Kirill (Gundyaev), patr. Spirituality, morality, law (From the speech at the round-table conference ‘Spirituality, Morality, Law’ at Moscow University of Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, Moscow, March 28, 2012)

215

SPIRITUALITY, MORALITY, LAW

From the speech at the round-table conference ‘Spirituality, Morality, Law’
at Moscow University of Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia,
Moscow, March 28,2012

The last part of my modest discourse is far from the least in importance. ‘Spirituality, Morality, Law.’ Perhaps you established this sequence of words knowing that you would have here the Patriarch, Mufti and Rabbi, so all this has to be included. In so doing, however, you have highlighted a great problem of philosophy and history: Law has always sought support from morality. Where laws are immoral, society rejects them.The latest example of protests against immoral laws is the protests against apartheid in South Africa.

Why have people always rejected immoral laws? Well, because there is such a thing as the moral nature of a man, which is a kind of moral consensus. People of faith respond to this phenomenon in the following way: God wanted man to have a moral nature. Non-believers try to explain it in terms of evolution or something else. They always stumble, though, as the logic always breaks down. I have said many times that Marxism-Leninism was a well-knit philosophical system that had a weak spot: this was the question of morality. The Marxists could not explain conscience and morality because this immediately took them into a very vulnerable area in which their arguments were easily refuted by their opponents.

This moral consensus has always been present in society. Look at what is said in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Human rights can be restricted if they contradict the moral constitution of society. All this presupposes the existence of a moral consensus.

216

However, today we are passing through a terrible time, which goes under the name of postmodern. From the religious perspective, this is something that brings us closer to a tragic end, when, for the first time in history, there is a loss of moral consensus. Today is thrust on the world the concept of absolute autonomy of the human individual, who determines for himself a system of moral values, and with no one can able to say that one system of moral values is worse than the other. Look at the debate over blasphemy in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour: ‘Why are you so upset? What’s wrong with that? There’s nothing wrong’

Most people in our society still adhere to the moral consensus, even though everything is done to destroy it.What laws will remain if our moral consensus is destroyed? Today a sense of moral values is the only foundation that is able to unite our society and, more importantly, humankind. This is the only thing that can unite and reconcile Russians and Americans, Africans and Latinos, if problems exist between them. Where there is a moral consensus, it leads to a common legislative system, which includes the protection of human rights, as was very well and clearly defined by the founding fathers of the U.N. So much time has passed since the creation of the U.N., but the moral factor that unified and consolidated the people who formulated this legislation has disappeared.

Let us consider the problem of so-called gender legislation. Today, adoption of gender laws has become almost a brand identity of the European Union. If your country is without gender legislation, you are not full-fledged Europeans .What does the adoption of gender laws mean? It is the rejection of the concept of biological gender. From now on, gender is a social phenomenon and a person can ‘design’ his or her gender. Are these laws based on the moral consensus that exists in society? They certainly are not. How are they adopted? By force, that is by pressure on public opinion through internet and television, by arm-twisting and intimidation.

So, if we break the link between spirituality, morality and law, we can forget the theme of police honesty. We can completely forget the theme of the viability of human society. People are talking today

217

about the future of human civilization. I do not know whether this is a suitable place to proclaim these ideas, but I proclaim them repeatedly and, with large numbers of people listening to us today, I’d like to announce this strongly enough for all to hear. What we are talking about is the very existence of human society and not at all about the existence of the police as an effective means of restraint.

For this reason we need first of all to make sure that laws are based on moral consensus.We must also make sure that we not only develop in our young people, including those about to enter the armed forces, a consciousness of law and legality but also provide them with moral and spiritual training that can develop immunity, thus providing ‘respirators’ that enable people to enter areas of increased risk of infection without infecting themselves and their loved ones. Without such training, neither salary increases nor lie detectors will be of use.

I emphasize that this problem must be solved by us together. That includes the leadership of the law-enforcement agencies, and the best part of your employees - who of course think about all this - and the representatives of traditional religions, and our community, and the outstanding representatives of our scientific, cultural and educational institutions.Together, on the basis of moral consensus, we can change the moral state of our society for the better and influence the situation in the law-enforcement agencies.