God and GB

But someone was able to skillfully combine both. There are no such ashamed of them - you need to see yourself in them

I recalled the episode, which once seemed just a manifestation of the uniqueness of this character. How wrong I was! ... some secular presentation in the House of Cinema is broadcast on TV, and the host,-I remember, Victor Merezhko,-in passing, up to ...

I recalled the episode, which once seemed just a manifestation of the uniqueness of this character. How wrong I was!

... some secular presentation in the House of Cinema is broadcast on TV, and the host,-I remember, Victor Merezhko,-in passing, not seriously, Sergei Vladimirovich Mikhalkov asks: "Are you a believer?"

"Certainly!" - Sounding, he answers. "No, serious?" - “Yes! And what are you so surprised? "

Indeed, why?

Is it because the host, like me, at that moment, Mikhalkov’s phrase, historical, without jokes, said during the trial of Sinyavsky and Daniel, just about this: “We have, thank God ...”

That's right. The title letter in the word “God” then, of course, was not even implied; It was still far from the words of the old-naval anthem: "... the native land is stinging with God." It was not implied, unlike the name of the organization, which was not slow here to sound: "We, thank God, have a KGB!"

It turns out that one could say - and, most importantly, to think so, while retaining behind me the right in the changed circumstances to declare: I am a believer. And they always had it. And what is it? (We must think, the love of a glorious institution in new times has not become less.)

What to say, he was really unique. In everything, including flexibility, almost grace, with which he turned out to be a courtyard who knows how to please all the kings: the formidable Stalin, and the Beauty Khrushchev, and the Ground Brezhnev, and ... so on. But this is the image, imagine, in general, the current consciousness.

There is a kind of post -Soviet phenomenon.

No matter how fairly grumble, we are still allowed a lot. Well, at least something. The non -freedom, who is free to talk about his non -freedom, is not that on the threshold of her (“Who is he given to him?”), But he is already intelligible, the smell of freedom - for example, “freedom of conscience”. For nothing that he more often perceives her as freedom of unscrupulousness.

Previously, the same Mikhalkov would be afraid to advertise his own religiosity, as probably the lieutenant colonel from the department, so dear to Sergey Vladimirovich, did not hang the image of the Savior in his Gaderar residency (I speak without irony, what is there to ironize over?). But the point is not in the nomenclature persons, which have become, as they sharply, candle -speakers. The matter is more serious than any masquerade.

The banality, it is a bored truth: religion implies prohibitions. Unable. Do not steal like that. Dot. And with us - is it the other way around?

The permitted, finally published - and at least composed, in this case, all the same - the same religiosity in our conditions (the newly -minted candle -bearer believes) not only redeems the former godly resistance. Worse: legitimizes new meanness. Frees from shame.

Something like indulgence ...

I spoke about the faith in God only for the great clarity. But this is generally the originality of the post -Soviet “freedom”.

Again, the matter is not only in the frank preference of those who, according to Orwell, are “more equal” (notorious flashing lights, etc.); She, this “freedom”, even the one that is available “less equal”, forgives us too much bad.

The fact that today, thank God, without fear of execution, we can sometimes afford (but we do not do this for self -justification, for hard to preserve self -esteem, for example, not suspecting the white crow of Shevchuk that he “propariil” in front of Putin) inspires us with the illusion that we have changed.

Do not be entered. Even in front of the aforementioned courtier (they say, you and I-again and again, thank God, who, in truth, had nothing to do with it-did not poison, like him, Pasternak, they did not expel, like him, Solzhenitsyna, etc., etc.). Better let's see in it, albeit as many unique, ourselves, ordinary, today.

And I won’t say: let's think, but for a start, at least slightly blushing.