Abortion in a strangely faithless Russia

OnionDomesFrom time to time, readers on the left side of the cultural aisle get upset with the GetReligionistas because of the amount of space we dedicate to abortion and other “Culture of Life” issues.

We don’t hide the fact that we all back traditional church doctrines on these matters, which is not the same thing as saying that we fit neatly into either political party. However, confessing the fact that you are a pro-lifer is just about all you have to do these days to be labeled a right-winger.

Anyway, it is impossible to talk about media bias research in the late 20th century and beyond without focusing on coverage of abortion (and now, issues if marriage and family). As recent elections have demonstrated, these cultural and moral issues are also linked to divisions between the two parties — ragged divisions, but divisions nonetheless — that often are linked to religious beliefs and practice.

If you talk about abortion and the news, you almost always end up talking about religion and the news.

Thus, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I was very interested in that recent Los Angeles Times piece that ran under the double-stacked headline, “Abortion foes begin to make their case in Russia — Doctors and politicians are quietly struggling to change the nation’s casual attitude toward the procedure.”

In many ways, it is a stunning piece — full of the kind of candor, nuance and moral confusion that surrounds abortion in real life, yet rarely makes it into news coverage. Abortion was part of the fabric of life in the old Soviet Union and much of that numbed culture remains. Yet there are moral ghosts in the culture as well that reveal themselves in strange ways. Here is the top of the report:

Abortionist Marina Chechneva remembers the old-style Russian gynecologists who worked in state hospitals and churned out back-to-back abortions like Soviet factory workers. She remembers the women who “used to use abortion as a kind of vacation, because in the U.S.S.R., they got three days off from work.”

These days, Chechneva is writing magazine articles about fetus development in hope of raising public opposition to abortion. After years of handling fetuses, she explains, she has come to feel a responsibility toward the unborn children.

“They should realize that what they’re doing is already a murder,” she said.

A fledgling antiabortion movement is beginning to stir in Russia. Driven by a growing discussion of abortion as a moral issue and, most of all, by a government worried about demographics, doctors and politicians are quietly struggling to lower what is believed to be one of the world’s highest abortion rates.

Read on. In effect, abortion is still a means of birth control. Yet now, the government wants to see more births — to prevent the demographic suicide that is affecting so much of Western and Easter Europe and surrounding cultures.

Yet how do you talk about morality in the new Russia? Well, how about a religious frame of reference? Can the “conveyor belt” of abortion — an image from the story — judged as sinful?

The decision to choose abortion shouldn’t be so casual, according to Russian lawmakers.

“The spiritual position,” said Natalia Karpovich, a leader of the State Duma committee focused on family, women and children, “should be that this is murder and the woman who does this commits a sin. Still, I want to stress it’s a woman’s choice.”

Karpovich is among Russian lawmakers who’ve pushed for media messages casting abortion in a less neutral light. She also supports new measures meant to encourage childbirth by paying out cash bonuses and opening new
day-care centers across the country.

“Like on packs of cigarettes or bottles of alcohol, advertisements for abortion services should be obligated to warn about the consequences,” she said. “That they may result in infertility, that some bad changes may happen in
the female organism.”

So there are spiritual questions. But there seems to be a major voice missing, some major voice in Russian history, culture, literature and thought. The word Tradition — with a large “T” as in ancient church fathers — factors into this.

Now, I am not arguing that this voice is as powerful as it once was or that, in a post-Soviet world, it has regain strength and, tragically, integrity in all that it does. But how can one write a story about this topic without mentioning the Russian Orthodox faith and tradition? Read the story. Did I miss something?

Print Friendly

Policing prayer

prayersforallSix of 17 chaplains Virginia State Police chaplains have resigned because of new restrictions on prayer. The state police superintendent ordered them to offer only non-denominational prayers at public events. All stories about movement on First Amendment protections are big and the Washington-area papers made sure to cover it.

Here’s a bit from the Washington Times:

To “require those troopers to disregard their own faith while serving violates their First Amendment rights and prevents them from serving effectively as chaplains,” said House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, Salem Republican. “These men had little choice but to resign.”

Col. [Steven Flaherty, the State Police superintendent,] asked the chaplains to offer only nondenominational prayers at public events, such as trooper graduations and annual memorial services. He said he was acting in response to a recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that dealt with sectarian prayers offered at meetings of the Fredericksburg City Council.

Both papers emphasized the political angle to this story but the Washington Post story actually led with partisan politics, as if that’s the most important angle:

Six Virginia State Police troopers have resigned their voluntary positions as chaplains following the implementation of a policy that bans them from referring to Jesus Christ in public prayers.

House Republicans blasted Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) for the directive Wednesday, but Kaine’s office said the police superintendent issued the directive.

I know that the real focus of all journalism is politics (yawn), but couldn’t we begin with a discussion of the theological implications here? Why did these chaplains feel compelled to quit? Are some religious groups more affected by this order than others? Why is that? What do First Amendment scholars have to say about this order?

Both stories have helpful perspective and context, about the trooper history and other chaplain controversies.

Flaherty said he made the order in response to a recent federal appeals court ruling that a Fredericksburg City Council member may not pray “in Jesus’s name” during council meetings because the opening invocation is government speech. Neither story explored that ruling, which is terribly fascinating. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sat in on the decision. The case involved the implementation of a policy that all invocations at city council meetings must be generic and non-sectarian. A council member argued that the government doesn’t have the right to dictate the content of official prayers and can’t require non-sectarian prayers.

O’Connor said that since the government wasn’t forcing anyone to pray against their conscience but merely offering them the opportunity to pray on behalf of the government, First Amendment rights weren’t violated. If the government wants official prayers that don’t mention Jesus, the council member can decline to pray “on behalf” of the government, she wrote. And he can pray according to his own conscience on his own time.

This is just a fascinating decision. For one thing, it certainly favors people who already pray in a non-sectarian or openly interfaith manner. It’s basically only a problem for religious adherents who make exclusive truth claims or whose religious traditions require praying in Jesus’ name or in the name of the complete Trinity. Many Eastern Orthodox bishops would insist on the latter, for instance.

In that sense, a decision such as this could be seen as favoring one type of religious group over another. Is that a problem? Is that an interesting discussion for a newspaper article? Is it, perhaps, more interesting than whether Republicans and Democrats disagree on the matter? I think so. Hopefully future articles on this topic will pay more attention to the First Amendment implications.

Print Friendly

That old Orthodox “evil eye”? (updated)

eye sickThe other day, I added an “Orthodoxy” category to our filing system here at GetReligion.org — for a perfectly logical reason.

Since many readers know that I am a convert to Orthodox Christianity, many readers — Orthodox and otherwise — keep sending me links to interesting (and often bizarre) mainstream news reports about the faith. Some of them are quite good. Others are, well, not very good.

What, pray tell, am I supposed to do with this hellish, horrid Fox News report out of Australia? Here’s the lede:

Two men were arrested Friday and charged with 230 sex offenses police said they committed during prayer sessions with a woman who believed one of the men could cure her of a religious curse.

The men, aged 61 and 38 years, are highly regarded members of Sydney’s Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox communities, New South Wales state police said in a statement. Officials declined to release their names.

What in the world does “highly regarded” mean? Are we dealing with fallen clergy? Corrupt laypeople? The story calls one of the accused a “spiritual mentor,” yet that is not a term used in Orthodoxy. Again, there are no facts.

Then, as the story ends, we read:

The Coptic Church is the native Christian church of Egypt, and has a doctrine similar to the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches. … (Both) women come from religious families and were raised to follow the Orthodox faith, which includes a belief in the evil eye — a glance believed to harm those on whom it falls.

Say what?!?

There are all kinds of superstitions common in many ethnic groups and cultures and I would never deny that that is the case — to one degree or another — in some “Orthodox lands.” But since when has the ancient Orthodox Christian faith included some kind of theology of the “evil eye”? Where in the world did this statement come from?

UPDATE: Here is a very helpful comment from a reader, worth pulling out front here for everyone. Father Theodore writes:

I saw this and followed it back to the Australian press. It looks like they got their information from a press release from the New South Wales Police. The next day the NSW police released this:

CLARIFICATION Regarding two men charged with 229 sexual offences during prayer sessions Friday, 12 Sep 2008 04:13pm

In a media release issued this morning reference was made to two men arrested over sexual offences as being “highly regarded members of the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox communities”. Investigators would like to clarify there is no evidence linking either of the two men to the Coptic community or the Coptic Church.

A victim and witness in the investigation told police the 61-year-old accused man had claimed to be a high-ranking member of the Coptic community. This claim is denied by Coptic community leaders and the Coptic Church in Sydney.

Clarification regarding references made to belief in the “evil eye”: This is not an accepted belief within the Greek Orthodox faith or Coptic Orthodox faith.”

Some media, such as ABC, the Australian Broadcasting Company have updated their stories and now say the the Greek Orthodox Church has no knowledge of the men either. Others news outlets have not updated anything. It looks like a case of the media just printing what they are told without checking the facts.

Print Friendly

Orthodox or extremist?

chesterton orthodoxy lgNew York Times religion writer Peter Steinfels devoted his Saturday column to media use of the word “orthodox” as a religious descriptor. The article, titled “The Audacity of Claiming the Last Word on This Word,” is a thoughtful and interesting media critique against the media being the arbiter of what makes an orthodox believer.

It’s easy when it comes to uppercase Orthodoxy. No one disputes the use of the word for Orthodox Jews or Eastern Orthodox Christians. But what about lowercase orthodoxy?:

In many religious groups, the word, from the Greek for “correct doctrine” or “right belief,” designates not one side in theological controversies but precisely what is at issue: What constitutes correct or true teaching within that particular tradition?

In the rough-and-tumble of these controversies, it is not unusual for some believers to put themselves forward as orthodox Catholics or orthodox Presbyterians, just as it is not unusual for some partisans in political battles to put themselves forward as true or patriotic Americans.

Such audacity can be entirely sincere, although it can also be highly manipulative. Not every difference over public policy is a matter of patriotism, and not every difference over liturgical practice or pastoral priorities is a matter of orthodoxy. Raising the stakes rhetorically does not necessarily help resolve these questions practically.

But whether the matter under debate is central or peripheral, making a claim to the label obviously does not settle the question of what is true doctrine, or true patriotism. And the news media should be as careful not to echo the partisan language of adversaries in the religious case as in the political arena.

It’s an excellent point and reminds me of Bill Keller’s memo to staff about playing fair when describing religious views.

But it’s possible to go overboard with this. At least in my church body, lowercase orthodoxy is a term that isn’t really disagreed upon. Confessional Lutherans use the word favorably to describe themselves while more evangelical Lutherans use it as a negative term to convey what they consider too much adherence to doctrine.

The term shouldn’t be used to describe who is morally or theologically superior, of course. But can it be used to distinguish between those who adhere to a given church body’s creeds or confessional statements vis-a-vis those who wish to reform or modernize church teachings? Sure it can. It’s good to take it on a case-by-case basis, but there is no need to throw the term out just because it must be handled with care.

Steinfels says that reporters can avoid controversy by allowing believers to describe themselves, which is true. He also has this caution:

When it comes to nomenclature, writing about religion is of course a minefield. Terms like “conservative” and “liberal,” “traditionalist” and “progressive” are almost unavoidable shorthand, though they suffer from their origins in political categories and almost inevitably oversimplify and dichotomize religious realities that are multifaceted.

Amy Sullivan’s recent advocacy piece for Time had some interesting advice for Catholic Democrats. Namely, know your catechism. But she describes Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput’s:

. . . extreme views about denying communion to politicians . . .

So, Catholics who agree with the Vatican are extreme. Interesting.

Print Friendly

Orthodox ties that bind

stninaIf you paid close attention to all of the mainstream coverage of the fighting between Russia and Georgia, you may have noticed that the stories ignored a crucial fact about these two nations.

Yes, there was a ghost in there. To the credit of the New York Times — this is why we need major newspapers with foreign resources — it finally plugged that hole in the soul. I’m sorry that this post is coming several days late, but your GetReligionistas have been caught up in, you know, Hurricane Sarah.

Here’s the plain, but solid, lede, offering information that all Orthodox Christians know, but was missing from the headlines:

MOSCOW – While the leaders of Russia and Georgia exchange recriminations, Christians in the two nations are worrying about the damage that the bitter conflict has inflicted on the cherished unity of the Orthodox Church.

More than 100 million Russians affirm the Orthodox faith, making up the largest Orthodox Church in Christendom. The post-Soviet Russian government has re-embraced Orthodoxy as the national faith. …

Georgia is equally identified with its Orthodox Church. But the supposedly unthinkable prospect of two Orthodox nations at war with each other failed to deter either Russia or Georgia from armed conflict in August.

The two churches expressed dismay. The patriarchs of both the Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches issued immediate appeals for peace. The strong urgings were all the more striking for the Russian patriarch, Aleksy II, who rarely differs publicly with the Kremlin.

And, yes, there is a story there.

In that part of the world, it is news when religious leaders stand up to their governments, in whatever way they can. That has happened at the top of the Orthodox church leadership in Serbia (and in other religious hierarches in that region, too).

It’s pain to bullets flying, but it does offer moral clarity to hear religious leaders quoted as saying:

“Today, blood is being shed and people are perishing in South Ossetia, and my heart deeply grieves over it,” Patriarch Aleksy said in a statement on Aug. 8 as the fighting raged. “Orthodox Christians are among those who have raised their hands against each other. Orthodox peoples called by the Lord to live in fraternity and love are in conflict.”

Two days later, in a sermon in Tbilisi, Patriarch Ilia II of the Georgian Orthodox Church said that “one thing concerns us very deeply — that Orthodox Russians are bombing Orthodox Georgians.” According to the church’s Web site, he added: “This is an unprecedented act of relations between our countries. Reinforce your prayer and God will save Georgia.”

Read on. This is really a background feature, as opposed to a news story. Much of the information is sad. There are times when faith appeals do not work. At the very least, these events have to knock a hole or two in all of those mainstream media reports that Vladimir Putin is a devout churchman of some kind.

Orthodox readers will flinch when they read parts of this report and differ with some of the conclusions drawn from the facts presented. But this is a crucial part of the clash between Russia and Georgia. I hope that the Times continues to pursue this angle.

And that icon? If you know anything about Georgia, then you know about St. Nina, Equal of the Apostles and Enlightener of Georgia. St. Nina, pray for Georgia and Russia.

Print Friendly

Trying to trim Solzhenitsyn down to size

SolzhenitsynTIMEMagazineAleksandr Solzhenitsyn did not live the kind of life that fits easily into a 700-word wire service story.

So we should all pause and contemplate the challenge faced by the professionals who had to report, write, edit and lay out those Associated Press obituaries that ran in tiny Monday newspaper editions all across America. What a thankless job.

The basic AP story by Douglas Birch does end with this reflection on the role of faith in the great writer’s life:

During the 1990s, his stalwart nationalist views, his devout Orthodoxy, his disdain for capitalism and disgust with the tycoons who bought Russian industries and resources for kopeks on the ruble following the Soviet collapse, were unfashionable. He faded from public view.

But during Putin’s presidency, Solzhenitsyn’s vision of Russia as a bastion of Orthodox Christianity, as a place with a unique culture and destiny, gained renewed prominence.

As you would expect, the New York Times had a giant story ready to run about the life of this elderly giant. And, as you would expect, it is the story of a man who was admired by Western elites until it became apparent that he was — deep down — a man driven by a deep distrust of modernity. On one level, Solzhenitsyn’s reputation in America and Western Europe never recovered from his famous 1978 address at Harvard University, entitled “A World Split Apart.”

You see, all of that moral outrage had to have had an ultimate source and the Times just couldn’t nail that down.

The story unfolds, act by act, like a magazine feature, about a modern-day Old Testament prophet — that’s an image from reporter Michael T. Kaufman — who always felt out of place in this world.

The background summary of his work is stunning and must be read, especially the parts about how he managed to work while in the deadly work camps that he exposed to the world. Try to forget this telling detail:

… Mr. Solzhenitsyn was banished to a desolate penal camp in Kazakhstan called Ekibastuz. It would become the inspiration for “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”

At Ekibastuz, any writing would be seized as contraband. So he devised a method that enabled him to retain even long sections of prose. After seeing Lithuanian Catholic prisoners fashion rosaries out of beads made from chewed bread, he asked them to make a similar chain for him, but with more beads. In his hands, each bead came to represent a passage that he would repeat to himself until he could say it without hesitation. Only then would he move on to the next bead. He later wrote that by the end of his prison term, he had committed to memory 12,000 lines in this way.

Of course, Russian Orthodox believers carry rosaries as well, called “Chotki,” that are usually used while reciting the “Jesus Prayer” (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner). They can be made from twine, yarn or thread and it’s safe to assume that these simple rituals may have already been part of his life — from his childhood. In general, this kind of faith imagery and language is woven throughout the piece, but never tied together. This simple paragraph says a lot in very few words:

He was religious. When he was a child, older boys once ripped a cross from his neck. Nonetheless, at 12, though the Communists repudiated religion, he joined the Young Pioneers and later became a member of Komsomol, the Communist youth organization.

In the Washington Post obit by J.Y. Smith, that reference to childhood faith is missing, strangely enough. Instead, we get this:

A member of the first generation to be raised entirely under communism, Solzhenitsyn had experienced in his life much of what he related in his books. As a young man he was a communist in heart and soul, although he never joined the party.

800px Eastern Orthodox prayer rope 2006 06 02As it turns out, that paragraph was simply out of place — an accurate statement when read in the context of later material. Perhaps this was a copy-editing mistake, while combining copy that was on file with new material on deadline. After all, the background paragraphs a few lines later tell us:

Alexander Isayevitch Solzhenitsyn was born in Kislovodsk, a mountain resort in the north Caucasus, on Dec. 11, 1918. His father, Isaaki, was an artillery officer in the Imperial Russian Army in World War I. He survived the war but was killed in a hunting accident six months before his son was born. His mother, Taissia Scherbak, the daughter of a wealthy landowner, a member of a despised class, struggled to provide for herself and her son.

In 1944, she died of tuberculosis. Growing up, Sanya, as he was called, had learned the prayers and observances of the Russian Orthodox Church from his mother and an aunt. A family friend encouraged him in science. At 9, the boy decided on a career as a writer, and at 10 he read “War and Peace.”

Later, readers learn that Solzhenitsyn actually regained his Orthodox faith in the crucible of pain — the labor camp. Of course, the writer also struggled with his own sins and faults, perhaps best symbolized by the affair that ended his first marriage, which he justified as a consequence of his fierce pursuit of his art. This leads to a question that none of the obituaries answer (at least none of the stories that I have seen): What was his relationship to Orthodox Christianity in his adult years? While he lived in the United States? Upon his return to the deeply flawed Mother Russia that he loved so deeply?

Like I said, there is just too much life here to put into a conventional news account.

Nevertheless, Smith provides the single best image that I have seen to capture the triumphs and tragedies of this sprawling life. In fact, Smith uses the image twice, in a crucial transition paragraph early on and then in a pitch-perfect ending:

Like Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the 19th century masters of Russian letters, his subject was considered to be the struggle between good and evil in the Russian soul. The line separating the two, he said, ran through every heart.

And at the very end:

In the opening scene of “August, 1914,” a character based on his father goes to join the Army, although he might have avoided service. He gives this explanation: “I feel sorry for Russia.”

And, through his own experiences, the author said, “gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart.”

Of course, Solzhenitsyn knew that because he knew his own heart. Did he learn that in Confession? Falling on his face in a Forgiveness Vespers? After three or four hours of a Divine Liturgy at Pascha? Ultimately, these stories do not tell us how his own heart was or was not healed.

Second photo: An Eastern Orthodox “Chotki,” or prayer rope.

Print Friendly

This is tmatt, falling out of his chair

stalin narodovI don’t know if there is a publication in Russia that is similar to The Onion, but GetReligion reader Lars Doucet sent me a story the other day that had me going, thinking that it was some kind of cruel satire or parody. But this story wasn’t from a Russian publication, it was from The Telegraph.

Here’s the set-up for the unbelievable finish, in this short news report from Moscow about a contest called “Name of Russia.” This contest is based on a BBC project called “Great Britons.”

The goal, obviously, is to pick the ultimate, the archetypal, Russian leader.

To cut to the chase, the infamous Joseph Stalin is currently in second place and, it seems, on the rise — with the fervent backing of the Communist Party of St. Petersburg. At the moment, the last czar — Nicholas II — is in first place.

Now Joseph Stalin is, of course, best known for his bloody purges and other policies that led directly to the deaths of about 20,000,000 to 45,000,000 people, depending on how you calculate the starvation and bloodshed. The Telegraph used a 15,000,000 figure, which is lower than the usual estimates found in textbooks and various websites. Suffice it to say, that millions of those who died were Orthodox bishops, priests and believers who died rather than submit to the authority of Stalin’s corrupt, crushed version of their faith.

Thus, it’s stunning to read the following near the end of this report (although the newspaper focused on this angle in the headline). The Communists want to have Stalin declared an Orthodox Christian saint. Honest.

“Stalin is the most popular name in Russia,” said Sergei Malinkovich, the Communist party leader who is driving the Stalin canonisation campaign. “The people have forgiven him for the repressions, the collectivization, the elimination of cadres of the Red Army and other inevitable errors and tragedies of those cruel military and revolutionary times.

“Stalin has become the true national leader of Russia. He turned a backward country into an industrial giant.”

Yet the idea of tuning Uncle Joe into Saint Joe has so far won little official backing from the Orthodox Church, which was one of Stalin’s chief victims. Seeking to establish atheism as the Soviet Union’s official creed, Stalin destroyed thousands of churches and sent tens of thousands of priests to the gulags and their deaths.

Despite the church’s reluctance, St Petersburg’s Communists are convinced their vision will come to pass. They have already commissioned religious icons depicting Stalin with a halo round his head that have reportedly sold very well around the city.

“By the end of the 21st century, icons of St Josef Stalin will be in every Orthodox Church,” Mr Malinkovich said.

I know it is wrong to keep knocking mainstream news reports by saying that they are incomplete. But, oh my God, there really should be at least a paragraph here that explains the very organic, ground-up way that women and men are hailed as saints in the Orthodox tradition. It is much less formal than the Roman Catholic system.

But the key is that believers in ordinary churches and monasteries begin hailing people as saints because of their holy lives and, after several generations, one of the national churches of Orthodoxy makes the verdict office. Click here to read about one example — St. Raphael of Brooklyn — here in America.

Now, it is true that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad made the decision to canonize Nicholas II and the other members of his family who were killed by the early Communists. I wrote about that issue a decade ago and the issue of the family’s remains was recently back in the news. Here’s a piece of my column on the las czar:

In his lifetime, Nicholas II was cursed as a bloody tyrant, while others said he was too weak. Today, many say he was merely inept or trapped in a tragic role — an articulate, gentle man better suited to be a symbolic leader than an absolute monarch. But for some Russians, these temporal disputes have little or nothing to do with an larger, eternal question: Should the Romanovs be venerated as saints?

“Yes, Nicholas II was the czar. That’s important and that made his death highly symbolic,” said Father Alexander Lebedeff of Los Angeles, a Russian Orthodox Church Abroad historian. “But it really doesn’t matter if he was a great czar. The important question is whether he died as a martyr for the faith. We believe that the Romanov family became an extraordinary example of piety and submission to the will of God. They died praying for Russia and for their persecutors.”

So why Nicholas II and not Stalin? Well, Nicholas and his wife and children died as martyrs, in the eyes of many Orthodox Christians. For many, that is a very big step toward sainthood.

Stalin, on the other hand, created millions of martyrs. There’s a difference.

What a strange, strange and radically incomplete story.

Print Friendly

Karadzic: What kind of mystic?

monIn recent days, I have continued to comb the coverage of the Radovan Karadzic arrest, looking for clues that might indicate where reporters were getting the tips that this monster had spent parts of the past few decades hiding in Eastern Orthodox monasteries and churches.

No real clues, so far. Most journalists continue to mention those theories, always in passive voice or in some other vague way. But the main theme now is that Karadzic was using his skills as a psychologist to transition into a new identity — that of a expert in alternative medicine, delivered with a kind of mystical, guru style that fit his new appearance. Yes, some journalists are using that “New Age” label.

But the strangest religious reference I have found is in an ABC News online story by Dragana Jovanovic, which ran with the colorful headline: “Double Life of the Butcher of Bosnia — War Criminal Radovan Karadzic Was on Facebook, Had Own Web Site, Even a Girlfriend.”

But check out the lede:

For 13 years, investigators combed the mountainous regions of eastern Bosnia, looking for Radovan Karadzic. A popular theory for much of that time was that the fugitive Bosnian-Serb leader was hidden away in a monastery, protected by Orthodox monks.

But it turned out to be the colorless boulevards of New Belgrade that provided a hiding place for Europe’s most wanted man. He found an effective alter ego, in the guise of an Orthodox mystic.

Say what? As you would imagine, I read on through the piece — looking for some kind of factual material to justify adding the word “Orthodox” to the very unorthodox profile that was emerging about Karadzic’s life as a freelance mystic. This is all you get:

People who live on Juri Gagarin Street, a street of gray Communist-era apartment buildings across the Sava River, felt certain that their new neighbor was some kind of mystical guru.

“He moved to our neighborhood early last year. I thought he was a spiritual man,” said Danica Jankovic, a sixth floor neighbor of the man who assumed the alias Dr. Dragan or David Dabic. “His dense white beard and distinctive long hair, his long periods of complete silence, and the fact that he was into meditation left me with no doubt. I still cannot believe his true identity.”

Unrecognizable, with long white hair, a long beard and 40 pounds lighter, Karadzic, under the new name, appears to have led a very different life than one would have expected from one of the world’s most wanted fugitives.

That’s it. The word “Orthodox” just came out of nowhere. I have not seen that angle in any other mainstream coverage.

If you are looking for a nasty slam at Orthodoxy in the Karadzic coverage, far and away the worst I have seen is in a Globe and Mail piece by columnist Doug Saunders. Once again, it seems that the goal is to blame the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church — which actively joined with other religious groups to oppose the Milosevic regime’s use of violence — for the actions of the ethnic cleansing monsters, or at least some of them.

What does the word “fundamentalist” mean in this context?

The man who drew on Serbian Orthodox religious piety to build his movement in the early 1990s, using fundamentalist religious imagery to make speeches calling for the extermination of Bosnia’s Muslim population, appears to have spent the past few years living in sin with a much younger mistress, whose existence was unknown to his wife.

I know it is easy to blur the line between Serbian nationalism and the land’s Orthodox heritage, but that is simply going way too far.

Print Friendly