Search articles

Astapov Sergey – Ph.D. of philosophy, associate professor. Southern federal university. Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation. National research nuclear university “MIFI”. Moscow, Russian Federation.

In modern Russia the actuality of constant observation, evaluation and forecasting of interethnic and interconfessional interaction is conditioned by modernization processes dynamism also including the spheres of ethnical and religious relations, despite of their existing inertial traditions potential. Ethno-confessional relations act as important constituents of the national security, as an ethnical so national factor often produce conflict and extremist moods. Not numerous theological community could play its positive role in conflict decreasing and conflicts precaution in the sphere of state-confessional relations, if state and religious organizations could see experts in theologians, whose conclusions are accepted in the quality of qualified recommendations, according to these or that social questions.
Two normative documents activated theologians-experts function: Federal law of RF from 27 of July 2002 No 114-FL “About extremist activity opposition” and Order of Justice Department of RF from 18 of February 2009 № 53 “About state theological expertise”. The first according to reli-gious organizations activity approved participation necessity of theologian specialist in materials expertise with extremism features, the second one – defined indispensable participation of scientists-theologians in activity of expert councils according to state religious expertise conducting under Justice Department of RF and its departments in the subjects of RF.
The participation of theologians in forensic examinations appeared to be a momentous event for theological society. Firstly, religious organizations representatives showed interest to this society. It was expressed in that religious organizations attorneys, the literature of whom was admitted to be extremist, became looking for such experts among theologians, who could ably perform on the defense side. Thirdly, religious expertise educed collisions in religious materials estimation, con-nected with difference of religious discourse material and secular discourse of society law-enforcement system. Such-like collisions led to the law-enforcement practice advance.
However preliminary examination from the religious community side is appeared to be more rational, than advance of normative acts in relation to religious unities activity in the wake of collisions appearing in law-enforcement practice. Theological expertise of legal norms, related to the religious unities activity, – is not the only sphere of state-confessional relations, where presence of theologians professional experience would be useful. Offers of physical and juridical persons act as religious expertise objects, besides the projects of regulatory act according to the questions of inter-confessional relations, containing in their appeals to the regulatory bodies, and also data of opinion polls and other monitoring events, mass media materials gathering according to the same questions. The role of religious expertise of such-like materials consists in clearing of their significance, and in a row of cases in – competence establishment from positions of religious discourse specificity, polyconfessional situation in secular (or post-secular) society.

Key words: religious expertise, regulations, multi-religious situation, the authorities, the media, the Russian Federation subjects.

Sergey N. Astapov – Ph.D. of philosophy, associate professor. Southern federal university. Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation.

It is considered adaptation ways of religious traditions in the contemporary Rus-sian society, which is characterized by powerful processes of globalization, social and cultural transformations. Three adaptation ways are stated in the article: modernization, conservation, archaization. Adaptation through modernization is expressed in “modernizing” the tradition: justifying its value for modern society, minimizing, but not denying the importance of those doctrinal principles that come into conflict with the new condi-tions of social life, the accentuation of those aspects of the doctrine that are consistent with these conditions. Religious cult is the main resource of adaptation through conservation. Other ways of conservation lie in a tie of a traditional religion with national self-consciousness and ethnic identity. Identification makes one turn to the religious tradition. Fundamentalism, social reality perception in strong dual system, “tribal” consciousness, when inclusion in some society is perceived as necessity to resist to the other societies, are considered to be the manifestation of archaization processes in religious traditions. It is stated that modernization, conservation and archaization form a contradiction unity in religious traditions. Religion adaptation towards conditions of the modern society is not possible through a single way; and one way insignificantly prevails over the others. A situation when one of them has obvious domination is a situation of tradition destruction as a result of transformations. Domination of modernization leads to essential transformations of dogmatic consciousness and destroys confessional tradition. Archaization opens access for fundamentalism, which is a ground for radical religious groups. Domination of conservation leads to stagnation, breaking of adaptation processes, then – to reformation through archaization and to exceeding the limits of the confessional paradigm.