Main page arrow Articles arrow Who made you censurers?

Who made you censurers? Версия для печати Отправить на e-mail
            Let’s turn back to history. The ancient people were wiser than we are. Anyway, they were more capable of ruling the state than our politicians nowadays (we didn’t mean to insult any of them). Just look how they learned to solve the corruption problem! For instance, Romans elected the magistrates – that was how they called the state officials – annually. The main clause was that the term of their status lasted just for one year, the candidates should be people of certain age and certain sufficiency and, t the main thing is that the state didn’t pay those people a single dinar for their work! If you wish to be in the government, you should pay yourself for it. This would be really reasonable if the candidates were the people who wanted to serve the state with what they were able to and not to gain something for their own profit. During the working term magistrates had no right to trade. They couldn’t be reelected to the magistrate for some years after it. Besides, there was a senate, which was made of the most worthy men, and members of it had a life-time engagement.  

           Among the other positions such as consuls, prefects and other ones, there was another interesting position – a censurer. This is where the word “censure” comes from. In those ancient times the words “censure” and “censurer” didn’t have a negative meaning, they have nowadays. Everyone agreed with the censurer’s work and everyone was pleased. The censurers were elected in a democratic way and their job was making categories of the citizens according to their belongings. Their duty was also putting the moral, cultural and religious spheres in order (and the Romans worshipped dozens of different gods and various saints). If there was a rowdy, who was degradating the social discipline, denying the ancestors’ orders (a dissident), then the censurers had power to crack that upstart down.   

          I told you that in relation to the following: in our city there is an organization called “the Dialogue” – the center for the help for the victims of the destructive cults. The “Dialogue” claims itself to be a non-political, non-religious social organization whose aim is, in quotation “protection of the rights and interests of those people who suffered from the destructive activity of the organizations of religious, commercial, educating, enlighting kind, etc”. The ethical goals, the “Dialogue” sets in public, are:

- faith and political neutrality;
- the respect to the humanistic activity of the religious organizations;
- the realization of the principles of non-intervention of the state into the religious organizations’ activities and vice versa;
- the inadmissibility of the encroachment on the inalienable rights and freedoms of the citizens, that are determined by Ukraine’s legislations and international agreements, and no religious, doctrinal and social motives can be an excuse for this encroachment.;
- the deep conviction of the necessity of preserving the family as the highest social value and the guardian of the cultural, historical and religious traditions of the nations that live in Ukraine;
- the inadmissibility of the religious organizations’ obtruding the religious dogmas to the other members of the family regardless of their will or traditions, as it breaks the spiritual unity of the family.

            Is this all right? yes, it is right until we didn’t personally face the specific activity of this organization and the way it brings into life its “ethical” values.

             This is the way we got to know the “Dialogue” and its heads, we lived a peaceful and happy life and we brought people to the God, thus helping them live a new life. And suddenly we read in newspaper articles and see “ethical” programs on TV that tell that we are a disgusting and filthy totalitarian sect, that we destabilize the criminogenic situation, we exploit children slaves, we hypnotize people and take their money and flats, that we have illegally built the church building, etc. The articles were signed by Yan Shcekaturov (the head of the “Dialogue”) and Dmitry Granov, a journalist from Kiev. And this is the kind they “respect the humanistic activity of the religious organizations”, the way they show “the inadmissibility of the encroachment on the inalienable rights and freedoms of the citizens”. According to the legislations of Ukraine, our church has the right of freedom of worship. What was the reason for these people’s making themselves censurers and assuming the right to decide what is the right way to pray and to love the Lord? We don’t want the inquisition to start again. So, there comes a reasonable answer: who actually made you censurers and who was he who gave you such a power, gentlemen?

             Variant №1: the censuring power was given to the “Dialogue” by the government of Ukraine. But this variant can’t be true, as the “Dialogue” is not politically engaged (as they claim themselves to be)

             Variant №2: the censuring power was given to the “Dialogue” by some religious organization or creed. But this can’t be true either: the heads of the “Dialogue” claim that their organization is not religiously engaged.

             Variant №3: the censuring power was given to the “Dialogue” organization by some other branch of power, yet unknown to anyone.

             The question is what kind of power can it be?
             I am at a loss. Maybe, those might be aliens? If I had Sherock Holmes as a friend, he would obviously help me find the clue to the problem. But I fail to do it. There’s a strange thing: we have some censurers, but there is no censurer’s job in our country. Is this an elective position or a life-time one? Can I take this position? Can I assume the right to decide what is right way for other people to believe and whom they should pray, how much money they should donate and what church they should go to? Do I have the right to meddle with some other family or when being in Rome, doing just as I used to do at home or tell: “it is inadmissible for the religious organizations to obtrude the religious dogmas to the other members of the family regardless of their will or traditions, as it breaks the spiritual unity of the family, historical, cultural and religious traditions of the nations that live in Ukraine” who gave me such a right? No one did it. No one gave this right to the heads of the “Dialogue”, nobody elected them as the censurers and nobody gave them this job just because there isn’t such a job in our country. Things could be another if we lived in Ancient Rome. The heads of the “Dialogue” could go rostrums with the lictors accompanying them and, carrying fascias (rods with axes in order to whip and decapitate the dissidents) and we’ll have to listen perforce to what they say. But we are not in Rome, though Dnepropetrovsk is also sometimes called a city standing on the seven hills. If such kind of the censurers seizes the power, they will throw all the dissidents to the lions of Coliseum.           

           And I have another question to as: why the religious organizations have no right to take part in the political life of the country? it seems that I can do it just in case I am a vermin. And as soon as I knew the Lord, I lost my right to elect the president and the parliament. Is it like this? If I am a sinner and an anarchist, the censurers give me right to go to the demonstrations, to wave the flags and to yell political slogans. And since I become a member of some religious organization, I lose this right.

          Oh, those censurers…

          Maybe, we should make a state position of the highest quality censurers whose work is to control the manorial, crude censurers. If someone in our city has assumed the censurers power on a local level, we will also enjoy this privilege.

The direction

1. To claim the activity of the “Dialogue” center illegal.

2. To make the heads of this organization and the most active members of it to make answer for the blunt slander on various religious organizations (the “Fire of Awakening” church included) and on the main pastor K.N. Maksimov.

3. To forbid anyone make the organizations of this kind in future and assume the censurers power illegally.The Main pastor of the “Fire of Awakening” church Konstantin Maksimov. 


Последнее обновление ( 04.05.2008 )
< Пред.   След. >
Поддержка LasPavel