that it's diffucult to translate this really close enough due to different practices. It's clear that excommunication in an Amish community results in something different if compared to excommunication in Russian Orthodox (consequences and impact on the person involved would be different).

On a similar note, it reminds me of a famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. In Russian texts it is usually said that he was "предан анафеме" (Greek word is used here, which means he was officially damned by the Russian Orthodox Church for his ideas on Christianity and large discrepancies of his life views with the Russian Church, definitetly he was not 'shunned', i don't know if 'shunning' is ever practiced in the Russian Orthodox Church, cos it seems to contradict to evangelical ideas).

In the wikipedia artical about Leo Tolstoy though the word 'excommunication' is used: After Anna Karenina, Tolstoy concentrated on Christian themes, and his later novels such as The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886) and What Is to Be Done? develop a radical anarcho-pacifist Christian philosophy which led to his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901.

Originally Posted by alexsms

the verb would be "отлучать от церкви". But it's true that it's diffucult to translate this really close enough due to different practices. It's clear that excommunication in an Amish community results in something different if compared to excommunication in Russian Orthodox (consequences and impact on the person involved would be different).

On a similar note, it reminds me of a famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. In Russian texts it is usually said that he was "предан анафеме" (Greek word is used here, which means he was officially damned by the Russian Orthodox Church for his ideas on Christianity and large discrepancies of his life views with the Russian Church, definitetly he was not 'shunned', i don't know if 'shunning' is ever practiced in the Russian Orthodox Church, cos it seems to contradict to evangelical ideas).

In the wikipedia artical about Leo Tolstoy though the word 'excommunication' is used: After Anna Karenina, Tolstoy concentrated on Christian themes, and his later novels such as The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886) and What Is to Be Done? develop a radical anarcho-pacifist Christian philosophy which led to his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901.

Historically, deep thinking and philosophy are not well tolerated by religions. Scientists too, have been excommunicated (and worse) over the centuries for their "radical" views. The Italian scientist, Galileo Galilei, who is now known as the "father of science," introduced the "heretical" idea that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than being the center of the universe. Of course, this implied that humans were not the center of the universe, and so naturally the Church had to persecute him, so he was imprisoned for the rest of his days and not allowed to write about his "radical" and "blasphemous" ideas any more.

Galileo was one of the lucky ones, since he was a man of stature and some personal wealth. Others, who did not have as much "clout" - were of course tortured in ways so unimaginable it defies belief today. The Christians of the middle ages took great pleasure in the screams of those they disemboweled, burned alive, ripped apart, and otherwise mutilated. The more people suffered, it was believed, the more God was pleased. And all of this was done at the behest of the State, which was subservient to the Church.

People who think official religion is a good idea are just naive, or ignorant of history. One of the reasons separation of church and state has been such an important core ideal in America, is because the people who founded our nation REMEMBERED the atrocities of the middle ages. For them, it was a FRESH memory and many of them fled Europe precisely because of the rampant persecution which was going on. The Church, once it had destroyed all conflicting belief systems, began to eat its own - people whose ideas were in conflict with the latest doctrine (and doctrines were always changing to suit the whims of the leaders). It was all about greed, of course. The Church and it's leaders confiscated the property of all the "heretics" and profited tremendously from persecuting all those so-called heathens. The founders of America wanted to ensure that our country would never experience the horror of an all-powerful religion, which persecutes people based on subjective beliefs, because they understood all too well what happens when a church is given authority over the people. Unfortunately, there is a big lobby in America now to tear down that wall of separation between church and state, and some even believe that America's founders were all christians, or that America was "founded as a christian nation" - which could not be further from the truth!