Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Solzhenitsyn Speaks Out; ...Against Western Human Rights...
Topic Started: May 30 2006, 11:49 AM (414 Views)
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Norms:


Solzhenitsyn Joins in Criticism of Western Human Rights Norms
30.05.2006

MosNews.com


Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, for many years a dissident against Soviet communism, has defended an Orthodox church-sponsored document calling for a new concept of human rights to counter Western notions of freedom, which are said to lack “moral norms”, Ecumenical News International reports.

“Unlimited human rights are what our cave-dwelling ancestor already had — nothing prevented him from depriving his neighbor of prey or finishing him off with a cudgel,” Solzhenitsyn told the Moskovskiye Novosti weekly newspaper. “Even to call for self-restraint was considered ridiculous and funny. However, it is only self-restraint that offers a moral and reliable way out of any conflict.”

The 87-year-old writer was reacting to a “Declaration on Human Rights and Dignity” adopted by the tenth World Russian People’s Council, which met at Moscow’s Christ the Savior basilica from 4 to 6 April and was chaired by Orthodox Patriarch Alexiy II of Moscow.

The document said the world faced “a conflict between civilizations with different understandings of the human being”. It stated that it was unacceptable to use human rights “to legitimize behavior condemned by both traditional morality and historical religions”.

Solzhenitsyn said the director of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, Metropolitan Kirill, had been right to assert that personal freedoms should not “threaten the fatherland” or be used to “insult religious and national feelings”.

He added, “If Russia were to join the North Atlantic Alliance, which is engaged in propaganda and forcibly inculcating the ideology and practices of today’s Western democracy in various parts of the planet, it would lead not to an expansion, but to a decline of Christian civilization.”

The human rights declaration said Russians rejected “the policy of double standards with regard to human rights,” as well as “attempts to use them for imposing a particular socio-political system.”

Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1970. His books include “The Gulag Archipelago” a factual account of Stalin’s terror for which he was exiled to the West in 1974. He returned to Russia in 1994 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has often defended Orthodox tradition against Western popular culture.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Off topic, I know, but since when is Russia not Western?

Orthodoxy is an Eastern European religion, but I never considered it to be non-Western. It's European in its roots.

Alberta Crude, help!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
He added, “If Russia were to join the North Atlantic Alliance, which is engaged in propaganda and forcibly inculcating the ideology and practices of today’s Western democracy in various parts of the planet, it would lead not to an expansion, but to a decline of Christian civilization.”


The decline of Christian civilization?

I have never heard civilization referred to in that way.

___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
While Russians and Ukrainians consider themelves Europeans, they do not consider themselves to be *Western*. The attack here is aimed at the norms of Western liberalism and human rights organizations such as the ALCU.

...hey, it was big surprise to everyone except Andropov and Suslov back in the 70's to discover that the only things the exiled Solzhenitsyn despised more than Russian Marxism-Leninism was American republicanism and European social liberalism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
He's always liked complaining. I never managed to finish any of his books, as I found them so depressing. They still lie unfinished somewhere at the back of my parents dining room bookshelf.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
The phrase “threaten the fatherland” seems an unfortunate choice of words.

Otherwise, he makes some good points.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
JB it's probably a direct translation of the word родина (rodina) which is normally translated as Motherland being that it is a feminine noun in Russian. It is a very common for Russians to refer to Russia as the Motherland when they want to describe the people, culture, land and state as one. It is a subtlety of the language that does not translate well into English.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I was actually quite familiar with the Russian use of "Motherland" having studied Russian history while in college. It is a very deeply felt thing for the Russian people as I understand it and its meaning transcends a simple concatenation of "mother" and "land". Another term I was told does not translate well is Prostor. I understand it to mean an unending featureless vastness but I suppose a familiarity with the Russian landscape would help to fully convey its meaning.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I'd like to see more of this declaration and what it is really talking about.

John Paul II often was critical of rampant materialism and the lust for money and power that he believed has harmed the human spirit and which dehumanizes people in Western cultures. I think there is great merit to his argument.

Is this what the Orthodox are condemning and Solzenitsyn is agreeing to? Or are the Orthodox going further and perhaps attacking more fundamental rights -- such as the right of conscience, the right of free speech, the right of free movement, etc.

Or, are they going even further and trying to impose Orthodox morals on a pluralistic and secular society?

Both the Orthodox Churches and Solzenitsyn have earned the right to be listened to and taken seriously. But this does not mean they are right or that their view should prevail.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Rick Zimmer
May 30 2006, 12:38 PM
John Paul II often was critical of rampant materialism and the lust for money and power  that he believed has harmed the human spirit and which dehumanizes people in Western cultures.  I think there is great merit to his argument.

Is this what the Orthodox are condemning and Solzenitsyn is agreeing to?


Probably something like that.

Quote:
 
Or are the Orthodox going further and perhaps attacking more fundamental rights -- such as the right of conscience, the right of free speech, the right of free movement, etc.


And probably something like that too.

When Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia in the 90's from exile, he had a weekly half hour television show- a bit like the Archbishop Sheen TV sermons I remember as a kid. On these Solzhenitsyn would pontificate on the superiority of the Russian Mir and against the ills of crass materialism and moral depravity that had engulfed Russia and *The West*. At first all Russians gathered round their TV sets to listen but after the first year and bit viewers became fewer and fewer. Nobody could relate to what to he was talking about and felt that he was a somewhat reactionary anachronism from the time of Nicholas I or Alexander III.

Indeed, it was for that reason that Andropov then Head of the KGB sent Solzhenitsyn into exile back in the 70's. Andropov and the Soviet gerontocracy of the day realized that in Western exile Solzhenitsyn was absolutely harmless outside of the USSR. While Andrei Sakharov was one with what we call open and liberal democracy, Solzehintsyn was cut of an entirely different cloth. He was in every sense a true Great Russian. No one in the West would understand what he was talking about or represented and he would immediately choose to live in seclusion and spurn any attempts from Western politicians or anti-Soviet emigres to become politically active against the USSR. They were right. Solzhenitsyn showed nothing but contempt towards the West and only made public appearances and statements when the conditions of his Harvard stipend had to be met.

Solzhenitsyn is the personification of Churchill's famous quotation that "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma".

More from Solzhenitsyn: Former western anti-communist hero Solzhenitsyn says NATO encircling Russia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iainhp
Middle Aged Carp

Quote:
 

John Paul II often was critical of rampant materialism and the lust for money and power that he believed has harmed the human spirit and which dehumanizes people in Western cultures. I think there is great merit to his argument.


Why do you believe this is only in Western cultures?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
iainhp
May 30 2006, 03:48 PM
Quote:
 

John Paul II often was critical of rampant materialism and the lust for money and power that he believed has harmed the human spirit and which dehumanizes people in Western cultures. I think there is great merit to his argument.


Why do you believe this is only in Western cultures?

I don't. I used the west only because that was the topic of the comments.

Actually, JPII's criticism was more aimed at capitalism rather than the West.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
It seems to be aimed more at materialism which is not necessarily the same as capitalism.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
JBryan
May 30 2006, 07:22 PM
It seems to be aimed more at materialism which is not necessarily the same as capitalism.

Rick is right about JP2's criticisms of capitalism, which were surpressed in the translation of Centesumus Annus by certain leading Catholic political conservatives.

In the authentic translation, he first reminded the reader of the concerns of Leo XII in Rerum Novarum of the contemporaneous exploitation of the worker in the industrial age of capitalist development:

Quote:
 
"A workman's wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. "If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice".25

Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called "unbridled capitalism" was pressing forward, should not have to be repeated today with the same severity. Unfortunately, even today one finds instances of contracts between employers and employees which lack reference to the most elementary justice regarding the employment of children or women, working hours, the hygienic condition of the work-place and fair pay; and this is the case despite the International Declarations and Conventions on the subject26 and the internal laws of States. "


Later on, after his examination of the failings of socialism he issued stern words against continuing problems of capitalism, particular in the global economy:

Quote:
 
42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.

43. The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.84 For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good. This teaching also recognizes the legitimacy of workers' efforts to obtain full respect for their dignity and to gain broader areas of participation in the life of industrial enterprises so that, while cooperating with others and under the direction of others, they can in a certain sense "work for themselves"85 through the exercise of their intelligence and freedom.

The integral development of the human person through work does not impede but rather promotes the greater productivity and efficiency of work itself, even though it may weaken consolidated power structures. A business cannot be considered only as a "society of capital goods"; it is also a "society of persons" in which people participate in different ways and with specific responsibilities, whether they supply the necessary capital for the company's activities or take part in such activities through their labour. To achieve these goals there is still need for a broad associated workers' movement, directed towards the liberation and promotion of the whole person.

In the light of today's "new things", we have re-read the relationship between individual or private property and the universal destination of material wealth. Man fulfils himself by using his intelligence and freedom. In so doing he utilizes the things of this world as objects and instruments and makes them his own. The foundation of the right to private initiative and ownership is to be found in this activity. By means of his work man commits himself, not only for his own sake but also for others and with others. Each person collaborates in the work of others and for their good. Man works in order to provide for the needs of his family, his community, his nation, and ultimately all humanity.86 Moreover, he collaborates in the work of his fellow employees, as well as in the work of suppliers and in the customers' use of goods, in a progressively expanding chain of solidarity. Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate, however, when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people.87 Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man.

The obligation to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow also presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace.88 Just as the person fully realizes himself in the free gift of self, so too ownership morally justifies itself in the creation, at the proper time and in the proper way, of opportunities for work and human growth for all.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply