|
Post by c0gnate on Nov 30, 2007 12:02:47 GMT -5
Ca să parafrazez un clasic: c0gnate, ce-ai păţit de te-ai făcut aşa războinic? It's an accident of birth. Specifically, I was born in Serbia.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 30, 2007 12:10:43 GMT -5
why aren't they recognized as Romanians? or why don't they feel like Romanians Mythic?
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Nov 30, 2007 13:04:54 GMT -5
why aren't they recognized as Romanians? or why don't they feel like Romanians Mythic? The main reason is the absence of education. How would you feel about Romanians if you had never read a Romanian poem, a Romanian children's tale or a Romanian novel? What if you had never seen a Romanian book? What if you couldn't make out half of what you heard on Romanian TV? Because half of the words used in Romanian media are neologisms introduced during the last century. What if you had never heard of Decebal? What if the only reference to Trajan was from a folk tale claiming he had the ears of a goat (U Cara Trojana kozje usi)? What if your head was filled with invented stories of the great Kraljevic Marko, fake defender of Serbs and Christians from the Turks? What if you didn't know that Marko in reality fought FOR the Turks, as did so-called Tsar Lazar's son, Stevan Lazarevic? What if you never heard of Mircea, who slew Kraljevic Marko in battle at Rovine? What if you didn't know that many local churches were built by medieval Romanian rulers? What if the media attributed local Roman ruins to mythic Serbian heroes? What if your teacher in kindergarden had instructed you to "speak Serbian, so the whole world can understand you" (Govori srpski da te ceo svet razume)? What if your teachers told you that your own language can't be written? What if you were held back one year in order to learn Serbian? What if your priest refused to baptize your baby with a non Serbian name? What if that treatment lasted generation after generation for nearly two centuries?
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 30, 2007 13:37:23 GMT -5
I understand the true drama of our own brothers Romanians who were sold by traitors from all the Gov. from the last 200 years.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 30, 2007 13:38:14 GMT -5
I'm now happy if you're in Romania Mythic, our only true Romanian here.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 30, 2007 13:58:17 GMT -5
Nonsense. There are Orthodox Serbian and Orthodox Romanian churches across the street from each other in many towns in Vojvodina. Not to mention a Serbian Orthodox bishop in Timisoara with full responsibility for the Orthodox Serbs living in Romania. Necause an agreement exists betweeen the too churches regarding Banat. No agreement exists for eastern Serbia. No agreement exists between the two churches for ROC's in the area. The first time I heard of this issue was in 2006. If he applied two years earlier it would mean he applied in 2004. Because it occured before the law regulation religions/religous places came into effect his application was not valid. They called themselves Vlachs since the 1800s when the first censuses in Serbia were held. The Serbian government categorized all Aroumanians (Cincars), Romanians and Vlachs as one group. The current situation where vlachs are not recognized as Romanians exists due to post-WWII Communist propaganda meant to lay claim to areas of Bulgaria and Romania (Tito had irredentist views on Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Austria). The reason they do not have their own media, schools and religion in their own language was because Serbian authorities never recognized Vlachs as a national minority. Like I said before. The Serbian government this summer recognized Vlachs and Romanians as being one group. If Kostunica's government follows Serbian laws that means next school year the Vlachs should have their own media subsidised by the state (currently they have the right to private media in their language, since they are recognized as a state protected minority the Serbian government must under the law finance all minority media), schools. Religion is another issue -- they can have their own church if an agreement is reached between the Serbian and Romanian churches (this is outside the authority of the state to intervene in this issue).
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 30, 2007 14:06:18 GMT -5
You exagerrate or tell half-truths threw out your post. I agree their is a problem with the teaching of Vlachs in East Serbia but nearly everything you say is a half-truth. This particular post is total b.s., Roman ruins are not claimed as being Serb ruins. Where did you get this idea.
What about the treatment lasting two centuries. The treatment has mianly lasted post-1945 due to irredentist designs of the CPY.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Nov 30, 2007 15:11:31 GMT -5
No. The issue is whether or not Serbia is a modern country, with separation of church from the state. If Serbia were a modern state, no church of one denomination would dream of claiming authority over another. Nor would the police place members of another church under surveillance as they gather for church services. You haven't heard of it until 2006? I guess it's because you get your information from the Serb media. Here, take a look at this: Aleksandrovic built the small church and adjoining parish house last year on his private property and began using it for worship in the autumn. On 4 December 2004, Bishop Daniil (Stoenescu) – who heads the Romanian diocese in Serbia - dedicated the church bells. Aleksandrovic was obliged to build without planning permission because this area is defined in law as rural not urban, so the authorities are not able to give any planning permission and therefore all houses in the village have been built without any permission. Yet on 20 January 2005, Negotin council (to whose jurisdiction the village belongs) issued Aleksandrovic with an order to demolish the church, the belfry and the parish house within 15 days. He was allowed to challenge the ruling in court.
Aleksandrovic initially tried to seek building permission, approaching Negotin council in November 2003 (which failed to respond for several months). Rajko Korica, deputy Minister of Capital Investments, eventually wrote to Aleksandrovic in April 2004 informing him he should contact the Religion Ministry to get building permission. However, the Religion Ministry responded that it is not authorised to issue such permission and that this must come from the local authorities (in this case Negotin council). However, it said approval must first be gained from the Serbian Orthodox diocese in which the place of worship is to be built. Since Malajnica is in the Serbian Timok diocese, Aleksandrovic in effect needed permission from Serbian Bishop Justin (Stefanovic).www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=523I repeat, in a modern country the bishop of one church does not have authority over the affairs of another. In a modern country people are free to choose what church they go to, and if there isn't one they like, they are free to build their own. The coercive power of the state, and by that I mean the batons, the guns or the bulldozers of the police are not to be used to enforce any particular religion. Hogwash. The Vlachs of Northeast Serbia were called Rumanians in official Serbian censuses until the end of WWI. After that they were called Vlachs and lumped together with the other Latin-speakers of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later to be called Yugoslavia. Have you never heard of Miloseva Kula (Milosh's Tower), on top of which is the ruin of a Roman fort located right in the middle of the Vlach region, but for which the media repeat stories that it was built by Milosh Obilich? Mind you, there's no evidence whatsover that he, his mother, or the so-called Tsar Lazar Hrebeljanovic and his so-called Tsaritsa Militsa ever set foot there. My friend, I won't accuse of exaggerating or of intentionally spreading half-truths and B.S. I do accuse you of being uninformed.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Nov 30, 2007 16:13:17 GMT -5
there was a real drama to all Romanians from Timok valley..
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 30, 2007 17:22:21 GMT -5
I guess then by your logic Australia is not a modern state since Australia the former PM has said mosques and all religions should be under some surveillance -- so that the state knows what they are preaching.
I guess by your logic England and Finland are not modern states. Both are members of the EU and in both specific churches are named as state churches.
Under Serbian law Orthodox Churches can be present only if their presence is allowed under Orthodox law. A Romanian churhc is allowed in Banat due to agreement between SOC and ROC. That agreement those not extend to the Timok region.
Maybe, I didn't read the newspaper and the new extenisvely until relatively recently.
furthermore. All this article confirms is that the application was not submitted in accordance iwth the law on religion and that even if it was sumbitted after a law on religion was formed the church could not be build as the ROC wouldnot have jurisdiciton in E. Serbia.
Again. The church was not build as it is in violation of Orthodox church law. The Vlachs/Romanians (whatever you want to call them) are free to build any church so long as it is not an Orthodox Church.
Hogwash. People from Timok area have called themselves Vlachs in some number since the first censuses in Serbia in the 1800s. It is only in 1945 that the groups were listed seperately.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 30, 2007 17:24:06 GMT -5
I have heard that claim made once. Not by a reliable paper and I didn't believe it. I am not misniformed. Their might be some media making such claims but most likely they will be some fringe media.
If your going to start talking about that then I may as well talk about claims made by Vlachs/Romanians. That their are a million of them and that Tito wasn't a Slav but a vlach.
Then of course the claim that they were going to launch an insurgency in 2002.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Nov 30, 2007 18:30:49 GMT -5
Good luck with your personal freedom Down Under, mate. Today the Muslims, tomorrow the Serbs. Prove it. I read the connection to Milos Obilic in an article devoted to the Vlach region, published a few months ago in the Sunday supplement of the Serbian newspaper of record, Politika. If Politika is fringe, what is mainstream for you? www.politika.co.yu/Why do you suppose they call it Miloseva Kula on the map? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pore%C4%8Dka_River
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Nov 30, 2007 18:45:51 GMT -5
Wrong. They are violating the Serbian Orthodox Church law. They should be free to do so if they don't claim to be Serbian Orthodox.
Or is Bishop Justin claiming universal authority over all Orthodox believers?
|
|
yeni
Moderator
gulash freak
Posts: 327
|
Post by yeni on Nov 30, 2007 20:20:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 30, 2007 20:54:49 GMT -5
That's because it's a lie. ?That article exists. There hower does exist a law that says any Orthodox Church in Serbia must operate under the canonical law of the Orthodox church.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 30, 2007 20:58:55 GMT -5
Politika articles appear on thbe internet. I searched their site on google and no reference to Miloseva Kula appears on their website. I did find a couple of website claiming that Miloseva Kula is connected to Obilic, howevewr there were more websites claiming that the place is of Roman origin.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 30, 2007 21:09:08 GMT -5
Wrong. They are violating the Serbian Orthodox Church law. They should be free to do so if they don't claim to be Serbian Orthodox. Or is Bishop Justin claiming universal authority over all Orthodox believers? Actually. They're vioilating Orthodox law. Serbia is under the jursdiction of the Serbian church unless it reaches an agreement with a legitimate Orthodox Church stating otherwise. An agreement regarding Banat exists. Eastern Serbia is not covered by this agreement. Serbian Orthodox Church has no right to be present except in specific areas of Romania in which agreement with Romanian Orthodox Church has been agreed and vice versa. Furthermore. By your logic Romania is not a modern state since Romania supports the Ro0manian Orthodox Church in it's dispute with the Moldovan Church (i.e. Metropolis of Chisinau and Moldova).
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Nov 30, 2007 21:15:38 GMT -5
My mistake, Yeniceri01. After searching I see that it's not in the current constitution. Thank you for pointing that out. However, with regards to the operation of non-Serbian Orthodox churches as well as certain other Evangelical churches in Serbia, the Serbian government, despite its constitutional obligation to represent its citizens in a secular fashion, has routinely taken the side of the Serbian Orthodox Church: While a Serbian Orthodox church is being built in Lovcenac in northern Vojvodina, the local authority's allocation of land in the same village to build a Montenegrin Orthodox church sparked an immediate response from Serbia's religion minister, Milan Radulovic. He claimed that as an unregistered religious community, the Montenegrin Church does not exist, adding that the government has a duty to stop it and the Macedonian Orthodox Church building any places of worship in Serbia. The head of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, Archbishop Mihailo, condemned what he called "arrogant behaviour on the part of Serbia", pointing out to Forum 18 News Service that the Serbian Orthodox Church operates unhindered in Montenegro. The Serbian government has tried to exclude or restrict all other Orthodox communities, including the Romanian Orthodox, the Old Calendarist Orthodox, the Macedonian Orthodox and the Montenegrin Orthodox.www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=648What I should have said was that the post-Tito, post-Milosevic Serbian government has a hard time respecting, and sometimes is outright violating, the nominal Serbian constitution. Old habits die hard.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Nov 30, 2007 21:21:17 GMT -5
Politika articles appear on thbe internet. I searched their site on google and no reference to Miloseva Kula appears on their website. I did find a couple of website claiming that Miloseva Kula is connected to Obilic, howevewr there were more websites claiming that the place is of Roman origin. I never said ALL Serbs were maniacs.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 30, 2007 21:29:52 GMT -5
Every constitution since 1945 made no mention of the orthodox church. I haven't read the pre-1945 ones so I can't comment.
First of all. The law on religion is not in violation of the constitution. Those churches are not registered (ROC in Banat is exception).
Two. The Romanian Orthodox Church can freely operate in the Banat, but not in Eastern Serbia unless an agreement is reached betweem the ROC and the SOC.
Third. As I've stated before ?Orthodox churches can only operate under the law. The ROC operates in Banat as it should under the law. The ROC is registered as a minority religion. Howerver, the Macedonian Orthodox Church, Old Calendarists and Montenegrin Orthodox Churches are not recognized as legal and canonical Orthodox Churches by any legitimate Orthodox Church in the world. They cannot operate in Serbia in any way shape or form.
Fourth. Evangelicals operate without registering the law clearly states all religions must be registered. If those evangelical churches register it must mean that their validity as a church ais questionable -- i.e. they operate like a corporation like so-called "megachurches" in the U.S. do.
|
|