| Annotation |
The paper deals with the system of authoritarian and humanistic religious safety practices in modern Russia. The authors focus on the fact that normative conflicts are the base of the destruction of the present religious safety system. The essential features of normative conflicts consist in the contradictions between the parts of a separate system of norms and values, or between normative and value systems of different nature, which are included in one dominant culture. The authors claim that it is necessary to minimize destructive effects of normative conflicts through the removal of contradictions in order to ensure religious safety in modern Russia. The authors suggest the classification of practices that make it possible to relieve the normative conflicts, including those in the “secular” – “religious” segments, and thereby facilitate to the establishment of religious safety in modern Russia. Based on the principles of an anthropological approach, conflict functionalism, marginal anthropology and the principles of case analysis of a number of normative conflicts taking place in modern Russian society, the authors identify a system of authoritarian and humanistic practices of religious safety. The authoritarian type of practices include stigmatization, legal protection of the feelings of believers, taboo, censure, correction of behavior in accordance with the traditional system of norms and values. The humanistic practices include tolerance, non-violence, calls for a peaceful resolution of conflicts. The classification of religious safety practices is based on the interpretation of the concept of “norm”, presented by classical (Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, G. Hegel and others) and non-classical (Z. Freud, F. Nietzsche, M. Foucault) paradigms. The authors conclude that both types of religious safety practices are actively realized in modern Russia. The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in authoritarian and humanistic practices of ensuring religious safety is considered in detail. |
| References |
1. The Bible. Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Canonical. M: Russian Bible Society, 2005. (In Rus.)
2. Waal de, F. The origins of morality: in search of the humanism among the primates. M: Alpina non-fiction, 2015. (In Rus.)
3. Grigoriev, I. G. Freedom: a gift from God and the path of a person’s life choice. Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy, vol. 15, Issue. 2, pp. 18–28, 2014. (In Rus.)
4. Grigorenko, A. Yu. Religion and tolerance. The specificity of religious tolerance. Electronic journal «RONO», no. 23, 2014. Web. 02.01.2020. https://www.sites.google.com/a/shko.la/ejrono_1/vypuski-zurnala/vypusk-23-maj-2014/tema-nomera-no23-osnovy-religioznyh-kultur-i-svetskoj-etiki-kak-novyj-resurs-duhovno-nravstvennogo-razvitia-i-vospitania-ucasihsa/religia-i-tolerantnost-specifika-religioznoj-tolerantnosti (In Rus.)
5. Gurin, S. P. Marginal Anthropology. Saratov: Publ. Center of SSESU, 2000. Web. 02.01.2020. http://www.anthropology.ru/ru/text/gurin-sp/marginalnaya-antropologiya#ss-1-ponyatiya-granicy-i-marginalnosti. (In Rus.)
6. Zhukov, A. V. Religious security as a subject of scientific discourse in post-Soviet Russia. Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Issues of theory and practice, no. 12, pp. 66–71, 2017. (In Rus.)
7. Mill, Dzh. About freedom. Web. 02.01.2020. https://www.royallib.com/book/mill_dgon/o_svobode.html. (In Rus.)
8. Nietzsche, F. On the other side of good and evil. Kharkov: Folio, 2009. (In Rus.)
9. Salikhov, N. R., Mustaev R.Sh., Misbakhov A. A. Religious security. Bulletin of the NCBGD, no. 3, pp. 31–35, 2012. (In Rus.)
10. Samygin, S. I. The religious security of society in the context of ensuring religious freedom and countering religious extremism. Humanitarian of the South of Russia, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 167–179, 2017. (In Rus.)
11. Subbotina, N. D. Natural and social components of empathy and altruism. Humanitarian vector, no. 2, pp. 58–66, 2011. (In Rus.)
12. Flier, A.Ya. Culture as a factor of national safety. Modern social Sciences, no. 3, pp. 181–187, 1998. (In Rus.)
13. Fromm, E. Man for himself. Minsk: Collegium, 1992. (In Rus.)
14. Foucault, M. Oversee and punish. Birth of a prison. M: Ad Marginem, 1999. (In Rus.)
15. Tsoi, L. N. Organizational conflict management: 111 questions, 111 answers. M: Knizhnyi mir, 2007. (In Rus.)
16. A closer look at changing restrictions on religion. Web. 02.01.2020. https://www.pewforum.org/essay/a-closer-look-at-changing-restrictions-on-religion/. (In Engl.)
17. Beller, J., Kröger, C. Religiosity, religious fundamentalism, and perceived threat as predictors of Muslim support for extremist violence. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, no. 10, pp. 345–355, 2018. DOI.org/10.1037/rel00001381. (In Engl.)
18. Gavrilova, Y., Shchetkina, I., Liga, M. Gordeeva, N. Religious syncretism as a sociocultural factor of social security in cross-border regions. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 231–245, 2018. (In Engl.)
19. Green, T. H. The fear of Islam: an introduction to Islamophobia in the West. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019. (In Engl.)
20. Heene, P. S., Klocek, J. Taming the Gods: How Religious Conflict Shapes State Repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 63, issue 1, 2019. DOI.org/10.1177/0022002717728104 (In Engl.)
21. Milstein, G., Manierre, A., Yali, A. M. Psychological care for persons of diverse religions: A collaborative continuum. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, no. 41, pp. 371–381, 2010. DOI.org/10.1037/a0021074. (In Engl.)
22. Mkrtumova, I., Dosanova, A., Karabulatova, I., Nifontov, V. The use of communication technologies to oppose political-religious terrorism as an ethno-social deviation in the contemporary information-digital society. Central Asia and the Caucasus, vol. 17, issue 2, pp. 54–61, 2016. (In Engl.) |
