Russia may canonize soldier

[theavonlady 2]

Renounce your faith to kill others? There's no turning back after you've turned your AK74 on your own platoon mates.

It wasn't a question of killing his friends, it was a question of converting. He chose death over even pretending to convert, which makes him a nut.

Avon:

Quote[/b] ]

Spoken like a true secular fanatic.

Not quite. If somebody put a gun to my head and gave me the choice of saying that there is a God or getting my brains blown out, I would very quickly say that there is a God. It's called reason. Had I been a secular fanatic, I'd chosen getting my brains blown out.

No you wouldn't have. As a secular fanatic you have no obligations otherwise. While I cannot speak for Christian religious law, the Torah commands Jews to accept death under certain extreme circumstances, one being similar to this case.

So, just being secular is being a fanatic?

No. Your attitude here towards others that do believe in God is fanatic.

Quote[/b] ]I've got news for you Avon, the reference is not yours or some other quirky religion or interpretation of some religion. The reference is universal human values -which is maximizing life and minimizing death.

The only thing that makes them "universal" is secular fanatics attempts to claim them to be as such.

And I'm all for your general maximizing life/minimizing death equation. We disagree on whether everything can be maxxed/minned.

Quote[/b] ]If you think that your religious interpretations have preference over life and death, then you support suicide bombers as well.

I do not believe in Islam and the prophet Mohamed. But, yes, others do and would agree with your statement.

Quote[/b] ]In their interpretation, they are martyrs, doing the right thing.

Absolutely. But I do not live by their interpretation any more than I don't live by yours any more than you don't live by mine.

Quote[/b] ]I'm interested in life. Sorry to disappoint you.

Apparently not since you support death over even temporarily abandoning your religion.

Once again, there's a time and place for everything. Sorry, still interested in life and sorry to disappoint you once more.

[denoir 0]

No. Your attitude here towards others that do believe in God is fanatic.

No believing in God does not make you a fanatic. Choosing death over even temporarily lying to somebody about your faith makes you a fanatic.

Given a choice of "convert here and now or we'll kill you", a reasonable person, religious or not, picks life.

Quote[/b] ]

The only thing that makes them "universal" is secular fanatics attempts to claim them to be as such.

What makes them univeral is that they are equally beneficial for all human beings, regardless of religion, nationality or race.

The desire for life is a typical such value. Being faithful to the death to some specific dogma is not.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If you think that your religious interpretations have preference over life and death, then you support suicide bombers as well.

I do not believe in Islam and the prophet Mohamed. But, yes, others do and would agree with your statement.

Quote[/b] ]In their interpretation, they are martyrs, doing the right thing.

Absolutely. But I do not live by their interpretation any more than I don't live by yours any more than you don't live by mine.

Exactly my point. There is no universal way of deciding who is right or wrong on religion. You are basing your reasoning on the assumption that your religious beliefs are correct, while the one of others' is wrong. Now while that may work in a small tribal society, it is disasterous on a global scale. You'll never agree and it will be just a continuous conflict until one destroys the other or both destroy each other.

Secularism on the other hand tries not to make any assumptions beyond things that can be characterized as general human wishes and desires - regardless of religion, nationalty race etc

[denoir 0]

If you think that your religious interpretations have preference over life and death, then you support suicide bombers as well. In their interpretation, they are martyrs, doing the right thing.

Comparing people that refuse to abandon their actual faith to convert to another , despite being under a life threatening situation and someone that will kill several innocent people , leaving his own life in the process...

Of course people thinking that someone refusing to abandon their faith in such situation support suicide bombers.

Wow, that is one of the biggest shortcut i ever see, one of the most dumb one too.

Try to think in a little bit more general terms. It is about chosing death for yourself or for others because of some arbitrary dogma.

Actually killing others because of dogma (be it religious or political or whatever) is generally less fanatical (easier to do) and more common.

[DarkLight 0]

I sure as hell wouldn't want to do for my.... religion  

That's like the dumbest thing that i can possibly imagine...

Oh well...

I don't see the point of religion, so i guess it's kinda obvious that i would never want to die for it.

The first braindead moron that wants to kill me because i don't care about religion can get a nice kick in the nuts from me

Suuuuure they'll behead me after that but at least one of them won't be able to have little extremist children

[DarkLight 0]

Actually killing others because of dogma (be it religious or political or whatever) is generally less fanatical (easier to do) and more common.

I know i'd rather kill you than myself... Nothing personal ... I'd do the same for any of you out there... My own life is worth a lot more, why? Because it's my own life of course...

To be honest, If either you or me goes down, i'll do pretty much everything to make sure that YOU go down...

I have respect for every kind of life, but if it's either my life or someone else's life than personally i don't really care about your life...

Of course this isn't always true, maybe i'd sacrifice myself for someone that i truly love or someone that will REEEAAAALLY be missed one way or another. But those are important people... well... they're important to me anyway...

[Blake 0]

In my opinion it's a bit harsh to use term 'religious fanatic' in this case, especially since the word fanatic makes impression of somebody forcing his faith on others or that his actions are ruled by solely by religion. The soldier apparently died 'for what he believed in' that does not solely make him a fanatic.

You could also see it as an act of defiance in face of the enemy eg.'You haven't crushed what I believe in!'. There are countless of examples of people not cracking under torture or interrogation, maybe it's stupid, but it's just human nature working in defiance against odds.

[Foxtrot87 0]

Quote[/b] ]They did not die protecting the abstract idea of democracy, but the real practical thing which in the long run saves lives.

Do you think they would really let him go even if he did change his religion? They would have killed him and showed the tapes, photos etc. showing that Russian soldiers are weak, they can betray their beliefs and their country. This would lead to more deaths (moral aspect). So perhaps his denyal to change the religion was the real practical thing which in the long run saved lives. You can of course start arguing that they would have let him go but this point of view, considering all the facts, can only be called a nonsense. At least pay some respect to the dead. Geez, he was only 19 years old. How old are you?

Quote[/b] ]Going from killing yourself (which he in effect did) for faith to killing others is not a very big one.

He killed himself? He was fighting for others and refused to betray his faith and in this situation we can put a = sign between the religion and the country. I hope you understand what i mean and you won't shift my words because this doesn't lead to anything.

[kerosene 0]

They probably wouldnt have killed him if he had said he'd change and fought with them (at least not right away.)  The Chechens used to take conscripts (not volunteers) as prisoners and use them as indentured labour.  I dont know if this still continues though, i doubt it.

I said this before, so i'll say it a little more forcefully, they wanted him to KILL other Russians, none of us were there and neither was the jerk who wrote the article or the people who have started calling him a saint, they have little idea what he went through and have choosen to pin the "saint" label on him.  I would easily lie about my belifs to save my life, but im not going to kill people, espically people i may know to save my life (I hope.)

Do you think if the Russians re-captured him they'd let him change sides back, or would his former comrades kill him on the spot?  He still would have been a prisoner, just one that was allowed to fight wwhen needed, what would he have done, stayed till the Checyans win and then they'd let him go?

note: I dont think theres anything in the bible about lying about your faith per se, but your breaking a commandment just by lying and all thise Christians got fed to lions by Romans cause they wouldnt lie so thier must be something about it. I never really understood why an omnipetant, forgiving god would care one way or the other what you told a pyscho who wasnt even in your religon anyway, but I guess thats why im an atheist.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]They did not die protecting the abstract idea of democracy, but the real practical thing which in the long run saves lives.

Do you think they would really let him go even if he did change his religion? They would have killed him and showed the tapes, photos etc. showing that Russian soldiers are weak, they can betray their beliefs and their country. This would lead to more deaths (moral aspect). So perhaps his denyal to change the religion was the real practical thing which in the long run saved lives.

That's wild speculation.

Quote[/b] ]You can of course start arguing that they would have let him go but this point of view, considering all the facts, can only be called a nonsense.

What facts? There arn't any. The whole 'not abandoning his faith' are claims made by his mother, who can hardly be seen as an objective witness. All we know that he was a Russian soldier who was decapitated in Chechnya.

If we assume it was true, we have plenty of recent examples from Iraq of kidnappers who let their hostages go after they made various pledges.

Quote[/b] ]At least pay some respect to the dead.

While every death is tragic, I only have a finite amont of sympathy to give. And in Chechnya, I'd rather give it to the thousands of innocent civilians killed than to a religiously fanatical soldier.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Going from killing yourself (which he in effect did) for faith to killing others is not a very big one.

He killed himself? He was fighting for others and refused to betray his faith and in this situation we can put a = sign between the religion and the country. I hope you understand what i mean and you won't shift my words because this doesn't lead to anything.

Nonsense speculations. All we know is that they demanded him to convert to Islam. So obviously they did not equal religion to country. It's quite simple, and nothing exceptional - it has happened many times in history. His religious convictions were stronger than the value of his life. A classical example of a 'martyr'.

And the article states it well:

Quote[/b] ]

..many Russians are pressing the Orthodox church to canonize him as a saint, martyred in a holy war against Islam.

In short religious fanatics on both sides. Of course the ones that killed him are from a humanist point of view worse - but them being very bad doesn't make him special. If pople in general were more like him, the world would be far worse off.

The last thing they need in Chechnya are martyrs - it only amplifies the problems.

[denoir 0]

In my opinion it's a bit harsh to use term 'religious fanatic' in this case, especially since the word fanatic makes impression of somebody forcing his faith on others or that his actions are ruled by solely by religion. The soldier apparently died 'for what he believed in' that does not solely make him a fanatic.

You could also see it as an act of defiance in face of the enemy eg.'You haven't crushed what I believe in!'. There are countless of examples of people not cracking under torture or interrogation, maybe it's stupid, but it's just human nature working in defiance against odds.

Fanatic:

Quote[/b] ]

fa·nat·ic

A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

It does not in any way suggest forcing others. It just refers to a strength of belief that goes beyond the reasonable.

[kerosene 0]

But we dont know that he choose his religon over death, I'd still say his problem was with killing other Russians.

(See post above yours.)

[denoir 0]

There's nothing in the yahoo article about killing Russians.

If that was the case then it's a completely different story.

[kerosene 0]

From the article.

"Not only did Yevgeny not betray his faith, he also refused to betray his army. He refused to sell out his friends," said Rodionova, who lives alone in a small town outside Moscow.

He was kidnapped and held in a cellar for months. Rodionova said his captors had told her they gave him the choice of adopting Islam and joining them, or death.

Now that I re-read it, I guess its open to interpretation to an extent, mabye it would've been a situation like the ones I mentioned were captured conscripts were forced to do menial labour, but it sounds like they wanted him to fight against Russians, (thats what i took joining them to mean, rather than joining Islam generally.)

On a somewhat related note:

Russian Conscripts Die From Bullying

21/10/2004 11:51 AM

Sonia Oxley

Bullying in Russia's army is on the increase with many recruits dying of injuries or killing themselves after mistreatment ranging from cigarette burns to sexual abuse, a human rights group said on Wednesday.

In a report, US-based Human Rights Watch said most of the violence was meted out by rank-and-file soldiers to newcomers as part of an initiation ritual. But officers who ignored abuse in their units were as much to blame, it said.

"Any sort of an initiation system in an army ... has a tendency to lead to excess. When a line is not clearly drawn by higher officers these excesses become the rule and that is what has happened in Russia," the author, Diederik Lohman, said.

http://www.xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,3772-3793211,00.html

[denoir 0]

Nah, that doesn't add up. If it was about killing Russians then he would have merrily played along, converted and then turned his brand new AK-47 on his former captors.

He refused to convert, that's the point and that's why they want to make him a saint.

[kerosene 0]

Ah, come on, the guys was a conscript, not John Rambo in Chechnya, they would have kept a real close eye on him anyway.

Either way, ots too bad Russian churches arent apparetley as concerned about the treatment of conscripts by other russians.

[JdB 151]

On one page it said that he was taken prisoner along with 3 other soldiers. All of them were killed, but only he was given the choice (unless it simply isn't mentioned in the story).

If he had given in to their demand, they probably would have laughed their *sses of because of the Russian ''coward'', and then shot him in the head.

Quite simple, a Russian with a gun behind you may very well have promised to fight along side you when at gunpoint, but when you are moving across Czechnia, there will always be a Russian with a gun behind you. Almost no one would be crazy enough to have someone like that watch his back. He would either run (and give his commanders info about the were abouts of the rebels), shoot you, or jump up when you are ready to attack the Russians to warn his comrades. Not my kind of recruiting....

[Foxtrot87 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's wild speculation.

If we don't have much information on this question (as you have said there's only his mother who can't be suggested as an objective witness) your posts are as much speculation as mine are.

Quote[/b] ]What facts? There arn't any.

I meant the facts that say that hostages taken by Chechens don't come out alive.

Quote[/b] ]If we assume it was true, we have plenty of recent examples from Iraq of kidnappers who let their hostages go after they made various pledges.

Chechens and Iraqis are different people who live in different countries and who lived and grew up in different conditions.

Quote[/b] ]While every death is tragic, I only have a finite amont of sympathy to give. And in Chechnya, I'd rather give it to the thousands of innocent civilians killed than to a religiously fanatical soldier.

I sympathize the innocent people who died in Chechnya and i sympathize Russian conscripts.

Quote[/b] ]Nonsense speculations. All we know is that they demanded him to convert to Islam.

In this situation we can assume that it was equal to betraying his country, his comrades because the question of the religion is one of the central ones.

Quote[/b] ]many Russians are pressing the Orthodox church to canonize him as a saint, martyred in a holy war against Islam.

In short religious fanatics on both sides.

This is your only point in this thread with which i can agree. It's not a holy war against Islam, damn it.

Quote[/b] ]fa·nat·ic

A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Following your point of view we can call those who fought for democracy "fanatics" but you don't call them fanatics and thus you contradict yourself.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Following your point of view we can call those who fought for democracy "fanatics" but you don't call them fanatics and thus you contradict yourself.

Not at all. Read the definition again:

"A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause."

The difference being that fighting for a better world for others is rational as opposed to fighting for your religion. There have been cases of unreasonable fighting for democracy (in the ideological sense). The Vietnam war was such an example where the ideology of anti-communism took preference over real human lives.

[Bordoy 0]

Nah, that doesn't add up. If it was about killing Russians then he would have merrily played along, converted and then turned his brand new AK-47 on his former captors.

He refused to convert, that's the point and that's why they want to make him a saint.

Because he showed loyalty to his country or religion depending on the way you see it?

Im loyal. I dont change sides depending on the situation. Like one day im on their no wait now im on theres.

[shinRaiden 0]

I was under the impression that being a martyr alone was not sufficent for Catholic canonization, that the process of beatification requires case evidence of several miraculous events, as well as a pattern of piety. I don't know if there is a difference in the Russian Orthodox church, and if common communion also includes mutal Saints recognition, but as I'm not a Catholic, I'll leave that to those that are.

The whole back and forth between equally stubborn 'fanatics' as evidenced in the debates here is due in large part due to the total bastardization of the ground principles. Discussing strictly politics we can agree that there is an entity identified as George Bush and an entity identified as John Kerry, and then debate back and forth on relevant issues on a relevant table.

But here on religious matters, we don't even have a starting reference point. You secularists accuse us of bad math or overt cheating by claiming to have an 'illegal' double amount - spiritual and physical - of pieces on the chess board, while we 'fundamentalist fanatics' claim you're the idiots for insisting on only playing with the pawns out front, and ignoring the rooks, bishops, knights, queen, and king.

The fact is though that this soldier - 'insane' or not - valued certain things above his own personal life. When you start thinking like that - the entire notion of self-sacrifice for someone or something else - it's a completely different situation.

Coming back to the topic at hand. Fundamental Christianity is built on the principal of intercessory mediation, generally in doing for others what one could not do for themselves. If on the other hand hedonistic self-expediancy were the only ultimate reality, wouldn't this soldier's mother be the greater idiot for deliberately and repeatedly going in unprepared into a war zone to give aid and comfort to others like her son?

- edit -

Sorry folks, as this is a Philosophical/Theological/Psychological debate and I just posted here, alarms are ringing on PC's worldwide and there'll be ~20+ pages of new posts by sunup chewing us 'fundamentalists' out...

[denoir 0]

Look, the general point is quite simple. There are many religions in the world and they disagree on many things. To avoid wars, persecutions, oppression and to achieving true cooperation between humans there are two possible choices:

1) Let one religion kill off or force convert everybody else. Then we'll all play according to the same rules.

2) Find a system that finds a common ground that is acceptable to all humans, regardless of religion.

That system is called secularism. It does not exclude religious practice on a personal level. It just excludes the enforcing of specific religious beliefs in practical matters. The secular is the general foundation, valid for all. It does not try to appease any specific religion but tries to base its principle on science and general humanism.

It's not a simple thing to implement, as it requires compromise. It is far easier to follow your brand of dogma - but we've seen what that leads to, and it ain't pretty.

We've seen throughout history what happens when you put religious values over general human values. We had the dark ages in Europe with almost 1,000 years of decay. In America too, you had the witch trials etc For a more current example, take a look at the Mid East.

Religion calling the shots in practical decisions has always turned out to be a disaster.

Applauding people who choose religious dogma over life isn't the way to go. There is no global absolute point of reference - and stubbornness in enforcing your brand of arbitrary principles can't lead to anything good on a larger scale.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]It does not in any way suggest forcing others. It just refers to a strength of belief that goes beyond the reasonable.

So basically, showing any defiance in enemy captivity is fanaticism for whatever belief you hold which I would definately disagree. Using it in similiar cases would understandably piss off a lot of people.

Dictionaries tell a meaning of a word, but not really what is being commonly related to a meaning of a word. 'Fanatic' has gotten so  much more negative meaning over time. Probably there are many words which's commonly known meanings vs. explanation have altered almost beyond recongnition.

An example most of us probably can relate to: In the movie 'Bridge Over River Kwai' Colonel Bogey, the commander of the British POWs defies his Japanese captors and argues that his officers will not do manual labor. Now there is only handful of officers already having bad conditions almost like the men. Because of his stubborness his put to minimum rations and into hot tiny shed where he's almost killed. He even refuses food. He's given lucrative offers by the Japanese with better terms, yet he refuses and risks starving to death.

Now taken the circumnstances his stubborness is beyond reason but yet he persists. Anyway that's what people wouldn't call fanaticism, it's more like defiance. If he would do that over a cross, bible, prayer, pack of cigarettes, whatever - still would not make him a fanatic.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]It does not in any way suggest forcing others. It just refers to a strength of belief that goes beyond the reasonable.

So basically, showing any defiance in enemy captivity is fanaticism for whatever belief you hold which I would definately disagree. Using it in similiar cases would understandably piss off a lot of people.

No, you're missing my point. When you are in enemy captivity there is a rationale for not being cooperative. Apart from the obvious of making it more difficult for the enemy to get information, the enemy in the military case is really an enemy trying to kill you, your comrades and your people.

Now in the case of the Russian soldier, we really don't know what happened and what went through his head. We do however know why they want to make him a saint. Not because he didn't cooperate with the enemy. The church is not interested in such secular matters.

The reason is that even under the pain of death he would not abandon his Christian faith and convert to Islam. That's the story they're running with, so that's the one we can comment on.

And there the conflict is not soldier vs soldier. It is religion vs. religion. The enemy in this case is Islam. It is simply that he was willing to give his life rather than to abandon his faith. That's the problem. It sets religion against religion and is utterly irrational.

They are rewarding him as a martyr - a religious fanatic that is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in order not to betray the interpretation of his brand of religion.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is simply that he was willing to give his life rather than to abandon his faith. That's the problem. It sets religion against religion and is utterly irrational.

If any of us would be kidnapped on the street, taken into torture chambers by some unknown which would want us to convert to Islam or die - none of us would probably hesitate to do as he says. Nor I think would this young conscript hesitate in similiar situation during peacitime civilian conditions.

That I would call a more pure 'religion vs. religion' condition.

But in this case the context can't be forgotten - it's about Chechen guerrillas and Russian Army fighting each other over national prestige, independence, their brothers in arms, etc. In that light this event can just be monitored in just religious spotlight. He put all what his Army and country represent against what the Chechens represent and made his defiant choice probably knowing he would be killed anyway.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Denoir, you are showing more zealousy than even the most devout religious persons I know. The strength with which you believe in your ideas/theories is astounding. Spoken like a true fanatic.

I'll say no more.