As much as I want to be mad about this (I can no longer drive in Russia), It's really just a continued case of Russia being Russia. Power in Russia has always been tied to the Orthodox Church (even in Soviet times when they were technically atheistic and anti church). These are people who think that Greek Orthodox are heretics for not being strict enough in their religious beliefs, and have no instruments in their church because "the only instrument God created is the voice". There are even significant fringe groups in the country (called "Old Believers") who think Orthodox got too watered down a few centuries back when they started letting people cut their beards. Russia is not exactly a liberal bastion, and rarely if ever has been. That said, this is also a political move by the government to keep support of the conservatives as their approval ratings drop. The Ruble is low as fuck right now because of trade sanctions from the Ukraine conflict. Russia's also been building the LGBTQ community into a new scapegoat for a while now (most of the Jews have gotten smart and left ages ago, so they don't work as well anymore). Idunno man, the more I've read about Russian History, the more I think that it's never really gonna change. A "Giant with Feet of Clay" indeed.
So would I. The two people who replied seem to be agreeing with you without understanding that they agree with you. It is my understanding that early in the 20th century power in Russia became tied only to a certain anti-bourgeois bourgeois class of hypocrites; religion was not involved. If anything being religious was not safe.
You're right, I misspoke here in saying that the Orthodox church had power during this time. I should say that many of the people who had once latched onto the Orthodox Church (and thus the Tsar, as he was defender of the faith and kind of tangled into the church as sort of a Higher position person. Divine right of rule and all that jazz.) for their power simply moulded the idea of the Soviet State into a religion of sorts, as elizabeth mentions. After the break up of the USSR, the Kremlin started to reattach itself to to Orthodox Church as a way to legitimize the new government and separate it from the previous one (even though it was, in many ways, the same people running the show). So, all that to say I simplified the issue, and by doing so made an erroneous statement. apologies. I think what I was trying to get across was that the power structure, and many of the people in power didn't really change that much.
Are you trying to say that in positions of power, the powerful in Russia act alike even though they were wildly different demographics? The who's who of USSR's early history is very strongly populated by Ashkenazi Jews, as a matter of historic fact. In fact, as part of ideological and tribal retribution that was part and parcel of that wave of madness, nearly the entire aristocratic and thinking set of the "white" Russians were liquidated. This gentleman has written rather extensively about it all. Some find aspects of his deeply candid observations 'unacceptable'. I think what I was trying to get across was that the power structure, and many of the people in power didn't really change that much.
I should say that many of the people who had once latched onto the Orthodox Church (and thus the Tsar, as he was defender of the faith and kind of tangled into the church as sort of a Higher position person. Divine right of rule and all that jazz.) for their power simply moulded the idea of the Soviet State into a religion of sorts, as elizabeth mentions.
I've had a .pdf of Gulag Archipelago for years, and have just never read it. Maybe I should. Thanks for the info. I think my basic point that Russia is acting as Russia historically has - very conservatively - still stands, but obviously I need to go back to school on my 20th century Russian history.
definitely an interesting perspective. I'll have to read more into the critical reception and rebuttal to see what others say about it (looks like it's pretty divisive).
I'm not an expert on the subject but my parents grew up in USSR and I've talked to them about this in the past. My father told me that back then, nobody was religious. Only old people went to church and the government didn't bother them. If you wanted a career, being seen in church was pretty bad. I think that the religion was communism. They had a pretty conservative worldview. So when the system fell apart a lot of people needed a belief system to replace communism and turned to religion. My dad like to tell the story of how they were painting a church basement with his friend one time to help out and they ended up getting drunk in there. The friend he did it with is now very religious, the kind of person you can't say "on my god" in front of without them screaming blasphemy. The effect was probably exaggerated by the fact this friend I'm talking about immigrated to Canada and religion probably started as a community thing, but I still think the same thing happened in Russia. The country changed really fast and people needed something to cling on to.
The USSR saw religion as taking workers away from the work they should be doing, and as such they stopped all churches from forming, and kept everyone without religion. It's why the US got so passionate about being religious, to make themselves distinct from the USSR.
Reading your comments here always makes things feel better.
Go listen to some good music. It's helping me out pretty significantly.
Here is the decree which recently came into effect, that I assume was the instigating event for this report.
http://government.ru/media/files/A5X9GSAYrpA.pdf It explicitly state a number of physical conditions which shall preclude an applicant from receiving a drivers license.
Astute readers will note that this has no explicit mention of either transsexual or transgender people, fetishism, exhibitionism or voyeurism. However, the document refers to mental conditions, as specified in ICD-10, the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, see: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/ , which does include some "Disorders of Sexual Preference" ( see: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/F65 ) that include the listed notions. Whether this supposed adoption of an international standard for recognizing mental health disorders is done cynically, and only as a roundabout tactic to prevent trans people from driving, it is difficult for me to say. Likewise I would say it is difficult for the BBC, however the given title is much sexier than "Russia adopts international mental health standard in driver's licensing directive."