The Kremlin is under threat

The State Duma is going to adopt a law on the transfer of museum values ​​​​to believers - that is, the Russian Orthodox Church

On September 15, 2010, hearings were held in the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the draft law “On the transfer to religious organizations of religious property owned by the state or municipality”, prepared by the State Duma Committee on...

On September 15, 2010, the State Duma of the Russian Federation held hearings on the draft law “On the transfer of state or municipal property for religious purposes to religious organizations”, prepared by the State Duma Committee on Public Associations and Religious Organizations.

The hearings were held by the same committee. There is also a Committee on Culture in the Duma, whose opinion on the bill is, to put it mildly, not very flattering. In this regard, the Committee on Culture asked experts in the field of museum affairs to prepare presentations and insisted that their names be included in the list of speakers. The specialists fulfilled this order, but the Committee for Religious Organizations did not give them the floor. The famous historian G.D. Nazarov, head Museum Design Laboratory of the Institute of Cultural Studies, Doctor of Arts A.V. Lebedev, in mid-sentence, the deputy was cut off. director of the Moscow Kremlin Museums A.L. Batalov and Scientific Secretary of ICOM International Council of Museums G.B. Andreev. Instead of qualified opinions, the high assembly listened to the chairman of the State Duma Committee on Public Associations and Religious Organizations, Popov, who spoke about the miracles that happened in the elite village built by the head of the Sapsan holding, Sergei Shmakov. In November last year, this businessman turned to Patriarch Kirill with a request to bring the miraculous icon of Our Lady of Toropetskaya from the Russian Museum to the consecration of the elite Alexander Nevsky Church he had built. Under terrible pressure, the Russian Museum was forced to issue a monument of ancient Russian painting of the 12th century, allegedly for temporary use. It was with this icon, according to the official, that a miracle happened: an eight-centimeter crack that formed on it during storage in the museum was overgrown by believers applying to it. Since the experts were unable to fight such arguments within the walls of the Duma, we bring to the attention of the readers one of the failed speeches.

Alexey Lebedev , head. RIK Museum Design Laboratory, Doctor of Arts:

- I'll start with one erroneous wording: "The effect of this Federal Law does not apply to religious property related to museum objects and collections that are part of the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation ..." (Article 1).

The mistake is that museum items and collections are not property. They are not even registered and have no book value. Any society is aware of some objects as cultural values ​​to be withdrawn from use for preservation and transmission from generation to generation. For this, the society has created special institutions called museums and archives. At the moment when a cultural object enters the state museum, it ceases to be the property of a religious or any other purpose. It becomes a monument of history and culture. <…>

Here we come to the second gross error in the text of the bill. It is contained in the definition "Religious property - real estate (buildings, structures, structures, including objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, monasteries, temples and other religious complexes ..." (Article 2). that, speaking of real estate, one should also separate religious property (for example, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior) and historical and cultural monuments of the peoples of the Russian Federation (for example, Oleg's palace in the Ryazan Kremlin, where the first museum exposition was opened already in 1914). no less, the ROC claims to transfer this public building to it (Archbishop Pavel wants to turn it into his mansion), and at the same time the entire territory of the Ryazan Kremlin, which creates a constant ground for conflicts, public protests and anti-church demonstrations in Ryazan.<…>.

I would like to point out one more wording that allows, to put it mildly, an ambiguous interpretation. According to it, the objects of transfer are “buildings for the temporary residence of pilgrims, premises in buildings, structures, structures that are not related to religious property, intended or intended for the performance and provision of these types of activities of religious organizations ...” (Article 2). This is a direct basis for the requisition of a lot of things. Let's put this into practice. Let us take something very far from church life. For example, the system of fortifications. Many Russian cities were surrounded by a fortress wall, there were kremlins - fortresses in the center of settlements. And inside the Kremlin were including temples and monasteries. It turns out that the fortress walls, together with towers and cannons, can be understood as property to be transferred. If the gates are now locked from tourists, then this can provide "prayer retreat" and thus contribute to the "completion of the activities of religious organizations."

And this is not a fantasy. The Russian Orthodox Church already lays claim to the Alexander, Astrakhan, Dmitrovsky, Zaraisky, Solovetsky, Tobolsk, Ryazan Kremlins. By the way, an extremely unpleasant story recently happened on Solovki. The government wanted to transfer the entire central Solovetsky ensemble, including fortifications, to the Russian Orthodox Church, but failed. The legislation did not allow it: it is a monument of federal significance, in which a museum-reserve of federal subordination is located, and, moreover, a UNESCO cultural heritage site. Therefore, at the end of last year, a subtle political step was taken: since we cannot transfer de jure, we will transfer de facto. The museum formally remained state-owned, but the abbot of the Solovetsky Monastery was made its director. Thus, not only fortifications, but also the entire historical and cultural ensemble of the Solovetsky Islands fell under the control of the director-rector. As a result of the inept management of this complex complex on Solovki, the tourist season failed for the first time in 10 years. But this is not the worst. I think everyone has read the recently appeared collective appeal of the inhabitants of the Solovetsky Islands to the country's leadership: "We can become the first Russian citizens forced to seek asylum abroad because of religious oppression at home." These are the first consequences of hasty and ill-conceived political decisions. <…>