Choice from the devil: why "smart voting" is evil

Yakov Krotov, priest

People ask me - is it a betrayal to pretend that you are not Orthodox, but an unbeliever (or not a Jew, but a Muslim, or not a Muslim, but a Buddhist) - to save your life? But human life is above all?

Hypocrisy for survival is a very old practice. Usually this is practiced unconsciously, without summing up the theoretical basis.

I have personally come across this phenomenon in the form of Vatican guile, "holy lies." For example, at the beginning of the twentieth century, when a Russian Orthodox priest wanted to become a Catholic, the Catholic bishop ordered him not to transfer, to serve as before, just mentally add “and the Holy Father” while praying for the authorities. At that time, "seduction" from Orthodoxy to any other confession or religion was a criminal offense, a bishop can be understood.

In an even milder, but also more widespread form, this phenomenon is in “smart voting”.

Strictly speaking, any voting in Russia since 1991 is “smart”. That is, the crafty one. Until 1989, elections were generally fictitious, with no alternative. The only thing was that one could try not to walk on them, but even for that one could suffer.

Since 1989, alternative candidates have emerged, but there have never been truly free elections - freedom of elections must be backed up by an independent judiciary and a free economy, and the Kremlin has been keeping a close watch to ensure that nothing of the kind exists in the country. There was always a choice of two evils. The greatest evil was always carefully preparing for itself a sparring partner, who seemed to be an even greater evil. Gorbachev or Ligachev, Gorbachev or Yeltsin, Yeltsin or Zyuganov ... Putin or Zyuganov ... Zyuganov turned out to be a very cool Nanai boy, the expiration date will never expire.

There is no betrayal in such craftiness. This is a violation of the commandment about an oath, which prescribes not to lie about oneself (and the prohibition of perjury prescribes not to lie about another). Note that both prohibitions are not against betrayal. Judas sinned by saying the pure truth about Jesus: he is there and there.

There is no betrayal, there is something worse: anti-communication. A traitor is still something definite, with contours. This is bad communication, but communication.

Crafty destroys the crafty one. You never know who you are dealing with. In front of you is a cloud in pants (or in a skirt, or in a kilt). It is much worse - like a watch that does not rush and does not stand, but simply without hands.

In a way, such a crafty one is dead. Even worse: he's a zombie. He imitates life, but this imitation kills life not only in him (he seems to be alive), but in others.

If you will, the deceitful is the Antichrist. Only Christ can save from him, who does not cunning in the least and does not advise others. And the fact that there were and are cunning Christians is a pity.

So can you lie to save your life? Or dissembling for the sake of a career?

So everyone decides for himself. Passing a decision onto another is a typically crafty behavior when a person refuses to be a participant in communication.

PS

Continuing on deceit / betrayal. Is the person who tells the German occupier that he does not harbor a Jew, although he does, is he cunning? Is he lying? Betrays the ideal of honesty and communication openness?

No.

Communication has a purpose, which is indicated in the very name of the process. "Communication" is the creation of a community. If the conversation is aimed at murder, then this conversation is anti-communication. That is why Judas, having told the truth, broke off communication, communication. Such betrayal - betrayal, telling the truth, there is a lot of truth and nothing but the truth - nothing aimed at creating community and solidarity - such betrayal is extremely abundant in the world. At all levels of life. Although life is not limited to them - if only betrayal filled life, life would quickly end.

Original here