Not faith, but greed

Why is the experience of St. Petersburg civil resistance useful for understanding the conflict in Yekaterinburg

It is not yet clear how the struggle of residents in Yekaterinburg, who defend the square "on Drama" from the friendly union of priests and oligarchs, will end. But we can say for sure that this story is not about faith and religion. And not about the rights of believers. This story is about the greed of churchmen, which in recent times has more and more often overwhelmed the patience of citizens. And that, faced with serious resistance, the government - not for the first time - is forced to retreat.

Last December I was in Yekaterinburg - I gave a lecture at the Yeltsin Center about the worlds of the Strugatsky brothers. Colleagues told me about plans to build a gigantic church in the park “on Drama” (on October Square, next to the Drama Theatre). And they consulted on what to do to save the square.

I told them about the St. Petersburg - often successful - experience in the struggle for parks and squares, which are regularly encroached upon by churchmen.

About the struggle for the preservation of St. Isaac's Cathedral as part of the state museum, which made it possible to stop plans for the transfer of St. Isaac to the Russian Orthodox Church. About the need to be persistent at public hearings, demanding not to approve urban planning decisions that are detrimental to green areas.

And that only when the resistance - including street actions - becomes massive, stubborn and consistent, the authorities retreat.

The desire of the Russian Orthodox Church to seize the best plots of land for “temple building”, as a rule, in existing and well-maintained green areas, has become an unkind tradition in recent years. As a tradition, the announcement of the defenders of parks and squares from this expansion as "godless" and "enemies of Orthodoxy", allegedly violating the rights of believers, has also become.

This argument, as they say, "to the point of confusion" is indistinguishable from that which was used in the days of the USSR, and originates from Saltykov-Shchedrin, who urged not to confuse the Fatherland and "Your Excellency."

Only half a century ago, those who opposed the outrages of the authorities were declared "enemies of the Soviet power", and now those who oppose the outrages of the churchmen are declared "enemies of Orthodoxy."

So, the constitutional right to freedom of conscience does not at all mean the right of the church authorities to receive any piece of land they like.

Because this right - that is, the right of believers to freely profess any religion and perform the prescribed rituals - is no more, although no less significant, than all other constitutional rights. Including the right of citizens to a favorable environment, the right to walk in the park and breathe clean air.

In Yekaterinburg, spitting on public opinion, the city authorities changed the status of the territory of the square and allowed construction, and responded to the protest of the townspeople with proven methods: they threw riot police and “titushek” athletes (“altushki”, as they say now) at the protesters and arrested a number of activists, and schools began polling children about which of them or their parents took part in the protests.

At the same time, “nightingale droppings” about “demons” and “possessed” poured on federal channels, the defenders of the square were declared “heirs of those who killed believers and destroyed churches”, and the townspeople were called upon to “make a choice” with whom they who builds temples, or with those who destroy them"...

But then the authorities and affiliated with them churchmen and mining and metallurgical oligarchs, as they say, "something went wrong." To continue to disperse the protesting citizens by force meant not only lowering the reputation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Yekaterinburg below the plinth (what kind of temple is this if its construction begins with a beating, including women and teenagers), but also lowering the reputation of the city and regional authorities there.

Here, as a Deus ex machina, President Putin appeared, advising to conduct a survey of the townspeople. The mayor's office, which previously sat in the bushes, immediately agreed to suspend construction and began to prepare a poll, but the townspeople did not agree and demanded a referendum (the mayor's office blocked the previous attempt to hold it in February). Knowing full well that this is much more reliable than the survey, which is intended to be carried out by exactly the same people who allowed the construction. In addition, a referendum, unlike a poll, involves open campaigning for one or another building site.

The authorities took another step back - the governor of the region announced that four alternative sites for the construction of the temple would be offered.

However, the ROC persists - Metropolitan Hilarion spoke out, stating that "we are not talking about new construction at all, but about restoring what was destroyed by the atheists", and that "the number of opponents of the construction of the temple is in the hundreds, while the supporters of this construction are many tens of thousands ". As proof of this strong assertion, the metropolitan said that last year, the 20-kilometer path from the site of the murder to the site of the alleged burial place of the royal family, “together with the Patriarch, more than a hundred thousand people walked.”

Alas, everything said is slyness.

There are thousands of defenders of the square in Yekaterinburg. And they come to Drama every day. Unlike their opponents, whose legions never appeared, and those who are called to portray them are not very numerous. In addition, as is usual with the authorities, they are brought and taken away by buses. This has already been spotted by local activists. This is first.

And secondly, why on earth are all those who went to the burial place of the royal family declared to be supporters of the development of the square? In St. Petersburg and Moscow, there are many Orthodox believers in the ranks of the defenders of parks and squares, who, just like adherents of other religions (as well as non-believers), want to have a place where they can relax and walk with their children. And in Yekaterinburg, among the defenders of the square "on Drama" there are many Orthodox (I know some personally).

As for the "restoration", the church of St. Catherine, demolished in 1930, stood in a completely different place. And if it is to be restored, why should it be done by destroying the public garden?

Very similar situations are now unfolding in other cities - Chelyabinsk, Ulyanovsk, Tambov, Nizhny Novgorod. The townspeople, seeing that it is almost impossible for them to get their way in the legal field, since officials do not hear them, they turn to street protests - only they give a chance to change the state of affairs.

In St. Petersburg and Moscow, too, not all is well - attacks on green areas continue. At the same time, in the Northern capital, the clergy tried to achieve the removal of height restrictions for “temple building” established by the rules of land use and development - but they did not succeed: they were refused.

And the last.

Once in Russian history, with their greed, hypocrisy, and servility to the authorities, the clergy have already aroused the same hatred for themselves as the authorities. Looks like someone didn't learn those lessons well.