This week, everyone is vigorously discussing the statement of the priest Dmitry Smirnov. He compared women living with men without state registration of marriage (in the so-called civil marriage), with “free prostitutes.” I emphasize that it was not just about parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church, but about all the women in bulk.
Less than a day later, the head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, apologized for the statement of Father Demetrius. According to him, Smirnov periodically allows himself to make offensive statements for women: “He does this, I believe, out of good intentions, wishing to draw public attention to the topic of protecting marriage and the family. However, it is not always successful. “I apologize to the many women who felt insulted by the next shocking statement by the priest.”
Other church hierarchs also called the statement of Father Demetrius unsuccessful and unacceptable. And the scandal would gradually begin to come to naught if it were not for the heroic defenders of the priest, who usually rank themselves as statesmen, who justify his words with the strangest theses - from “he wants to protect women, so he called them that” to “ha ha ha , again liberals upsets. "
The most interesting thing in this discourse was that many authors of the theses “well done father, let the liberals burn in hell” themselves had experience living with women out of wedlock, and some even (oh horror!) Repeatedly, that is, their women were insulted also. This did not prevent the new Christians from carrying aggressive nonsense, which, unfortunately, is unlikely to turn anyone to the Church, but rather turn away from it.
Now in the Russian socio-political field the questions are: “Who is right?”, “What is fair?” and even “Are you guilty?” - replaced by a simple question: "Is he his own or a stranger?"
So, for example, many people who consider themselves guards of the regime hurried in the summer, immediately after the detention of the journalist Medusa, Ivan Golunov, to conclude that he was guilty: “He is a journalist of the liberal publication, and security officials - for the regime, which means he is most likely , a drug addict because whoever is behind the regime cannot be wrong. ”
Similarly, for example, the situation looks with unsuccessful statements or actions of the opposition. For example, the journalist of the All-Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company “can and should” insult at opposition rallies, and ideally, do not let anyone go, because the “alien” simply cannot make a normal report.
Or here is Alexei Navalny’s comrade-in-arms Leonid Volkov claims that Andrei Barshai, the person involved in the riot case at the rallies in Moscow, is the sole merit of the people who went to his court (thanks a lot to them), as in the case of those sentenced to a fine for that same thing to rapper Samariddin Rajabov. Along the way, there is a compulsory refrain: "How does the strangers root". Only “strangers” this time became lawyer Sergey Badamshin, head of RT Margarita Simonyan, chief editor of Echo of Moscow Alexei Venediktov and deputy director of the Higher School of Economics Valery Kasamar - people who have repeatedly called on the state to refrain from early cannibalism in a number of high-profile criminal cases “Strangers” and to understand matters irrespective of whether the person who is in trouble or a statesman is a liberal.
It is easy for mercenaries to be merciful; for “strangers” it is difficult.
It is psychologically easier for a statesman to look at the guys from the “organization” “New Greatness” who scolded the authorities in the chat, did not hold a single action and did absolutely nothing to say: “Yes, they were put in a cage correctly. Ha ha ha, take a look how in a couple of years in a pre-trial detention center they shook. And there is nothing for this girl to cry with burning tears that the investigator does not let her go to the hospital. Share them, give them a tougher one. ” And then, after writing all the necessary cannibalistic comments on the Internet, call a friend: “Listen, you have connections in the Ministry of Health ... Help Vasya’s child arrange for treatment, Vasya is“ ours ”.
It is easy for the oppositionist to wish death to any statesman, to demand pitchfork for the people. And it’s very difficult to publicly thank “not yours” - the same Venediktov and Simonyan. And it was not easy at all to sign a letter in defense of Kirill Vyshinsky or Maria Butina. "Not yours" - rightly so, or what?
The most valuable help is the one you provide "not to yours." Even the enemy. The most valuable words of recognition are not words from "one's own."
The most valuable thing is when a statesman, looking at the “New Greatness” process, says: “Are you stunned, or what? The guys for online chat have been tortured for two years in prison - for nothing. Stop breaking their life. ”
To say, looking at the verdict in the Network case: “Are you stunned? Where are the specific preparations for specific attacks? Real killers and even pedophiles are given less. ”
The most valuable thing is when an opposition journalist stands up for a police officer who seeks help because he himself is faced with gangster lawlessness. The most valuable thing is to say: “Thanks to everyone who stood up for me, all-all-all. Many thanks to those who went to the executive offices. Their contribution is no less valuable than the contribution of my friends. ”
Well, new believers can only recall the Sermon on the Mount, where there are such wonderful words:
“After all, if you will love those who love you, what is your merit? Don't publicans do the same?
And if you are only friendly with your own, what's so special? Don't the Gentiles do the same?
And you be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect. "
The principle of “hold your own” seems to sound beautiful at all. Moreover, it is he who increases the chances of survival of any member of the group. Love those who love you, support yours, other people's urine, enter the group and hold on to it. In a primitive society, of course, this was the only way to live another day and guarantee the survival of the species.
But the farther, the more often people begin to think about something else. This other has many names: mercy, humanism, empathy. People developed and studied gratitude, justice, the concepts of honor and nobility. And it turned out that just in the New Age, and even more so in the XXI century, in order to preserve humanity, it is often necessary to show humanism and mercy, moreover, to “not yours”. What ended with the assertion of the principle "hold on to your own, destroy strangers, do not consider them to be people" for Germany in the 20th century, I think no one needs to be reminded.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.