Author: Georgi Lozanov
DV: Why has the proposal to include religion as a mandatory subject in our school arisen again right now, and with particular insistence - is this part of the conservative wave that has risen worldwide after Trump's election for a second term?
Prof. Kalin Yanakiev: Not even Trump, but rather Putin can be suspected of having influenced it. But let me say first that I have been a church-going Orthodox Christian for four decades and I am not against students having basic knowledge of religion, including the confessional religion of Orthodoxy. To give them knowledge about the history of the church and the confessions and then eventually about the temple, about the sacraments of the church, about the church hierarchy, about the laity, about the attitude of Christianity towards individual communities…
However, students could also receive all this in history and literature classes, so I cannot say for sure that this knowledge should be taught in a separate subject. Probably, here there can and should be disputes and an exchange of arguments in an expert environment, but what deeply worries me is the casionalization of the topic. From there, the debate installs the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as casional, which is absolutely contraindicated for any church. It attracts to itself only when it stands apart from the casional political scene. With the arousal of the debate on religious education and even with the very name of the subject "Virtues and Religion" The Bulgarian Orthodox Church entered the political arena and began to provoke oppositions in society that did not arise from it.
DV: You are talking about political oppositions - what do they consist of, between whom and whom?
Prof. Kalin Yanakiev: Look who was at the so-called round table or broad public discussion of the issue at the Ministry of Education. Above all, political figures were gathered, especially those colored by the so-called new conservatism, including representatives of the GERB party and of active nationalist organizations that have dropped out of parliament, odious political figures such as the chairman of "Attack" Volen Siderov, creators of kitschy-patriotic spectacles like the one in Pliska by Plamen Plamenov Miryanov, GERB supporters like Haralan Aleksandrov, who was assigned to moderate the discussion, and at the same time senior representatives of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
DV: Does the defense of religious education "by right" fall to the new conservatism, as you define it, and to which in our country nationalists belong first and foremost, and they are primarily Russian proxies? And at the same time, should its opponents by default be exponents of liberal democracy?
Prof. Kalin Yanakiev: I am not sure that its opponents are supporters of liberal democracy, but undoubtedly things are stylized just like that. And more precisely, everyone who has something against pro-Russian politicians is also pointed out as opponents of religious education. Let me give you an example of myself again - although I am a staunch supporter of liberal democracy, I have been a church Christian for four decades, as are a number of representatives of the parliamentary liberal-democratic parties. However, this is hardly widely known to society, because it should not be advertised.
But here's what happens... I watched the march in defense of the introduction of "Virtues and Religion", which was held with the blessing of the Holy Synod and was organized again by the odious figure of Plamen Miryanov and Kristian Shkvarek. It was held to the accompaniment of brass bands that performed some marches, at the forefront they carried icons and it was strewn with Bulgarian national flags - never mind that Christianity is a supranational religion, and I even noticed Samara flags... And this march was presented as a protest on top of everything. Against whom? Against the current Ministry of Education, which has the will to introduce this subject? Apparently, the protest was against the exponents of liberal democracy.
Therefore, the real danger that I see is not that our children will be indoctrinated into Orthodoxy or that the rights of atheists are being violated, but that our society is being divided exactly according to the Russian model. All the casion supporters of the state and the authorities are Orthodox, and all those who criticize them are unbelievers. And this division is allowed by the BOC clergy, which is increasingly radicalizing the opponents of the mandatory study of religion. I must admit that a few days ago, when they also went to some protest, there were posters and cartoons completely in the spirit of early Bolshevik anti-religion.
Let's put it bluntly: the church cannot count on attracting believers with lessons in school and in general with the help and assistance of the state. It has been free for 36 years and if our children are not oriented about what it is, what the temple is, what religion is, etc., the main fault lies not with the school, but with the church itself.
DV: Unlike in Russia, however, in our country the relationship of the church is not necessarily with the state authorities, but with the unregulated ones, which also seek indulgences from their proximity to the higher clergy. This proximity, for example, is most strongly demonstrated by GERB and their leader, regardless of whether they are in government or not.
Prof. Kalin Yanakiev: That's right, although GERB in particular has practically always been in power for decades. But at the moment we are not even observing an alliance with them, but with those who claim to be nationalist Russophile parties and movements. The goal is the already mentioned stylization: identifying the Orthodox with Russophiles, and those who oppose Russian dependencies - with atheists and liberals. The current opposition conservatives-liberals is powerfully exploited by Russian propaganda and goes through the renewed debate on religious education…
DV: In this way, it deviates from its essence and falsifies it, so that the virtues tacitly offered for children to study coincide with the "traditional values" waved by Russian propaganda and loaded with a politically convenient meaning.
Prof. Kalin Yanakiev: The very name of the subject "Virtues and Religion" is highly problematic, because it suggests that virtues are always religious, which is obviously not the case. And virtues are not educated in lessons at all, but in a much more intimate environment. I would call the hope that teaching virtues will make our children virtuous downright foolish.
Therefore, my participation in this debate is very restrained and focuses precisely on what you are asking me about right now - how much the educational content corresponds to its own subject and how much it is Russian propaganda. I have reviewed textbooks for grades 10 and 11, proposed by the Holy Synod with a team of authors: associate professor from VTU Svilen Tutekov, professor from the same university Magdalena Legkostup and ten-year synodal official Desislava Panayotova. What is being studied there - a lesson on globalization, for example, is this knowledge of religion? And it says that it is precisely traditional values and traditional communities that are being destroyed, and with them Christian values.
Theologians should remember that in the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle it is said that there is no longer any Jew, no Greek, no slave, no freeman, but all are one in Christ and Jesus, which should be interpreted rather as the root of globalization. Traditional communities, if the authors of the textbook want to know, began to be destroyed by the apostles and that is precisely why they were persecuted - they created from the ethnic groups of that time one non-ethnic, supra-ethnic people of God.
I also read another lesson - about consumer culture, which has been coming, you see, from the West since the end of World War II. The lesson is equipped with a picture, jokingly presenting the evolution of man from a monkey, who gradually stands up and nowadays turns into a barcode on a commodity. These are truly one hundred percent Russian props.
So, if I am going to fight for something, it is not whether or not this subject should be included in the curriculum, but how exactly and what will be studied. If the content is the same as in these two or three textbooks, proposed by the Holy Synod, I am completely against it.
DV: Doesn't what you say about the textbooks confirm the suspicion that the goal is not for children to be religiously educated, but for them to be raised in Euroscepticism and anti-Western attitudes from an early age?
Prof. Kalin Yanakiev: I cannot be sure that this is the goal, but the proposed textbooks may lead to the realization of precisely such a goal, which, frankly speaking, is in accordance with the Eurasian ideology. Because I don't see what religious knowledge has to do with condemning globalization and consumer culture, or with the cries for secularization that separates religion from the state, etc.
DV: In the modern secularized world, students and their parents should at least have the freedom to choose for themselves which religion to study - but how can this be done? If they are Muslims - there is practice, but what will happen if they are, say, Seventh-day Adventists?
Prof. Kalin Yanakiev: The thing is that if we introduce confessionally colored teaching of religion, every confession could have claims, which would lead the idea to absurdity. And for this reason, it is best for this subject to be elective. The firm intention of the Ministry of Education to introduce it as mandatory, in addition to facing incredible challenges, also provokes a deep division in society.