by Davor Džalto
I tried to stay away from publicly expressing my thoughts on the current church/autocephaly crisis in Ukraine, for many reasons. First of all, there are much more competent people who know the situation better than I do. Second, the issue of autocephaly of the church in Ukraine has, by now, escalated so dramatically that one feels compelled to side either with the “pro-Russian” block or with the “pro-Ukrainian/pro-Constantinople” one. The “camps” seem to be so fortified, and the discussion so heated, that it seems difficult to formulate and express one’s opinion without taking a clear-cut “pro” or “contra” position.
In the end, however, I decided to write a short piece about the issue because I received about a dozen requests from various people to comment on the situation, and to give my view on the issues at stake.
Let me say at the beginning that I do not share the mainstream views when it comes to the issue of autocephaly in Ukraine. I will try to explain why. Continue Reading…
by Davor Džalto | ру́сский
“Fundamentalism” is a difficult concept to define. The difficulty does not primarily stem from the demanding task of describing certain actions, beliefs, and ideas and drawing general patterns that would help us differentiate “fundamentalist” phenomena from what they are not. The way the concept of “fundamentalism” is often employed, both in the public discourse and in academia, shows that the major obstacle consists in the underlying logic behind many implicit or explicit definitions of fundamentalism, which differentiates between actions and ideas that “they” propagate and do (which can be labeled as “fundamentalism”), and same or similar actions and ideas that “we” do. That means that the concept of “fundamentalism” is more often than not used as an honorific term, whose lack of descriptive value is compensated by a strong judgment value.
Take, for instance, the categories that Leonard Weinberg and Ami Pedahzur offered in their attempts to define “fundamentalism” in Religious Fundamentalism and Political Extremism (2004). They identified a couple of main types of “fundamentalist” groups and movements (such as “reactive” groups and movements; movements that “define the world in dichotomous and Manichaean terms…Choices between good and bad are always clear-cut and straightforward”; fundamentalists that hold the sacred texts to be “of divine origins and consequently inerrant and beyond questioning”; and so forth).
Certainly all of us can think of those religious radicals and fanatics who conform to some of these descriptions, or maybe to all of them at the same time. The problem, however, is elsewhere. Continue Reading…
by Davor Džalto | српски
This essay is about the institutional church, and about the way it operates in the countries where Orthodoxy has been the dominant and traditional faith (so called “Orthodox countries,” which, although effective, is essentially an oxymoronic phrase). The basic thesis here is that the leadership of the Orthodox church (that is to say many, although not all of the church leaders) seems to be accepting and applying many values and methods that we normally associate with the functioning of the neoliberal business world.
Of course, the neoliberal ideology (which, in its core, is neither new nor liberal) is not something that characterizes the business world alone. Over the last couple of decades, its logic has been applied to practically all the segments of our social, cultural and political life. Continue Reading…
by Davor Džalto | ελληνικά | ру́сский
September 21 is observed annually as the International Day of Peace. This year’s theme, the UN informs us, is “Together for Peace: Respect, Safety and Dignity for All.”
It sounds nice indeed, but what does it mean for the people on this planet? Are we aware of the scale of tensions, conflicts and crises across the globe? Do we understand that unless serious actions are taken to address some of the basic issues underlying the most pressing tensions and conflicts, no interests or profits will matter any longer, because there will be no one to take care of them? It is not enough to be “for peace in the world.” Everyone is for peace, prosperity, safety, freedom (or at least their versions of these concepts) and so forth. Much fewer try to do something constructively to achieve some of these goals in a way that will be relevant for the general population.
And the dangers are real. Continue Reading…