Brothers Karamazov, The 2010/11: Week 1 - Part I, Books One and Two

[John]

Kathy wrote: "Sorry, I'm just joining in because I'm catching up... I've only read the first two books, but I'm depressed about the huge quantity of religious debate in this thread.

So far, I'm reading this b..."

You might get used to the religious debate, it seems to pop up in every thread. As well it should: it's one of the themes that runs through the entire book.

The way children were treated wasn't an upper-class matter. If you think the gentry was bad, you should have seen the way the serfs treated theirs, that is if they found enough to eat to make it to the next day.

[Kathy]

John wrote: "You might get used to the religious debate, it seems to pop up in every thread. As well it should: it's one of the themes that runs through the entire book.
"

Well, I might have phrased myself wrongly - I mean there's a quantity of debate on this thread about personal religion, but I'm finding that the book is about the relationship between the state and the established church - a quite different subject altogether.

[John]

You're right, there is. But as you trudge on, you'll find there's plenty of room for discussion on individual world-views (independent of the state, that is), especially Alexei's versus Ivan's.

Welcome to the group.

[MadgeUK]

To an American, there are so many different religious beliefs, and they are all respected and protected legally. But in every country of Europe is a huge issue.

Patrice: You are way off beam here about today's Europe. There is no issue to deal with and we are as free as you, with the same protections for religions. The French government is a secular one like the US, which is why it bans all forms of religious stuff in schools, just as I believe it is banned in the US. Their secular state came about partly as a result of a rebellion against the power of the catholic church and they do not want to see such power again, from any church/mosque/temple. The face-covering burqa has been banned in public buildings for security, not religious, reasons, ditto in Belgium and Italy. The hiding of the face in countries which have thousands of potential Muslim jihadists near to their borders was considered to be a security risk. So far the UK has not gone down that road, although many called for it after the 5/7 tube bombings.

There are no countries in Europe which ban any form of religious teaching and all major religions and sects are freely represented and protected, just as in the US. The teaching of comparative religion is much more common throughout Europe than any state religion because we regard ourselves as 'multi-faith' societies in the European Union.

The position vis a vis Tony Blair is unique and to do with the fact that we have a monarchy which is historically rooted in Protestantism and the PM is a First Minister of the Queen. The catholic restriction only applies to the PM, not to MPs and Lords, who have many different religions. It is just a quirk of history and I think it will be changed soon, as Prince Charles is married to a catholic and has expressed a wish for a 'multi-faith' monarchy. The US too is rooted in Protestantism and its WASP beginnings show too at times.

So to get back to Dostoevsky. The Russian (Eastern) Orthodox church and the Tsar controlled Russia as much as any subsequent communist government did and Dostoevsky approved of this autocracy. He saw it as 'benevolent dictatorship' (see my post re Karamazov sp?). The ROC persecuted Jews and other religions too, just as the communists did, so no change there. However, I think we would disagree with Dostoevsky about the advantages of autocracy and benevolent dictatorship, which is, in effect state control, as we have grown to prefer democracy. I also baulk at church control, whichever church it is. Mild though it's influence is, I am not keen on the CofE being our official religion and I hope when Prince Charles takes over we might become a secular state, not even a multi-faith one, or we might even become a REPUBLIC! Ooooh!

[Kathy]

If we're talking about modern times, I think the difference is this: the US wants to have a secular state and yet it requires a statement of personal faith from its politicians. In the UK, on the other hand, the government is horribly intertwined with the Church of England (e.g. the Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury and bishops sit in the House of Lords) and yet we DON'T want to hear anything about the faith or otherwise of our politicians. The reason why Tony Blair didn't convert to Catholicism whilst in office is because it would have betrayed that he had altogether too much interest in religion and the British public would have hated it. When asked about Blair's religion, one of his spokesmen put it in the immortal words: 'We don't do God' (i.e. we don't talk about God).

I think the historical difference between Europe and the US is that we Europeans are all too well aware of the dreadful things that have been done in the name of religion. We don't want any politician to be thinking that God is telling them what to do because when God starts talking to politicians the most appalling events ensue.

(War-mongers of recent times? Bush and Blair - both on intimate terms with God. I rest my case.)

[Kathy]

Patrice wrote: "I just mentioned the name of Hertzenstube to my husband who knows a smattering of German and he broke out laughing. I asked why? He said it sounds like Dr. hurts and sticks. He looked up the exa..."

Dr Paine?

[Kathy]

Patrice wrote: "America requires a statement of personal faith? I've never heard of this. Where have you heard this? I find the very idea shocking."

I mean, to get elected a US politician has to, in effect, be seen as having a personal faith. British politicians don't.

[John]

Patrice said, "From it's inception, America has respected the individual's right to his own beliefs." This might come as a surprise to the Catholic-baiting American public of the 1960 Presidential election who thought that JFK was a shill of the Vatican, or to the Muslims living in the United States whose businesses were defaced or destroyed in the wake of 9/11 because ignorant buffoons that thought all Muslims were terrorists.

Also, your understanding of religion in Europe is somewhat misinformed. Patrice said, "I've been thinking about how it must feel to live in a country that has an official religion. It would be horrifying to me." Have you ever visited England? You know they have a state religion, right? Anglicanism. But, given the choice, I'd happily vacation in London, or maybe even live there one day. To conflate the state and the Church today is to have no knowledge of contemporary European politics. There might have been a shred of truth to it 450 years ago under the Tutors, but not so much anymore. The head of both the state and the Church, the Queen, is merely the nominal head. The English state controls no one's religious beliefs. In fact, one of the best ways to have an increasing secular population is to create a state religion, and England is a great example.

Your entire post confuses "state religion" with totalitarianism or authoritarianism which, ironically, usually instituted atheism or at least banned a lot of modes of religious belief, not a Church.

[[deleted user]]

Well if everyone around here can go off topic...

Patrice, the the freedom to practice religion does not guarantee that all aspects of observing that religion will be protected or condoned. Even in the US. The US has laws against bigamy which prevent US Muslims from taking more than one wife, although the Koran specifically allows it. In many (all?) US states Muslim women cannot be veiled for their drivers license or state ID card pictures, although their religious practices require that they should be. Basically one is free to practice religion as long as the observances don't conflict with secular law.

[John]

Patrice said: "My point was not that there exists no religious prejudice in the United States, but that there exists no official religion." But that's not what you said. If you meant to say the "government of America," that statement is borderline meaningless, since religion is a conversation stopper in the United States: if you say that something is your religion, it's automatically afforded some sort of special consideration, like those loony tunes who said that the smoking of marijuana was part of their religion. You mentioned the state controlling your "beliefs" and your "spirit" in your original post. Where precisely is this happening? Banning certain garb may or may not be right, but it's not dictating what you believe.

In your original post, it sounded like you were tacitly discussing all of Europe, not just France. Yes, the hijab/burqa has been outlaws in France. While I disagree with the argument, one can be made that there's a compelling state interest to ban it. They didn't ban it BECAUSE it was a sign of religious freedom. And if you think that the United States Supreme Court wouldn't do something similar, I'm afraid you might be sadly mistake. The fact is that "freedom of religion" is only what 5 of the 9 justices says it is. It's not some airy theory.

[John]

Kate Mc. wrote: "Well if everyone around here can go off topic...

Patrice, the the freedom to practice religion does not guarantee that all aspects of observing that religion will be protected or condoned. Even i..."

Nicely made point. Even though, as a Kierkegaardian, I would argue that religion should allow the wearing of a burqa on your driver's license. ;-)

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "Well if everyone around here can go off topic...

Patrice, the the freedom to practice religion does not guarantee that all aspects of observing that religion will be protected or ..."

Actually I've always wondered if he was a closet Anarchist. But probably too early in the 19th C. for that.

[John]

It's not too early at all, I don't think. Look at the radicals that were running around in Russian close to that time, Bakunin and Kropotkin being two of the more memorable ones.

[John]

I can't explain it any better than a number of news articles that you can access online, Patrice. A careful reading of them will show that the object wasn't to unilaterally curb religious practice.

[MadgeUK]

Kathy wrote: "I think the historical difference between Europe and the US is that we Europeans are all too well aware of the dreadful things that have been done in the name of religion..."

Very true Kathy, 2000 years of history makes for a different outlook on all kinds of things and the US has never had to fight the bitter wars over religion which have been fought on European soil.

[John]

MadgeUK wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Patrice wrote: "America requires a statement of personal faith? I've never heard of this. Where have you heard this? I find the very idea shocking."

I mean, to get elected a US po..."

No, there's never been a Jewish President, and I don't predict one anytime in the near future. All of them have been Christians so far. About as weird as we've gotten is JFK being a Catholic (shocking) and Tricky Dick being a Quaker.

[[deleted user]]

Please, can we get this back to BK?

[John]

Madge, you're getting loony. Again. There's nowhere in the South where atheists meet in secret. I live in the south and used to be an atheist. I would know.

[[deleted user]]

This conversation is really disappointing. It seems to have deteriorated into a food fight about whether Europe or the US is more intolerant of religious freedoms, with a lot of nationalism coming to the forefront. I'd like everyone to review their posts and keep in mind that we have a broad spectrum of readers from all over the world and we should respect their pride in their own countries.

I would also like to focus this discussion on book 1&2 of BK, NOT current socio-political differences!

[MadgeUK]

Kate wrote: I'd like everyone to review their posts and keep in mind that we have a broad spectrum of readers from all over the world and we should respect their pride in their own countries.

I have deleted most of my posts here and will put my responses on the Cafe thread because I think there are some misconceptions which need clearing up, although John's post #341 was excellent in this regard. (However, I hope his reference to my being 'loony' 'again' was not referring to my spell in mental hospital for depression:(:(.)

I hope that others will consider removing their posts too so as to get this thread back on track, as our Moderator requests.

[John]

Madge, nothing of the sort was intended! If you think it worthy enough, you're more than welcome to put #341 in the Cafe thread, too.

[MadgeUK]

Good! It is worthy John but I would rather you do it, although I am now getting worried about the Cafe thread becoming too political:). Oh dear:(:(.

[MadgeUK]

Are we still commenting on Part I, Books 1 & 2 or are we moving on to Part 5?

[MadgeUK]

Are we still commenting on Part I, Books 1 & 2 or are we moving back to Part II Book 6? Chapter 3 (f) 'Something about Masters and Servants and whether it it possible for them to become Brothers in Spirit' looks interesting and non-political:)

[Kathy]

Hm. Too many shriekers here. I'm moving along to week 2.