No, I will not write in Russian, noone reads in this case.
First, I want to agree with two inputs from my friends Benoit and Tobias. I wanted to write it myself but they were more rapid. One is about "checking" every morning - and it is visible that people are discriminated - for example I never seen any Orthodox priests being cheacked, but in the same time young lay people are checked really detailed.
Second is Greetings from Russia by Rabbi Zinoviy Kogan. It was something I couldn't really stand to hear. It was about Chechnya and its very good President Kadyrov and very new beautiful city of Grozny. It is new because it was ruined! I was really shocked! While question of human rights and religious freedom in Russia and Belarus are hidden in this Assembly, some "guests" are preaching such things! How is it possible? Do KEK and CCEE really concerned about human rights and religious freedom issues?
Sorry for a lot of emotions, people. But what can I say more? At the same moment while I spend very pleasent time at this safe and silent assembly my friends in Belarus are arrested, prosecuted by KGB, fined only for praying together, reading Bible together at their flats, my spiritual father is banned from serving because he raised his voice for religious freedom in Belarus. What can I say? Input from Rabbi Kogan sounds like a mockery.
Of course, Chechnya is not a problem any more. Of course, Belarus is not a problem.
You speak about Christian roots and European identity, but closing eyes while you brothers and sisters in the same continent suffer has nothing in common with Christian roots and European identity.
And I will return from this marvellous event and I can be checked at Belarusian customs much more detailed than it is here. Moreover, the laptop I write you from can be confiscated from me in the train at night 11.09. - it is very usual practice in the country. Here I presented myself as Syndesmos regional representative for Central Europe, but I can be arrested in Belarus because of that: acting on behalf of unregistered organization is an offence. When I want to share with my brothers and sisters in Belarus about the results of the Assembly and invite them at my place to drink some tea together, I can be fined for having unregistered religious event in private house. And then when I look from my window I will see "New Life" Full Gospel church building which is being withdrown from the community because it is former cattle-farm. You know, I can't sleep well at night, when view from my window shous me suffering of my brothers protestants. I am concerned. It is very near. I hear their voices.
European Christians, maybe you can look from your window and see your neighbour Belarus? Maybe you can tune your ears to hear voices of prosecuted Christians? Only then I will believe that Christ of light shines upon Europe and Christians Churches still are able to see this Light.
Showing posts with label programme. Show all posts
Showing posts with label programme. Show all posts
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Is participation something active or something passive?
Looking into the detailed programme of the Assembly, written in the delegates’ handbook, you can find that at the end of the week there shall be an Assembly message with the general outcomes, with objectives the European churches want to achieve in the next years and with plans for some concrete action. Naturally, such a message should be developed in a democratic way. According to Colin Williams, the General Secretary of CEC, this will happen: The process leading to the message will be “as democratic as possible”.
The handbook where all necessary information is written down (unfortunately not available on the internet) gives another picture:
1. The Assembly has no rules of procedure. Written rules are already common in commissions with 10 members to guarantee an outcome. But how to manage an Assembly with more than 2.000 members? How is it possible to agree on a Assembly message, if nobody knows, in which way? It’s a mystery. OK, it’s not that easy. It’s impossible that every delegate can express his position on the stage. It’s impossible to satisfy every delegate and to consider every individual argument. But: If there is the aim to incorporate delegates contributions, we should know, in which way.
2. The only thing we know is that there will be a message committee. That’s all. All other important information are unknown: Who are the members of the committee? Are there some delegates within? May we elect the members, or may we at least elect some additional members? If we had this information, we could prepare some committee candidates, or we could address to the members some contributions. But we cannot.
My conclusion: The whole process is behind a veil of ignorance. Intransparency rules, and not transparency as one of the main conditions for participation.
3. On Saturday evening one part of the programme (approximately 15 minutes) will be the “Presentation of the Assembly Message”. No decision, no voting, no affirmation. In combination with missing rules of procedure, there is only one possible conclusion. The delegates will not be asked about the final version of the message. This prognosis is even strengthened by the information, we got at the Assembly office: “There’s no voting, because there will be no decision.” But if we cannot vote – who are the decision makers? A small circle of people will decide on the contents of the message. Nevertheless, the message will be presented as a position of the whole assembly.
What is then participation? Is it about sitting there and listening speeches, lectures, greetings, addresses, and in the end they present you the result? Or is it far more? That was my main question when I saw the detailed programme.
In the foreword of the Assembly’s handbook, Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima and Bishop Vincenzo Paglia describe participation as “sharing, experiencing and enjoying the Assembly ecumenically”. Contributions of delegates or open discussions don’t find their place in this definition. Is the EEA3 then only a show which was already scripted before?
No, it won't, because this depends on the efforts of the delegates with an interest in higher partipation. I think that there are a couple of possibilities:
- Asking for more time of open discussion
- Asking for an election of the members of the message committee
- Asking for a voting on the Assembly message
- If there is no way to express the position within the programme, finding other places for opinion making and discussion (as for example this blog)
- Not waiting, but starting now to act
- ...
I’m sure, this will be a very interesting and spirited assembly.
The handbook where all necessary information is written down (unfortunately not available on the internet) gives another picture:
1. The Assembly has no rules of procedure. Written rules are already common in commissions with 10 members to guarantee an outcome. But how to manage an Assembly with more than 2.000 members? How is it possible to agree on a Assembly message, if nobody knows, in which way? It’s a mystery. OK, it’s not that easy. It’s impossible that every delegate can express his position on the stage. It’s impossible to satisfy every delegate and to consider every individual argument. But: If there is the aim to incorporate delegates contributions, we should know, in which way.
2. The only thing we know is that there will be a message committee. That’s all. All other important information are unknown: Who are the members of the committee? Are there some delegates within? May we elect the members, or may we at least elect some additional members? If we had this information, we could prepare some committee candidates, or we could address to the members some contributions. But we cannot.
My conclusion: The whole process is behind a veil of ignorance. Intransparency rules, and not transparency as one of the main conditions for participation.
3. On Saturday evening one part of the programme (approximately 15 minutes) will be the “Presentation of the Assembly Message”. No decision, no voting, no affirmation. In combination with missing rules of procedure, there is only one possible conclusion. The delegates will not be asked about the final version of the message. This prognosis is even strengthened by the information, we got at the Assembly office: “There’s no voting, because there will be no decision.” But if we cannot vote – who are the decision makers? A small circle of people will decide on the contents of the message. Nevertheless, the message will be presented as a position of the whole assembly.
What is then participation? Is it about sitting there and listening speeches, lectures, greetings, addresses, and in the end they present you the result? Or is it far more? That was my main question when I saw the detailed programme.
In the foreword of the Assembly’s handbook, Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima and Bishop Vincenzo Paglia describe participation as “sharing, experiencing and enjoying the Assembly ecumenically”. Contributions of delegates or open discussions don’t find their place in this definition. Is the EEA3 then only a show which was already scripted before?
No, it won't, because this depends on the efforts of the delegates with an interest in higher partipation. I think that there are a couple of possibilities:
- Asking for more time of open discussion
- Asking for an election of the members of the message committee
- Asking for a voting on the Assembly message
- If there is no way to express the position within the programme, finding other places for opinion making and discussion (as for example this blog)
- Not waiting, but starting now to act
- ...
I’m sure, this will be a very interesting and spirited assembly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)