How many atheists are there in Russia: statistics of believers, percentage

Who are atheists?

Atheists are people who are convinced that there are no supernatural world principles. At the same time, they consider it their duty to convince others of their views. The personal position of a particular person does not turn him into an atheist, since the latter must actively demonstrate it. He does not passively reject religion; he actively opposes it.

Atheists must be distinguished from agnostics and anticlericals.

An agnostic is a person who does not have any judgment regarding the supernatural. Their representatives are completely indifferent to the presence or absence of God. There are two types of agnostics. The first are not at all interested in religious issues. The second are those who thought, sought for themselves an explanation for one or another process in relation to supernatural manifestations, but did not receive an answer.

Anti-clericals are individuals who have a negative attitude towards organized religious structures. Any association of believers is unacceptable to them. Atiklerikal is confident that people's participation in religious structures leads to a deterioration in their lives and the lives of those around them. As a result, organized religious forms of faith must be fought and their influence and authority reduced.

Taking into account the above, it should be noted that when asked about how many atheists there are in Russia, statistics answer: not many. There are few people in society who are actively detail-oriented and have a clear atheistic worldview. Typically, atheists include anti-clericals, who in everyday life call themselves atheists. However, this is completely false.

REFLECTIONS ON MODERN ATHEISM IN RUSSIA

It is difficult to find a more fertile ground for fueling conflicts over views on religion than in modern Russia. The people, who for centuries professed Orthodoxy with elements of paganism, were immersed in atheism at the state level for almost the entire twentieth century, and then returned to Orthodoxy again. Moreover, the transition was so abrupt that not everyone can understand how it was possible to “switch” their beliefs so quickly. But not all of them “switched.” Many remained principled atheists. Then young people joined the Soviet atheists, and at the beginning of the twenty-first century, atheism began to gradually become something of a subculture. The fact that atheism has emerged as a subculture clearly indicates that Orthodox beliefs began to mature in the country, since atheism began to have a pronounced reactionary character.

Conflict is incompatible with productivity when it comes to religious differences, at least in a civilized society. In modern atheism there are many problems, both external and internal, that contribute to the growth of conflict. The most serious of them are external and associated with methods of state regulation of ideology, which provoke a clash of opposing opinions. But such problems lie on the surface and there is plenty of discussion about them. I would like to highlight the internal problems of atheism, which are not always obvious to atheists themselves, and this is their main danger. In general, these problems can be called problems of self-determination.

A significant, if not the majority, of the atheist movement in Russia is anticlerical, not atheist. A significant part of the controversy surrounding religion occurs in a social context (the construction of churches in parks, church intervention in the education system, in healthcare, the law “on insulting the feelings of believers”). Here one could argue that anti-clericalism does not interfere with atheism (and this is undoubtedly true - they can be combined), but, nevertheless, we cannot link one with the other automatically.

Another category of modern atheists, both in Russia and abroad, are those who claim that religion is a lie and refuse to believe in God due to lack of evidence.

It is more correct to call such people skeptics (but not in the sense of complete philosophical skepticism, but in the sense of limited scientific skepticism), since they require empirical evidence to confirm the existence of God. Some of these atheists, after a detailed examination, may turn out to be an agnostic. (In other words, a radical skeptic who denies not the reliability of certain knowledge, but, in principle, the possibility of reliable knowledge).

But what's the difference? Why doesn't disputing the existence of God presuppose atheism? For some, atheism in the broad sense is skepticism regarding religious faith. But, in my opinion, this is an unacceptable confusion of concepts. In order not to be unfounded, I must dwell in more detail on the concept of atheism.

There are now so many meanings of the word “atheism” that the statement “I am an atheist” almost always requires additional explanation. One might think that this is due to the incorrect use of the word, but in fact the various meanings of this word are so firmly established and even entrenched in dictionaries that they can hardly be said to be incorrect. For ease of use of this word, I will simplify it to two definitions. The first (and, in my opinion, more correct) meaning of the word “atheism” is disbelief in the existence of God or gods. The second (what can be called “atheism in the broad sense”) is the denial of supernatural, religious thinking and religion. In what follows, I will call these directions atheism and atheism in the broad sense, respectively.

Now let's look at atheism deeper and from a slightly different angle. Everyone knows perfectly well the original meaning of this word. As I said above, the most correct way to understand this term is “atheism,” in other words, disbelief in the existence of God or gods. I use the word “faith” here in a very specific sense that requires clarification. By faith I mean not only the simple recognition of the truth of some statement, but also a high degree of awareness and the presence of a choice in favor of the corresponding belief.

One gets the impression that people don’t think much about the fact that the word “atheism” is formed (through negation) from the opposite “theism,” which means, respectively, belief in the existence of God or gods. It is unlikely that anyone will expand the concept of theism to any specific religion. The fact that you believe in the existence of God does not mean that you are even considering the issue of a specific religion; perhaps this is where your reasoning about religion ends. Those. theism is just a separate element of a religious worldview that specifically concerns views on the existence of God or gods. In this case, the question arises: “How and why was the concept of atheism expanded to the complete denial of religion”? After all, atheism not only does not contradict religion, but can also be part of a religious worldview. I don’t quite understand this expansion, but I can come to terms with it if, to define such atheism, after the word “atheism” we add the phrase “in the broad sense”, i.e. denote that this is a figurative meaning. But what we cannot come to terms with is the equation of atheism and skepticism regarding religion.

Let's return to theism. To define oneself as a theist, a person must obviously possess the concept of God, the concept of theism, and have a certain internal conviction based on some reasoning. Simply put, a person must think about the existence of God. But can a person choose theism as part of the totality of his views without considering atheism as an alternative? Of course not. It is in the mutually exclusive combination of these two concepts that they are worth considering. But what about atheists? After analyzing the views of many of today's "atheists", one might think that in order to define oneself as an atheist, it is enough to simply deny the existence of God. But it would be extremely illogical to think so. For correct self-determination, one must go through the above path of choice, using knowledge about the concept of God, the concept of atheism and theism.

Atheists and theists are people who have answered for themselves the question “Do I believe in the existence of God?”

It is worth dwelling a little on this issue in order to once again distinguish between the definitions of theism and atheism. The question is important because in my understanding of atheism (as well as theism), only a conscious choice of answer makes a person an atheist or a theist. If a person has not made a choice, i.e. does not have faith in the absence of God, then he is not an atheist. So, for example, a child who has not encountered this problem is not an atheist. A scientific skeptic has no conviction either about the existence of God or His non-existence due to the lack of empirical evidence (therefore, he is not able to answer this question within the framework of his worldview and he distances himself from it, taking a neutral position in relation to the existence of God until the moment when evidence will appear). And, I think, there is no need to explain why the anti-clerical also does not answer the above question for himself.

However, do an atheist or a theist have the right to limit themselves to answering only this question? Hardly. After all, as stated above, atheism and theism are inextricably linked as opposites. Any atheist can ask a theist: “Why do you believe in God?” And vice versa. You need to be prepared to answer this question because it is inevitable. Every theist, like every atheist, must be prepared to dialogue with someone who holds an opposing point of view. If the answer to the question “Why?” will be “Just like that,” it can hardly be said that the person thought about his choice and really made it.

And how can such a dialogue take place? Well, reality tells us how it SHOULD NOT happen, we just have to take this experience into account and do it differently. An ordinary dispute between an atheist and a representative of a religion boils down to either mutual ridicule and insults, or, at best, to a senseless bombardment of various kinds of evidence at each other, relevant only to the prover himself. Most often, the discourses of the theist and the atheist do not intersect or interact; we do not have a dialogue, but two simultaneous monologues, and in different languages. The theist quotes sacred texts and talks about miracles, while the atheist lists scientific facts. From this problematic situation, I formulate another important point on the path to defining atheism: an atheist must be able to speak the same language as a theist, and find a common language with him. If this seems impossible to you, then perhaps you have not tried to use the language of philosophy for this. Of course, existing philosophical constructs for discussing religious issues are far from ideal, but they are the best we have. Thus, if an atheist cannot reason about his choice in the language of philosophy, or at least does not strive for this, then he is not an atheist. And I can say the same about the theist - I cannot recognize his choice if he did not reason about it in the language of philosophy. At the same time, we are not talking about studying philosophy at the academic level. I mean thinking about religion in a philosophical sense: weighing the pros and cons, considering arguments, counterarguments, analyzing your own thoughts and feelings. Those. when you choose theism or atheism without deep and consistent reasoning, then this is self-identification at the level of a child who runs around with a toy knife and shouts that he is a “pirate”.

The above situation arises precisely when an anticlerical or a skeptic enters into dialogue with a believer as if they were an atheist. But they should not do this, otherwise they will not achieve their goals, and such a dialogue will lead nowhere.

Atheists can accuse me of some kind of bias and injustice: “It turns out that it is the atheist who should meet the theist halfway and learn to speak his language? Why not the other way around? Here lies an extremely important point. As I said above, you can become an atheist or a theist only through a conscious answer to the question of faith in God. An atheist, having answered this question, believes that there is no God, just as a theist believes that there is one. This is exactly the same faith, only with the opposite sign and, by becoming an atheist, you already find yourself in the territory of religious faith. So, in a sense, you will be forced to speak the language of philosophy when starting a dialogue on a religious topic, since we simply have no other option for interaction. And therefore…

...an atheist who believes that there is no point in believing anything without empirical evidence is a skeptic, not an atheist.

It is not difficult to notice that my reasoning is in conflict with the definition of atheism in the broad sense. One can object to this that the above does not apply to him, and therefore these signs and requirements are not universal for all variants of atheism. I believe, on the contrary, that the concept of atheist in the broad sense should be used as little as possible in order to avoid these contradictions, since this concept includes both anti-clericalism and scientific skepticism towards religion. I am convinced that the dialogue between a skeptic and a believer is a pointless exercise. And anti-clericals have predominantly social interests, which are resolved in other ways. So if we talk about dialogue, then atheism in its pure form is the only worldview from those listed above that could really find a common language with theism.

After I have narrowed atheism down to such a specific definition, it may seem that the problems of the atheist movement have nothing to do with it, since in this sense atheism is almost not involved in these problems. Indeed, as I said above, most of the so-called atheists in Russia are anti-clericals and skeptics. But it is uncertainty in views that is the main internal problem of atheism.

For example, a person who has not previously thought about faith suddenly encounters the depravity of clergy and, impressed by this fact, joins the atheist movement. His motive is purely social, perhaps he does not even have an opinion regarding the existence of God, but he calls himself an atheist, which causes the hostility of believers. And when this person says: “Look, your clergy lead an unrighteous lifestyle, they are deceiving you!”, then the believers do not hear him, because they see in him only the enemy of their faith. If he had focused on anti-clericalism, his position would have been much clearer and perhaps would have resonated. This is the negative side of the generalization to which modern atheism has come.

Particularly surprising in this regard are some followers of Richard Dawkins and the “new atheism” in general. Many of these people have an opinion on any matter relating to religion, there is no doubt about it. But wouldn’t it be easier to abandon stupid debates about the existence of God and focus specifically on the problems of interaction between society and the church. The Church interferes in politics and education - point out specific cases; there is no need to add “and in general there is no God of yours” after each statement (in direct text or implying this by your behavior). This doesn't solve any problems and causes nothing but disagreement. As for Dawkins himself, who is an excellent specialist in his field, he clearly takes on more than he can handle. He is consistent as a skeptic and anti-clerical, but is absolutely no good as an atheist (and as I pointed out above, only atheists out of all the “non-believers” can enter into a productive dialogue with “believers”). When Dawkins (or his friend Lawrence Krauss) speaks against a representative of believers in a debate, one gets the feeling that their speeches are intended only to amuse their own supporters, but it is hard to believe that they will attract any of the doubters, much less - from among religious people. This leads to the difficulty in formulating the final goal of the speech - the statements do not look explanatory, but persuasive, i.e. propaganda. Perhaps there should be a place for these kinds of statements, but they should not be the only ones in an atheist's speech. As I said above, an atheist should aim to be understood by a believer.

The above inconsistency and uncertainty often causes contradictions out of the blue where they should not exist. You cannot count on the fact that you simply come to a person with an opposing opinion and invite him to accept a new worldview, uprooting the previous one, and he agrees.

Anti-clericalism, skepticism and atheism are independent and self-sufficient elements of the worldview, and may well be the basis of separate social institutions. Mixing in a single unorganized flow, they prevent each other from completing their tasks. Atheism does not need anticlericalism and skepticism, and they do not need atheism. We must allow them to be separate phenomena.

Given the above, it should not be surprising that dialogue between believers and atheists in Russia is unproductive. Problems with self-determination and specific statements lead to the fact that neither side hears the other. For some, this is not a problem at all, but 10 years ago it would have been impossible to even think that the situation would be the same as it is now. Criminal articles, numerous persecutions of atheists at the official and unofficial levels and other problems are just the beginning. Unless sensible people on both sides find a way to peaceful and productive dialogue, the situation will get worse. And, as an atheist, I can say that you shouldn’t wait for the first step from the other side - you need to start with yourself and deal with your problems first.

Brief historical background

Religion and atheism have their roots in the distant past. They are inextricably linked with each other. And they arose almost simultaneously. Their relationship is rich in events, including some full of tragedy.

Thus, researchers of the Christian religion note that the word “atheist” is mentioned only once in the New Testament. Denotes people who have lost the true God. The unbelievers, the pagans, were considered to be among those who suffered a great misfortune. It has long been believed that a normal person should know God and repay him. Atheism was perceived as an abnormal phenomenon, associated, among other things, with human mental illnesses.

Anyone can offend an atheist

Most experts say that at this historical moment, uniting people with an atheistic worldview into a large public organization or political party is hardly feasible. Nevertheless, attempts are being made because, unlike numerous religious organizations that have representation in both government and business, people with a natural-scientific view of the world are deprived of the opportunity to defend their interests in an organized manner. The political party "Communists of Russia" has put forward an initiative to create a public movement "Atheists of Russia", the founding congress of which will be held on May 13 in Moscow. The organizing committee of the movement aims to protect the state and society from what they consider to be the excessive influence of religious denominations. Despite the fact that the party has a dubious reputation and is perceived by many as a buffoon or even a “spoiler”, the issues raised are relevant, because the feelings of atheists, unlike the feelings of believers, are not legally protected in any way in our country, and atheists themselves do not have much, organization that unites them.

"Moans of atheists"

“Our goal is to expose the hypocrisy of individual church ministers, stop the clericalization of the country, protect the rights of all atheists and create an influential and active organization that would give political battle to obscurantism. At the same time, we respect the feelings of believers of all faiths and will be glad to have a dialogue with them, but not with the church bureaucracy, which we intend to firmly resist,” the organizers of the Atheists of Russia congress loudly declare. A member of the Central Committee of the St. Petersburg branch of “Communists of Russia” Sergei Malinkovich told in a conversation with ZAKS.Ru what motivates the authors of this initiative and why such an organization is so necessary today.

“There has long been a demand in society to fight back against church institutions. And this rebuff can only come from the left opposition, since the liberal opposition in its anti-church rhetoric always merges with the anti-patriotic line, and therefore we immediately say that we are not ready to support the liberals. The church should be separated from the state and should not receive any money from it, but today we can see that the Russian Orthodox Church is a state within a state. The question of protecting atheists will be raised. We have a law to protect the rights of believers, but there are many atheists in our country, especially in large cities. We feel the groans of atheists that are heard from all sides: “Give us an organization that could resist the aggressive pressure of church institutions on society,” Malinkovich said.

A member of the Central Committee of the St. Petersburg branch of the Communists of Russia also said that they are already receiving threats from some radical citizens. According to Malinkovich, the organizers of the upcoming congress are also receiving “unofficial recommendations from the authorities.” But this does not stop the organizers in their endeavor.

— The congress will not discuss questions of faith and the existence of God, but the issue of suppressing attempts by church institutions to interfere in the sphere of education and culture. We also intend to reveal numerous facts of money-grubbing. The Church today is one of the richest institutions. Moreover, we have claims not only against the Russian Orthodox Church, but also against other faiths operating in Russia. “They are all very well integrated into the system of the capitalist state, and in exchange for their loyalty they receive huge preferences from the existing government,” the politician believes.

It is important that they have an extremely negative attitude towards the statements of Gennady Zyuganov and his relationship with various religious institutions, considering his position to be absolutely non-communist.

— The rank and file of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has always taken the position of scientific atheism, which does not imply any contacts with the church, which does not exclude respect for the feelings of believers. But Zyuganov kept running to the Patriarchate and mosques, walking around with candles is just a shame. Because of this, many communists left the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which lobbies the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church and even subservience to it, said Sergei Malinkovich.

Alexander Nevzorov: Atheists will never be able to agree!

It is curious that journalist Alexander Nevzorov, a well-known popularizer of atheism, views this idea with skepticism.

— Atheism is a very complex and beautiful story, but it requires serious intellectual potential, I don’t see it here and I suspect that it will be another communist kitsch, but nevertheless I wish them good luck in their endeavor. Atheists will never be able to agree among themselves, because they are free-thinking people. It’s not very easy for them in Russia, but that’s wonderful. I don’t really like that the state has deprived me of the opportunity to offend the feelings of believers, but still I still have somewhere to have fun, the more dangerous this game is, the more exciting it is,” Nevzorov said in an interview with ZAKS.Ru.

The publicist also condemned the fact that the address of the organizing committee of the congress talks about “respect for the feelings” of believers. — You can’t start atheism with respect for the feelings of believers. This is a category unknown to science. Any person can have a hobby: sawing with a jigsaw, collecting beer caps, believing in God with vertical take-off. This is their problem, and I can’t have any respect for collecting beer caps. From my point of view, both are absolute stupidity,” concluded Alexander Nevzorov. Deputy of the Legislative Assembly Irina Komolova, who previously came up with a legislative initiative to protect the rights and feelings of atheists, states with regret that such an organization is really necessary, but it should be formed through an independent association of activists, and not through a political initiative on the eve of elections.

“It’s a shame that such things are done in a joking manner.” Believers are an organized community, headed by the church, and there is someone to protect their rights. Atheists are not a community, but simply a certain number of citizens, and they do not have an organization or political party that could defend their interests today,” Komolova said in an interview with ZAKS.Ru.

She also argues that all organizations of this kind that exist today, such as the Sanity Foundation and the Knowledge Society, despite their activity, cannot fully form a single community of atheists, much less protect their rights.

- This society (of atheists - approx. ZAKS.Ru) is dispersed. Until there are activists who seriously want to deal with this problem, it will be very difficult to organize many people who do not yet feel threatened by the violation of their rights. And those people who realize this are often integrated into certain political structures and very often try to impose their initiative from above, which I consider incorrect and technically difficult,” explains the deputy.

Skepticism regarding the initiative of the “Communists of Russia” was shared by the chairman of the St. Petersburg branch of “The Other Russia” Andrei Dmitriev. He claims that this party is a “Kremlin project” designed to take away votes from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, so as not to give it too much power. Nevertheless, Dmitriev admits that the problems that are planned to be raised at the upcoming congress of atheists are not far-fetched.

— I myself am an Orthodox person, but I don’t really like the top of the current Russian Orthodox Church. They are really merging with the state, and this does not make me happy at all. In our country, atheists and believers should have equal rights,” Dmitriev believes.

Communist Party of the Russian Federation: “Atheists of Russia” will not receive the blessing of the Almighty

Legislative Assembly deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Konstantin Smirnov expressed concerns about the views of the “Communists of Russia” on the relationship between church and state, calling atheism “extreme.”

— I believe that the society of “Russian Atheists” will not be blessed by the Almighty, and therefore there is no sense in this society and the party that is trying to create it. Now, on the eve of the elections, many different radical initiatives will be expressed in order to attract public attention. And this worries me very much,” the parliamentarian said.

According to him, the word “atheism” a priori implies the denial of the existence of God and the fight against any religion. And religion, according to Smirnov, teaches a person important moral guidelines, which today are beginning to disappear. This is probably why a deputy from the Communist Party considers the Russian Orthodox Church “the last bastion of reason on earth.” The politician also noted that the communists moved away from radical atheism back in the 30s of the last century, and, in his opinion, there are no fundamental differences between communism and Christianity.

— With the help of Joseph Stalin, a church council was held and a patriarch was elected, which we did not have in the 20s. The idea of the communist party is very broad, and therefore even today we have a lot of believers in the party, including Orthodox Christians. Communist theory is economic, and we must discuss primarily economic issues, without touching on faith, which is a personal matter for everyone. And Gennady Zyuganov has said more than once that Jesus Christ was the first communist, since he was the first to fight injustice and pharisaism. If you take the Code of the Builder of Communism and the Sermon on the Mount, you will see a lot in common,” says Konstantin Smirnov.

In such a position, which is very uncharacteristic of an ideological communist of the last century, Legislative Assembly deputy from United Russia Vitaly Milonov does not see anything contradictory.

— If the Communist Party of the Russian Federation wants to remain a relevant and promising party, then it must move away from the errors that were introduced by Trotsky and Uritsky. Even when Vladimir Lenin went crazy before his death, he asked God for forgiveness,” the parliamentarian outlined his position. According to him, politics and religion have always been inextricably linked, especially in the areas of public ethics and morality.

— Issues of ethics and morality are general issues. And if any party delves into them, then it invariably begins to come into contact with religion,” the deputy concluded.

The dim future of the “godless”

The prospects for organizing atheists into a more or less influential community or political party today are very doubtful. Even from the words of those who adhere to a natural-scientific view of the world, for example Alexander Nevzorov or Irina Komolova, one can understand that this social group today is extremely divided. The activities of individual ardent advocates of atheism cannot be coordinated for many reasons, and are unlikely to be in the near future. In the very fact that the creation of the organization “Atheists of Russia” is undertaken by a party that has earned a reputation as provocateur in certain circles, many see an attempt to discredit the atheist movement as such.

At the same time, representatives of parliamentary parties and pro-government political movements, as a rule, are in no way concerned about the fate of deliberately non-believers. Therefore, today anyone can offend an atheist.

Svyatoslav Afonkin

The current state of atheism

Modern Western civilization is distinguished by the fact that interest in religion among the population is falling. This applies to all segments of the population. A decrease in church attendance and an increase in the number of people who consider themselves atheists and agnostics have been recorded. Among believers, religion is losing its top position and is not among the main internal factors.

The main adherents of the religious worldview remain the small population of rural areas. Representatives of atheism, of which there are more and more in number, actively propagate that the religiosity of the population is a result of deficiencies in education and knowledge, and a tendency to refuse to accept the achievements of science and technology.

The opposite situation can be observed in developing countries, including the republics of the former USSR. In African states and the countries of the Middle East, a significant increase in religiosity is recorded, often manifested in the forms of fundamentalism and fanaticism. An atheistic worldview in these regions is recognized as a crime, for which punishment may follow. Thus, apostates in Pakistan may face the death penalty.

The growing role of religion in Russia

The atheist movement in Russia and the CIS countries can be characterized as undeveloped, forced to exist in difficult conditions. After the dominant communist ideology, officially preaching atheism, suffered a fiasco, the ideological pendulum swung in the opposite direction. Rejection of atheism began to prevail in the public consciousness. One can only guess how many atheists in Russia have experienced these changes.

Thus, the country is witnessing an increase in the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), its persistent and successful merging with government and administrative bodies. Moreover, in the public consciousness there is a surge of interest in astrology, pseudoscience, and mystical beliefs.

How many believers and atheists are there in Russia?

According to information provided to the media by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, which monitors those attending public religious events, believers in Russia account for about 1% of the population.

In total, several dozen religious structures have been officially registered in the country. It is difficult to establish how many atheists there are in Russia today, united in structures. Most of them try not to advertise their activities too much, limiting themselves to active work in the media and the Internet.

The number of people who are members of them is unknown. Modern state laws allow them not to provide information about their members. It is also impossible to find out the exact number of atheists in Russia.

However, independent sociological sources show the following picture of Russian society.

Just over 70% of the country’s adult population consider themselves Orthodox believers. 1.2% of the population consider themselves believers of other branches of the Christian religion. Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews make up 6.65% of Russia's residents. 12.6% are representatives of other religions.

What percentage of atheists are in Russia? Statistics assure: 7.3%.

All-Russian independent surveys also record that the largest number of people who consider themselves atheists live in the following regions: Primorsky Krai - 35%; Altai Territory - 27%; Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) - 26%; Novosibirsk region - 25%; Amur region - 24%.

The data presented may not be accurate, but to a greater extent reflect the real picture.

At the same time, it is impossible even approximately to calculate how many atheists there are in Russia throughout the history of the state.

Russian Constitution on religion and atheism

It should also be noted that the Constitution of the country prohibits obtaining accurate information about how many atheists there are in Russia. This main law established the secular nature of the state. Any religion cannot become compulsory or state.

Article 19 of the Constitution establishes the equality of all religious structures before the law, and also that they are separated from the state. Article 28 guarantees that free religion is established in the country. Everyone has the right to profess any faith, to spread it freely, and to act in accordance with its norms.

Discrimination on religious grounds is prohibited in Russia. The constitutional law emphasizes that no one can be forced to participate in the activities of religious structures. It is unacceptable to involve minors in religious associations. They cannot be taught religious dogmas against their wishes and without the consent of their parents.

Secular Inquisition Why atheism in Russia is becoming a criminal offense

On March 2, the Stavropol court began considering a criminal case against Viktor Krasnov, who is accused of insulting the religious feelings of believers. Participants in a public discussion on VKontakte, outraged by his statements about Christianity, filed a statement with the prosecutor’s office. In particular, during the dispute, Krasnov wrote that “there is no God,” and “the Bible is a list of Jewish fairy tales.” For these words, he spent a month in a psychiatric hospital along with murderers and rapists, undergoing a sanity examination. After doctors had no doubt about Krasnov’s mental health, he was charged. Lenta.ru looked into the story of an atheist who was put on trial for his beliefs.

Viktor Krasnov learned that a criminal case had been opened against him in April last year. The reason was his comments in the “Overheard in Stavropol” group. The anonymous user in the post shared his mother's instructions regarding who should be the head of the family. One of the commentators quoted from the New Testament, which says that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Krasnov, being a convinced atheist, entered into a discussion during which he questioned the existence of God. Two weeks later, Krasnov left several comments in which he ridiculed the overly serious and even aggressive attitude of the Orthodox towards the celebration of Halloween. After a verbal altercation, his counterparts decided that this time Krasnov would have to answer for what he said, and turned to law enforcement agencies. In a statement, two young people wrote that Krasnov’s statements brought them moral harm and offended their religious feelings.

The police accepted the statement and then contacted the VKontakte administration to identify the wits by IP. During the searches, Krasnov’s system unit, modem and mobile phone were confiscated, which were subsequently used as evidence. He himself was sent for a comprehensive forensic psychiatric examination to a psychiatric clinic, and his remarks from the social network were sent for a linguistic examination.

“In this department there were criminals, psychopaths, sexual maniacs and one cannibal,” Krasnov recalls his stay in the clinic. — I had to spend 30 days among them. Of course, they didn’t give me any drugs. There wasn't much observation either. At the end of my stay, in the third week, a psychologist talked to me for half an hour. And just before leaving, the doctor talked to me for 20 minutes. All!".

According to Krasnov, he spent all this time reading books and from time to time he pleased himself with beer, for which he sent orderlies. “It feels like they put me in there to keep me from making waves in my own defense,” he says. “They just put it out of sight, that’s all.”

A month later it turned out that Krasnov was completely sane. As for his statements, according to experts, although they do not humiliate human dignity, they offend the religious feelings of the Orthodox. This was the basis for initiating a criminal case against him. However, the victims did not appear at the hearing. Shortly before this, they wrote a refusal to participate in the trial. They were forcibly brought to court, but they again wrote that they did not want to participate in the process, without explaining their actions in any way. Official representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church chose to refrain from assessing the high-profile case both at the level of the local diocese and at the level of the Moscow Patriarchate. Only a few Orthodox activists expressed their approval of what was happening, who, as always, came to the court building with posters and crosses.

Krasnov is not the first to find himself in the dock on charges of insulting the feelings of believers. So, at the end of last year in the Kirov region, a case was opened against two men who hung an effigy on an Orthodox cross. In August of the same year, the attention of law enforcement officers was attracted by a resident of Arkhangelsk who wrote seditious tweets. Another case was opened against a resident of Nyagan, who swore obscenely in the temple. The maximum penalty that offenders face under this article is a year in prison.

“After this article appeared in the Criminal Code in 2013, Krasnov’s case is actually a precedent,” explains the defendant’s lawyer Andrei Sabinin. “If earlier we talked about being careful on the Internet, because you can be prosecuted for extremism, now it turns out that you can also be prosecuted for your beliefs, including those of a religious or atheistic nature.”

Sabinin recalls that in 1991 the Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms was published in Russia. It says that every person has the right to communicate both his religious beliefs and defend his atheistic views. However, as in the case of Krasnov, for some reason state representatives decisively sided with the believers, despite the fact that their comments regarding atheism and atheists were very, very harsh.

“The victims, expressing the opinion of a certain circle of people, decided that they were offended and the person should be punished for this,” says the lawyer. “But in fact, this case against Krasnov is being conducted by the state. Because this is no longer a civil lawsuit by an Orthodox Christian against an atheist, but a criminal case of public accusation. The prosecutor's office went to court with him. Here the state is against a person who spoke out in an atheistic vein.”

As for the statements themselves, according to Sabinin, it is a human property to talk about something with expression. “For comments and forums, obscene language is a completely common occurrence,” says the lawyer. — Any discussion turns into a debriefing: the same thing here. Whatever form these opinions may be expressed in this case, they cannot be judged for it. In general, this article is the most inquisitorial norm. If we let her stay, then very soon we will be able to cook wood and light fires.”

Photo: Kirill Kukhmar / Kommersant

What is happening today in the trial of Viktor Krasnov simply does not fit into the heads of a good half of Russians. The Orthodox must have experienced similar feelings when, at the dawn of the Soviet state, militant atheists closed churches under the slogan: “Religion is the opium of the people!” We should not forget that a significant part of the living citizens of Russia were born in the USSR, when the fundamental law of the country, that is, the Constitution, included the right to atheism and anti-religious propaganda. From childhood, at home, in kindergarten, at school, and then at university, Soviet people were explained that there is no God and there is no need to doubt it. Educators, teachers, scientists and even astronauts who had personal observations about the structure of the sky above their heads spoke about this. This was also written about in the school textbook “Social Studies”. To graduate from a university and receive a diploma of higher education, it was necessary to pass exams in history, mathematics, and scientific atheism. So it was possible to become a doctor, teacher, engineer or journalist only, literally, by declaring to the responsible commission that there is no God, but only obscurantism and that same opium for the people.

Atheism in the USSR was a state ideology, and the rights of citizens to be atheists and conduct anti-religious propaganda were enshrined in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918. Making a successful career while being a believer and not being a member of the CPSU was extremely problematic. Well, those who declared their religiosity and tried to conduct corresponding propaganda could easily end up in a psychiatric hospital, and not for a month. Several generations of today's Russians have grown up with the understanding that the phrase “There is no God” is no more offensive than the statement: “I don’t believe in Santa Claus.”

Of course, the rights of believers must be protected by law, but the same law must also protect the rights of non-believers, of which we also have enough. And this is exactly what is said in Article 28 of the current Constitution of the Russian Federation: “Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to profess, individually or together with others, any religion or not to profess any, to freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs and to act.” in accordance with them." Why was Krasnov denied the constitutional right to have and spread his atheistic belief - “There is no God?” In this context, the trial in Stavropol looks like some kind of judicial casuistry and a very bad precedent.

The fact that members of the clergy have distanced themselves from this case suggests that even in the Russian Orthodox Church there is no consensus on where the line lies between insulting the feelings of believers and the right of atheists to defend their beliefs. However, according to Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, critical statements cannot be prohibited.

“We need to allow people to criticize religion,” says Kuraev. — And both for religious people and atheists. This is a completely normal situation. Christianity came into the world as an extremely polemical religion. The very fact that our sacred scripture is called the New Testament was also a kind of insult towards a certain scripture that was declared to be the Old. Naturally, not a single Jew would agree with this name of his sacred book. It’s not for Christians to say, “You can’t criticize someone else’s faith!” How many Christian martyrs were killed precisely because of extremely harsh words and actions against the pagan faith.”

In addition, in the case of protecting religious feelings, the judge becomes the plaintiff’s hostage. “These religious “erogenous zones” are located in everyone’s own area. And this does not depend on the depth of faith,” Andrei Kuraev is convinced. — For some, criticism of a church fence may seem an insult. And some will not be affected by criticism of the Gospel. I believe that such an ephemeral thing as feelings should simply be removed from legislation. Acts, calls for pogroms, violence, murders - this really should be persecuted.”

Photo: Alexander Koryakov / Kommersant

The words “there is no God” cannot become a reason for criminal liability, and claims from law enforcement agencies should concern the form in which the accused expressed his opinion, Kuraev believes. “Undoubtedly, there is a line here, but due to the hysteria of our “anti-swamp” legislation, it has crossed over to the side of prohibition,” he believes. — They are afraid of any shadow, any meeting of people, any social activity and controversy. They drove themselves into a dead end. This extreme must be realized. It’s idiotic courts like the ones in Stavropol that help this.”

Directions of activity of atheistic structures

In modern Russia, the atheist movement is represented by a number of public organizations and informal associations. They see their main goals in protecting the secular structure of the Russian state, preventing the clericalization of society, carrying out public criticism of religions and their representatives, as well as protecting the atheistic worldview that has the right to exist. They actively use the capabilities of the media and the Internet. How many atheists in Russia are involved in this work? Probably everything.

Russian atheists united in a public organization

Sergey Shargunov:

Of course, believers and non-believers are equal in their rights - how could it be otherwise? These rights are protected by the constitution and laws. You can believe, you can not believe - no one can stop you from doing this.

Then why did the idea of convening a congress of atheists arise? What is society reacting to in this way?

Sergey Shargunov:

I wouldn't attach much importance to this. In the end, atheists have their own associations, their own websites and forums - it is wrong to think that some kind of consolidation has just happened. They have long had their own structures, just like people of very different beliefs and ideas. For example, among ufologists, or those who hear voices. Even those who believe that their neighbors are irradiating them have their own newspapers and associations. If people do not break the law, then they have the right to freedom of conscience.

Moreover, without different views, without religious searches, without discussions, there can be no art, there can be no public space. At the same time, we must understand that Russia, in general, is an Orthodox country. This is not determined by the percentage of people who know all the holidays and constantly go to church. And in general, the attitude towards the Orthodox Church. Because the place where baptisms and funerals are held evokes a feeling of sacred awe in the vast majority of people.

To what extent is the organization “Atheists of Russia” a legacy of the Soviet era?

Sergey Shargunov:

The Soviet period in the history of the church is heterogeneous, although the church underwent enormous difficulties. One can recall, for example, the role of the church in the Great Patriotic War, when an entire tank division was built with its money. Moreover, much of what was written in the notorious moral code of building communism - the idea of social justice, brotherhood, compassion - intersects with the Christian values of philanthropy and non-covetousness. I think that although the state was atheistic, Christian principles of kindness were imposed from above, and society, by its nature, was Christian.

But still, some part of society managed to instill hostility towards the church and its rituals...

Sergey Shargunov:

There was such an incident as a society of militant atheists. Especially during the revolutionary turmoil, when priests were killed, blasphemed, and dressed in appropriate clothes. And today, it seems to me, just like then, some people are looking for new reasons to take up arms against the Church.

Yes, there are different people in the Church, but the absolute majority are honest and noble people. Not on a Mercedes, but on a KamAZ. We should not forget that the Church is one of the strongest institutions of social support; direct social work is the responsibility of every parish.

General educational activities of atheists

General educational activities represent a number of areas through which the largest possible part of the population is reached. At the same time, atheists strive to encourage the audience to think logically, adequately perceive scientific achievements, and the ability to critically comprehend so-called supernatural phenomena.

General educational tasks are implemented by atheists from the standpoint of the scientific method, which explains the structure of the world. At the same time, work is being carried out aimed at popularizing knowledge on the history of religions. The origin of religious beliefs, which are based exclusively on human activity, is revealed.

Atheism: concept and essence

In general terms, atheism is a lack of belief in God. But if we consider this concept in a broader sense, it includes the denial of any religion and supernatural phenomena.

Atheism is a position that determines a person’s entire lifestyle and thinking.

Modern researchers call atheism a special worldview, based on science, morality and social life of society. These include the following statements:

The natural world surrounding humans is organized according to rational laws, which humans can study in the course of experimental scientific activities. In philosophy, this statement is called naturalism.
Anthropocentrism is the assertion that man, being a part of the natural world, due to the presence of reason and formed personal qualities, occupies a special position in it. It allows people to feel more important than any social and religious institutions.
Atheists argue that scientific knowledge, which consists in studying phenomena and objects of the surrounding world using mathematical and experimental methods, makes it possible to reveal the natural essence of mysterious and miraculous phenomena. According to adherents of the atheistic worldview, rationalism can explain any supernatural phenomenon from an objective, logical point of view.
The social foundations of atheistic thought include the opinion about the progressive development of human civilization, which in the process of existence accumulates knowledge, technical potential and the degree of personal freedom of a person.

Interesting: the modern understanding of the term atheism, literally translated from Greek as atheism, developed at the beginning of the current era on the basis of biblical teaching.

Socio-political direction

Socio-political objectives are a series of activities aimed at ensuring the protection of the secular character of society. Due to the fact that the main religious structure in Russia is the Russian Orthodox Church, the emphasis of the activities of atheists is aimed at preventing the strengthening of its influence in the spheres of government activity and public life.

In this case, special attention is paid to:

preventing the penetration of religion into public education;
to counter attempts to remove elements of evolutionary theories from school curricula or to teach them together with religious disciplines;
the formation of a negative attitude of society towards attempts to make theology a discipline of the Higher Attestation Commission (Higher Attestation Commission), which implies its recognition as an official science;
taking measures to counter the introduction into the consciousness of society of the idea that Orthodoxy is the only correct worldview;
preventing the positioning of Orthodoxy as a state-forming religion, as a result of which the assertion that Russia is an Orthodox state is formed;
preventing the introduction of religious dogmas into the laws of the country, such as bans on abortion, etc.;
carrying out work aimed at prohibiting the transfer of state buildings and structures to religious structures, as a result of which museums, theaters, and organizations are being evicted from them;

preventing the use of public funds in advertising of religious organizations. Exclusion of cases of participation of clergy representatives in state events;
countering the facts of consolidating religious (mainly Orthodox) holidays as state holidays;
initiating the adoption by the state of norms prohibiting the use of religious terms in state symbols. Including the mention of God in the national anthem.

A bus full of people with inscriptions on the sides (such as “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone”) travels through the streets of Moscow. This simple flash animation can be found on the website Atheists.org.ru. This is the only Russian contribution to the international Atheist Bus Campaign, organized in the UK in 2009 in response to a campaign promoting religious faith. All attempts to arrange this kind of trip offline have failed, said Artem Zhuravsky, head of an atheist and secularist lobby group called the Good Sense Foundation. “We wanted to put up billboards on the streets with the words “There is no God” in response to religious propaganda in Russia in 2009, but it turned out that this was impossible. This is what made us create our organization,” he added. Atheists are very poorly represented in the Russian public space, although, as recent public opinion polls show, they make up 13% of the population, that is, we are talking about 18 million people, which is a lot. Representatives of the atheist movement believe that the lack of media attention they receive is due to the dominance of the Russian Orthodox Church - one of the largest national institutions, whose numerous hierarchs are doing everything to turn their teachings into the dominant ideology in a country where, during Soviet times, this atheism played a role. “It’s quite scary to be an atheist today. I know of several cases where former bosses of the Communist Party fired people from the police and army for this,” noted Alexander Nevzorov, a well-known champion of atheism in the country. However, religious analysts believe that this situation has arisen due to the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is becoming the main element of post-Soviet Russian national identity, even if this is due to the lack of an alternative. “Something important is needed to unite people into society and into the state,” emphasized Sergei Filatov, an expert on religious affairs at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – For us at the moment it is the Second World War and Orthodox Christianity. We don’t have any other big ideas that would be supported by the population as a whole.” At the same time, atheists make up a significant part of Russian society, and the growing involvement of the church in political and social affairs is causing a negative reaction and only increasing the number of their supporters, as well as their representation in society, experts and non-believers say. “We were simply late in deploying our forces before the battle, like the Soviet Union in 1941,” Zhuravsky noted. “Give us another year or two.” Invisible people In Russia, there are at least a dozen groups that defend the rights of atheists, including the Sanity Foundation, which is a member of the Atheist Alliance International, Zhuravsky emphasized. He did not want to talk about the size of his organization and only noted that its activities are limited to Moscow and the surrounding regions. His organization received a modest 800 likes on its Facebook page. Most atheist groups are unknown to the general public, and their most famous representative, Alexander Nevzorov, a controversial star of perestroika-era shock journalism, has not had his own television show since 1999. While official representatives of the church, including the heads of departments of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop Vsevolod Chaplin and Vladimir Legoyda, make headlines in the media every week. There is a clear imbalance between the number of people and their representation, given that, according to the most recent survey on the subject, conducted by Wednesday in the spring of 2011, 13% of the population does not believe in God. Another 5% of people are undecided and - perhaps, but not necessarily - consider themselves agnostics. These data are based on a study of 1,500 respondents and have a margin of error of 3.6%. The survey shows that supporters of the Russian Orthodox Church make up 42%, while the rest of the population professes other traditional religions, and also includes those people who admit the existence of the divine principle, but do not identify themselves with any particular faith. “Atheism is now invisible, as was the case with Christianity in Soviet times,” said Filatov, an expert on religious issues. Oscillations of the pendulum When in 1738 naval officer Alexander Voznitsyn converted from Christianity to Judaism, the Senate ordered him to be burned at the stake along with the Jew who converted him to the Jewish faith. Christianity was the dominant religion in Russia for almost a thousand years, and its status during Tsarist rule was protected by criminal law. At the same time, apostasy was considered a criminal offense, and being an irreligious person was prohibited. However, the Bolsheviks repealed these laws in 1917, leading to the decline of the church. “Poor peasants and members of the working class threw crosses into churches in the 1920s,” said Sergei Soloviev, editor of Skepsis, which bills itself as an “online journal of scientific and social criticism” that preaches anti-clericalism. The Church was too strongly associated with tsarism, which was too backward and retrograde. It hindered social progress and adhered to old rules inherited from the feudal era, some historians say. The Bolsheviks, for whom religion was an ideological enemy, used every opportunity to sow negative feelings towards the church, and they did this through promises of a new, better, godless society, as well as through the ruthless persecution of the clergy. Then came the time of militant atheism. Although religion was not completely banned in Soviet Russia in the 1920s and 1930s, believers became pariahs in the eyes of both society and the state, which was considered to have the most brutal apparatus of suppression and was not afraid to use it against priests and representatives flocks, as a result of which thousands of them ended up in prison or were shot. It took the greatest war in history for this situation to change. In 1943, when the Nazi Wehrmacht and the Red Army were still fighting to the death, thousands of churches were opened by the Germans in the occupied territories, which was positively received by the population, and then Stalin allowed religious services to be held, thereby putting an end to the active persecution of the church. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, with Nikita Khrushchev in power, another wave of repression followed and the surviving churches were brought under strict government control. At the same time, a person who openly declared his faith at that time risked less of a career than a dissident. An unexpected consequence of this situation was that religion itself became associated with protest against the oppressive and increasingly rotten Soviet bureaucratic machine. It became fashionable among members of the intelligentsia to have icons in their homes, and some dissidents, including Gleb Yakunin, were themselves priests. The next turning point occurred during perestroika. When the Soviet state actively supported the celebration of the millennium of the baptism of Rus' in 1988, it was clear evidence that changes had once again taken place, and the pendulum was swinging towards religion. In 1991, 24% of Russians considered themselves believers; in 2005, this number had risen to 53%, while another 24% of respondents were “not sure,” according to an in-depth study of new Russian religiosity by Kimmo Kaariainen of the University of Helsinki and Dmitry Furman of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences and published in 2007. Russian Orthodox Church Corporation On Leningradsky Prospekt, in the north of Moscow, there is an old building, which in tsarist times housed an almshouse, and under the Bolsheviks - part of a hospital. Today it is rented to various commercial organizations, including a plastic surgery clinic. The building belongs to the church and was returned to it in 2002 as property illegally confiscated after the revolution, noted Soloviev from Skepticism magazine. Creeping clericalism is the chief complaint of Russian atheists, who argue that the state relies on the church for ideological support and rewards it generously with money and assets to the satisfaction of many priests more concerned with earthly wealth than heavenly salvation. “The Russian Orthodox Church is part of the ideological apparatus of the state,” Solovyov emphasized. “It’s not surprising that the authorities don’t like criticism of the church.” The union of church and state has actually been a hotly debated topic in recent years. President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev emphasize their religiosity, attend important church services, and all this happens in front of television cameras. It is unlikely that one will find even one atheist among current politicians, and this also applies to the communist leader Gennady Zyuganov. The atheists' list of grievances includes the introduction of taxpayer-funded positions for military chaplains in the army; a city-backed program to build 200 (initially 600) churches in remote areas of Moscow; this included the introduction of a new subject that would allow the basics of religion to be taught in school, albeit at the discretion of the student. In 2010, Kremlin authorities approved a massive restitution program that would see the government return property confiscated by the Bolsheviks to various faiths, although the buildings now house secular institutions, including hospitals and museums. These objects also include a building located on Leningradsky Prospekt. The modern church is one of the richest non-governmental organizations in the country - it owns real estate assets, as well as banks, factories, publishing companies and firms providing funeral services. This conclusion is contained in a study conducted by the online magazine Openspace.ru, according to which total church assets in 2011 exceeded $1 billion. The church itself is notoriously opaque about its own business activities, although it, while denying allegations of financial impropriety, rarely provides reliable information about its economic activities. The Kremlin's benevolence did not come free. During the presidential elections this year, the head of the church, Patriarch Kirill, supported the candidacy of Vladimir Putin, and also urged his flock to refuse to participate in the anti-Putin demonstrations that swept across Moscow at that time. “To this day, criticism of the church remains taboo in the federal media,” Solovyov emphasized. “They were either uninterested or afraid that they would be accused of offending the feelings of believers.” Nevzorov said that some atheists had lost their jobs because of their beliefs, but he refused to name them, explaining that doing so could bring even more trouble to people already affected. However, the situation may not be as clear-cut as critics of the church describe it. Nevzorov himself, in a recent interview with the Russian edition of Rolling Stone magazine, admitted that one of the lobbying groups in the Kremlin asked him to lead the atheist movement and campaign in support of secularism on ideological grounds. He did not name any names, but said that for now the group is run by his opponents, who see religion as a useful tool for population control. Nevertheless, the balance of forces, in his opinion, may change in the still uncertain, but near future. “I was asked to lie in a trench, with the promise that the Red Army would soon approach,” Nevzorov said, referring to his leadership of the atheist movement, in a separate interview in March. But as he told Rolling Stone in June, "(The Red Army) probably won't do." In Soviet Russia - God doesn’t believe in you “Unworthy atheists are very rare, and I have been saying for a long time that they should be included in the list of endangered species,” noted Archdeacon Andrei Kuraev, an Orthodox Christian well-known in the media. “At the same time, atheism does not presuppose an obligation to fight against God. I deeply respect some forms of atheism, including the atheism of Sartre or Camus,” said Kuraev, a popular Christian missionary who received his first academic degree in scientific atheism. He rejected the atheists' claims of persecution and stressed that it was merely a means to regain public attention. “Atheism has no support either from the state or from the media - but the church is also deprived of this kind of support,” Kuraev emphasized. This position is supported by religious affairs expert Roman Lunkin, but he admits that some problems do exist. “There is no direct censorship against atheists, but we can talk about a certain political pressure, especially on state-owned television channels,” said Lunkin, who works at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences. However, Kuraev believes that this is not the reason for the absence of atheists in the media space. “Some topics quickly lose their relevance and disappear,” Kuraev emphasized. – The polemic against atheism is no longer significant. Some people just have nothing to say other than criticism.” He acknowledged that the modern church faces many problems, but believers, in his opinion, are better prepared to uncover them and actively fight them. “I can also criticize church life. I’m inside her, and I see more nasty things than someone who looks at her from the outside,” Kuraev noted, without going into details. While waiting for a response, on February 21, 2012, the attention of believers and tourists who were in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was attracted by something that they hardly expected to see in the main Christian cathedral of the country: five supposedly women in flashy clothes, leggings and masks found themselves in the altar area and started loudly sing a song calling on the Mother of God to expel Putin. The stunned guards were too shocked and were unable to detain any of these women, who soon fled, spending about 41 seconds in the area of the altar, as police later determined. However, three of the participants in this performance are in prison and awaiting trial, according to which they could spend up to seven years behind bars. It was the first of a series of scandals that rocked the church this year and damaged its reputation, especially among the educated urban population. In the case of Pussy Riot, the name of this women's group, it was not the event itself, but the church's approval of the imprisonment of the participants in this action that served as the basis for accusations of repressiveness from critics. In March of this year, the media reported that a relative of Patriarch Kirill, living in a luxurious penthouse near the Kremlin, tried, with the help of the court, to take over the neighboring apartment of the former federal minister turned priest. The story of a church leader who owns a penthouse in the center of the city caused a real storm in the blogosphere, and the same can be said about the controversial court case. It also became known that Kirill wears an expensive watch, which was clumsily removed from the photograph of the Patriarch posted on the website of the Moscow Patriarchate. Most analysts consider this series of scandals to be a reaction of wealthy and liberal-minded urban residents to the growing presence of the church in social life and its support from the Russian leadership. Before the election, even nonbelievers viewed the church as a moral authority above everyday petty political conflicts, but support for Putin has deprived it of its image of infallibility in the eyes of the opposition-minded public, Lunkin said. The church in 2011 enjoyed the greatest trust among the population, and its support level was 60%. According to this indicator, it was ahead of the army (58%), as well as the government (46%). These data are provided by GfK, a company engaged in conducting public opinion polls and marketing research. At the same time, from 30% to 38% of citizens who participated in mass anti-Putin demonstrations in Moscow in February and March of this year were non-believers - this conclusion is reached on the basis of a survey conducted by her. The number of participants in the protest actions that associate themselves with the Russian Orthodox Church decreased in the same period from 28% to 19%, and this happened after Cyril’s statement that believers should not visit political rallies, the study emphasizes. The negative feelings of part of the population in relation to the church in connection with its injured image and its loyalty in relation to the Kremlin have yet to find its reflection in future polls of public opinion, Luncin emphasized. They will return atheism by a free choice for the Russian population, since it was imposed as an integral part of the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the expert on religion of Filatov said. However, the same can be said about Christianity, which was also imposed by the rulers of the country and was supported by dragon laws, the defender of the natives of the Nevor noted. “This is a Russian tragedy: for thousands of years, people have been deprived of freedom of conscience,” Nevzorov emphasized. As the church increases the ideological pressure on society, criticism of it will grow, and more and more people will make a choice in favor of atheism as the main affordable alternative to religion, Lovekin, working in. “They think they came for a long time,” Solovyov notes from the magazine Skepticis. - They repeat all their old mistakes, imposing an ideology. People will increase disgust, and a new cycle (destruction) will begin, as it was during the revolution, ”he emphasized. However, some observers predict a milder option. “In modern Italy, there are two main ideologies - Catholicism and atheism, and they are peacefully coexist,” said analyst Filatov. However, for this Russia, it is necessary to approach Europe, voluntarily accept secularity, and not get it on a forced manner on top, as it was in Soviet times, he added. “When our recent past - let’s say, about 20 years or so - it will look like European, then we will have a secular consciousness with a religious consciousness,” Filatov noted.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.