| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Russiaâs Muslims Want Christian Symbols Removed From Coat of Arms |
| 2005-12-06 |
| A group of top Muslim clerics have demanded that Orthodox Christian symbols be removed from the Russian coat of arms and have complained about the Russian authorities and power-wielding structures allegedly refusing to abide by the principle of secularity, the Interfax news agency reported. âThis is not only a question of the Russian coat of arms. We can say that icons are all but put up on the walls of state offices,â Nafigulla Ashirov, chairman of the Spiritual Board of Muslims of Asian Russia, told journalists. He accused units of the Defense and Interior Ministries and the Federal Security Service of appropriating various saints âwho are allegedly the patrons of warriorsâ. âThe power-wielding structures, the authorities and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy are erecting large crosses at border posts and the approaches to towns. Orthodox chapels are being built in the command bodies of the armed forces,â he lamented. In his turn, Damir Mukhetdinov, deputy head of the Spiritual Board of the Nizhny Novgorod regionâs Muslims, shared the Muslimsâ concerns. Their feelings are insulted by the Orthodox presence in the Russian coat of arms. âWe, the Muslims of Nizhny Novgorod region, were wholeheartedly in favour of introducing the unity of the peoples holiday. We could not have imagined, however, that the sound of Orthodox bells and the icon of the Virgin of Kazan would become the symbols of this holiday in Russia,â he said about the day of peopleâs unity. The mufti is convinced that âall this violates the secular nature of the state and doesnât contribute to the unity of Russiaâs peoplesâ. Ali Visam Bardvil, head of the Spiritual Board of Kareliaâs Muslims, too, believes that the presence of Christian symbols in the coat of arms is impermissible. He said that Russia âis neither a Muslim nor a Christian countryâ. âThe cross is not a Muslim symbol. We respect the religious feeling of Christians but do not recognize the crucifixion of Christ,â the Muslim figure clarified. âTherefore,â he went on, âin my opinion Orthodox symbols should be removed from the coat of arms to make it acceptable to all religions.â Bardvil emphasized that Muslims would support all politicians calling for a change to the current symbols in the Russian coat of arms. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #31 Well now that you remind me, the facists in WWII did unite, even though that alliance probably would have fallen apart with one attacking the other in good time. However, all the places you cite Russia being involved is from a FINANCIAL point of view: Look again, and you'll see that they're in where the money is at. Chavez gets Soviet arms because he's got the dough. Iran gets reactors from Russia because they've got the dough. The Warsaw pact was cut loose because they were a drain. Russia's in no condition to provide charity: they NEED it themselves! A third thing to note, which appears to have escaped your notice, is that the discussion was about the RISE of a czarist russian orthodox fascism: the current state of russia is that of a struggling young democracy dealing with an overly powerful executive. Certainly Russia's Czarist past makes it prone to giving extraordinary powers to a single individual, but I hardly see Putty leading Russia in a RELIGOUS Russian Orthodox direction. The religious symbology in the state offices are reflections of a return to a pre-communist Russia, dominated by the Russian Orthodox church, and an older patriotism that was never crushed by 70-odd years of communism. What you're seeing in the world is Russia-as-economic-and-political-state, not as an explicitly religious state like Iran or Saudi Arabia, actively pushing Russian Orthodoxy as vigorously as the Islamists are pushing their beliefs. And certainly not as violently. The symbology in the offices being protested here probably has as much meaning to the average Russian as a manger scene: a genuflection to the heritage of pre-communist Russia as the manger is an acknowledgement of the deep religious roots of 18th century America. Your "Chicken Little" reaction is about on par with the ACLU's, and for exactly the same reasons. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-12-06 22:48 |
| #30 To defend a Christian religious fascist is to strengthen the Muslim religious fascist also; and to weaken the secularist democrats of both faiths. Again Aris, I don't think you can credibly assert that the Russians are Christian facists or use their religous belief as the central component of their regime. The Islamo-facists do use Islam in this fashion. The Russians are really secularists with some Christian historical trappings. Europe as well. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-12-06 22:16 |
| #29 Ptah> The basic disagreement I have with your words is all contained in this single sentence of yours: "I look around, and I don't see this (proto)Czarism formenting trouble elsewhere," If you mean as an ideology, no, it won't have global appeal. But Russia as a power, does forment trouble elsewhere by the bucketload. The attitude of "defending our Orthodox brothers" was behind Russian support for Serbia for starters. The murders against a number of politicians in Georgia, plus the occupation of large portions of that territory. Russian support for all the corrupt regimes in the space of the former Soviet Union. The division of Moldova, and the dictatorship of Transnistria. And not even just in its regions. Russia supports Venezuela, and plays war games alongside China directed against Taiwan. And it supports Iran, and it supports Syria. This is the fundamental objection: you seem to think that Czarism is *opposed* to Islamofascism: I've seen the new Russian tyrants continuously supporting it instead. (again Iran, again Syria). The rise of an Orthodox fascism in Russia, won't be directed against the Islamofascists. Ideologically it will be directed against the *West*. If anything it will support Islamofascism in its own sphere of influence. "You be religious fascists in your regions, we be religious fascists in our regions". Secularism and western ideas of democracy will be hated by it most of all. Ugh, this merely scratches the surface of how these seemingly opposed fascisms can be allied to each other, but there's been historical precedent time and again. Fact is that very arguments used to defend "Russian distinctiveness" in this *against* the ideas of secularism, are also the ones that'll be used to defend "Iranian distinctiveness" or "Arab distinctiveness" also against the ideas of secularism. Russia didn't hate Islamofascism in Chechenya -- it simply hated the fact the Chechens were trying to secede. It didn't hate that they were supposedly building a "caliphate", it hated that they were trying to build an independent state. The large war isn't between Christians vs Muslims, it's between secularists vs religious fascists. To defend a Christian religious fascist is to strengthen the Muslim religious fascist also; and to weaken the secularist democrats of both faiths. (The same way that the conflict concerning racial discrimination wasn't white vs. blacks, it was the racists of both sides vs. the antiracists of both sides) Russian czarism will be all too willing to support Islamofascist imperialism against e.g. Israel, even as it's willing to support Chinese imperialism against Taiwan. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-06 20:20 |
| #28 Excellent, Ptah, excellent! |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-12-06 19:22 |
| #27 I dunno Aris: I don't think that our priorities are mis-placed. Consider that any putative return to Czarism/Facism in Russia would result in a system not at all that much different from the Communist regime that fell last time to the right kind of pressure. Further, the putative rulers would still be guided by their Western way of thinking, similar to ours, which was what made MAD reasonably effective. Add to that the documented decline in White Russian population numbers and increasing AIDS rates, and the Czarist nation will have problems meeting military man-power requirements. There are more Women than Men due to World War II, which makes the average russian more inclined to making love (if not babies), not war. And I would hardly call Russia going zarist if the Muslims grew in proportionate numbers, got into power, and established an Islamic state: I understand Czarism is uniquely Russian and Russian orthodox, and any kind of fascism based on anything else would be Fascist, but not Czarist. On the other hand, you've got a billion plus Muslims, with a burgeoning population whose polygamist culture ensures a large number of unpaired young males. "Czarist" activities are confined within Russian Borders, and also happens to be in conflict with Islamist terrorism. In the far east, it's Buddhism VS. Islamism. In the Middle East, it's Israel Vs. Islamism. in Africa, It's Animism VS. Islamism or Christianity VS. Islamism. In Kashmir, It's Hinduism vs. Islamism. In france, it's the French VS. Islamism. In the Netherlands, it's the Dutch VS. Islamism. In England, it's the English VS. Islamism. Sheesh, to my unsophisticated eye, there seems to be a common denominator in all the above, and it ain't the Czarist empire reviving. So, on the one hand, I see an old, defeated enemy trying to rise again on a shaky foundation attacking, NOT ME, but the other competitor for world domination, populous, increasing, with polygamist demographics that encourages men to "make war to make love". I look around, and I don't see this (proto)Czarism fomenting trouble elsewhere, but I DO see his opponent in conflict, not with former enemies, but friends and potential friends. A russia with 10000 warheads is indeed a threat, but one we've dealt with before. An Iran with 5 is also a threat, but of a different kind because the actors are, to put it bluntly, Fundamentalist religious fanatics, and I can assure you, from seing how "knowledgeable" you are in the Christian religion, that secularist understanding is going to be royally f*cked up. It took us two days to put down Post Katrina lawlessness. How long did the French take, assuming it was "put down" rather than died down? And I DO happen to recall that you bellyached about us attacking Iraq, asserting we should have attacked Iran instead. You were right. Why the reluctance, in THIS thread, to insist that you are STILL right? It, of course, would do us no good to encourage Czarism to rise to defeat Islamism. Advocacy of Democracy and liberty is better, but I guess Putty is swallowing the MSM line that it isn't working in Iraq, so who would blame him for deciding, if Democracy and Liberty aren't working in relatively sophisticated Iraq, he'll have to go back to the old methods in more backward and traditionally Islamic countries. I guess that'll be a test case to determine if the Islamists of Afghanistan could REALLY have thrown out the Russians without American aid. However, this discussion kinda got off the track: I understood the discussion of Czarist Russia came up because of the question of whose "Caliphate" had the older and more ancient claim. "Czar==Caesar" is correct, but that does not prove a causative link between Constantinople and Moscow: One would need a document on the order of the "Donation" of Constantine, in which the Byzantines, in their last gasp, passed the Roman Baton north to the Volga before expiring before the Hordes of Islam.. Czarist claims of Byzantine descent are as "valid" as Charlemagne claiming to REALLY be the "Holy Roman Emperor". |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-12-06 18:48 |
| #26 Aris, I don't see why you believe that RB'ers would deny a Christian facist regime if it existed and were a threat. It is important, though, to distinguish those regimes that used Christianity when convenient to further their facist objectives and those whose central defining aspect was their Christianity but happended/chose to be facist. I can think of several of the former, but damn few, in fact none, of the latter in modern times. That is what I see as the difference with the Islamo-facists about whom the RB'ers are so myopic (wisely so IMO). Islam is absolutely central to who they are. It is what defines them and is how they define themselves. Unfortunately, their version of Islam enables them, in fact compels them, to act as facists. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-12-06 17:40 |
| #25 "Happy Shopping Festival" would seem to discriminate against those who are economically disadvantaged, perhaps made too-late reservations for the Inn, and had to sleep in a manger, had no Escalade to put presents in, and , in the end, had only the love of Jesus's birth to offer...woo! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-06 16:57 |
| #24 Robert> Airhead decided that the frustration of letting moronic and/or genocidal talk go unchallenged cost him more than the shame of violating his promise to keep silent. I'll leave it to the experts to determine what personality flaw of mine that reveals. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-06 16:48 |
| #23 Job Fair Now! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-12-06 16:45 |
| #22 I thought Airhead stomped away in a snit. What brought him back? Couldn't get his daily moral superiority fix? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-12-06 16:34 |
| #21 Given that Russia did in Chechenya a hundred times over what Osama Bin Laden did with the Twin Towers Tends to happen when attempting to set up a Caliphate. A caliphate ruled by fascists no less. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-12-06 16:04 |
| #20 Your current enemy of the decade are Muslims I can't wait for the Greek decade. I just hope the Fench decade comes first. |
| Posted by: Cleath Angomoling6322 2005-12-06 15:55 |
| #19 saying the season has been reduced to a "shopping festival". not far from the truth |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-12-06 15:52 |
| #18 deny the humanity of muslims P.S. We got your mama in Chechnia Given that Russia did in Chechenya a hundred times over what Osama Bin Laden did with the Twin Towers... ...yeah, you then have the audacity of speaking about the depravity of Islam. I urge you to look for signs of depravity within your souls instead. And ex-lib, by all means let Russia its Orthodox "cultural symbolism", thinking it harmless. I can't expect you to see the trends of *Christian* fascisms, when few people in this forum can seem to hold more than a single ideological enemy in mind at any given decade. Just a while ago, there was a call in Russia to ban all Jewish organizations. All in the name of national unity ofcourse. Czarism is coming back to Russia, with all the Orthodox-fascism it implies. Do you think that the rest of its qualities are much further behind? Not that you people would care. Your current enemy of the decade are Muslims, and nobody else matters. Myopia galore. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-12-06 15:48 |
| #17 Happy Shopping Festival Rantburg! (Non-gender specific, secular deity of your choice) Bless Us Every One! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-12-06 15:02 |
| #16 "E pluribus Caliphate" top in show ;) |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-12-06 14:48 |
| #15 ex-lib, I think you got it right. Here is a link to something along the same lines that is happening in Austraulia. RELIGIOUS groups have launched an attack on Christmas â calling for it to be renamed and toned down. A leading Islamic body says the use of the term "Christmas" is politically incorrect because it excludes too many people in multicultural Australia. The Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations wants a community debate to find an alternative â suggesting the word "festive" as a possible replacement. And a Queensland Jewish leader has called for an end to the "automatic imposition" of Christmas on the community, saying the season has been reduced to a "shopping festival". |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-12-06 14:27 |
| #14 A little incoherent in spots (above) my apologies--I have the flu--but you get the drift. If not, refer to mmurray's post. :) |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-12-06 13:43 |
| #13 What the Islamics are doing in Russia is what they're doing in every "host" country. And that is social/cultual deconstructionism. It works like this: by undoing (or attempting to undo) a society's confidence in the visual/verbal and otherwise expressions of their unique historical culture, and by introducing "doubt" and insecurity, they weaken that culture in preparation for eventual destruction. Islamics have long considered it astute to use the cultural norms of the societies they are infiltrating, against those same societies. For example, in "Christianized" Europe and the West, they play against the vestiges and values of brotherly love, equality, and respect and then "tool" those shared, customary cultural "norm" into an accusation of sorts, that seems to have at its base, something which would readily be accepted by those cultures, BECAUSE it seems to spring from values inherent in the culture, that people consider important. In other words, it pretty much boils down to the accusation by the Islamics that "you're mistreating us" or "you're not living up to your own values (so you're 'bad')-- and you don't want to be bad, do you?" When any culture gives into this deconstructionist bullying in the name of "tolerance" they would do well to remembe that the "favor" would not be returned on the Islamic side, should they be the ones in control. Removing Piglet calendars from office buildings in London, removing St. Nicholas figures from holiday shopping areas, removing Orthodox Christian symbology from Russia--this is a pattern, which I hope will be recognized quickly. Not to be negative, but usually it takes a long time for the culture being constructed to realize what's going on, and by then, too late. Newer cultural norms, now defined by intrusive forces (like the Islamics) take their place, and can no longer be recognized for what they truly are. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2005-12-06 13:41 |
| #12 Dear Islamic wackjobs, Fuck you with a bacon dildo. Sincerely, Russia P.S. We got your mama in Chechnia |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-12-06 12:40 |
| #11 These claims almost have a whiff of legitimacy until you consider what sort of symbology (or pluralism, for that matter) would be allowed if Muslims were running the show. Different day, same excrement. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-12-06 12:38 |
| #10 IIRC, it was this "culture destroying" aspect of Western Civilisation that really stuck Osama. And the Left. Another illustration of the convergence of Leftism and Islamist terrorism. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-12-06 12:33 |
| #9 It continues to amaze me that they have such a loud voice in their complaints. To take any of this seriously, I too used to laugh at some of this, but now it seems very concerning that change may occur here. To live in a region that is so different from your own culture and in the beginning be, or seem to be so accepting of it at the time, to only take over the common fiber over time of religion to be your own and demand that it change by having large families and rooting in is so wrong here. I embrace freedom of religion, but Islam seems not able to do this. Hopefully moving into the 21st century as stated earlier by AP will clarify things. I agree that it is culture destroying. |
| Posted by: Jan 2005-12-06 11:55 |
| #8 "E pluribus Caliphate" |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-12-06 11:37 |
| #7 Also Kaiser. Not so much Orthodox there, though. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-12-06 11:33 |
| #6 Nation building in Iraq will extinguish the total depravity of Islam. In fact, it's the best way to do it. Islam can only survive in a 7th century culture. If they are dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st, they'll have to change. Or they'll have to be changed to get them into the 21st century. Either way, this nation building is culture destroying too. |
| Posted by: Angeash Phomorong4373 2005-12-06 11:21 |
| #5 Spot on, CE. Tsar/Czar=Caesar. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2005-12-06 11:19 |
| #4 "All this violates the secular nature of the state." said the ACLU's San Diego attorney John Tightpants... Oh, sorry, wrong article. I think. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-12-06 11:19 |
| #3 I no longer laugh at this stuff, for the simple reason that: it is going to happen to all of us, unless we recognize the total depravity of Islam and deny the humanity of Muslims. I oppose nation-building in Iraq, because I want the perverse Muslim culture extinguished. Freedom of religion is too cherished an idea to be applicable to the worst slavers in human history. Hey Abdul: take you primitive self back to the filthy pig pen that you call a homeland. |
| Posted by: CaziFarkus 2005-12-06 11:17 |
| #2 The czars claimed power and authority of the Caesars thru the Orthodox Church as the last vestige of the [Eastern] Roman Empire as established by Constantine at Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul. You know the claim of the Caliphate by Benny? Well, Caesar's goes back a lot further. People making claims based upon history aught to be concerned about that one. |
| Posted by: Cravitle Elmeremp2989 2005-12-06 11:03 |
| #1 Yet another thing the left (ok, the ACLU) and Muslim fundamentalists have in common. They grow closer every day. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-12-06 10:53 |