But who is, and why, bothered by these lectures?
Could it really be that "ordinarily dressed young men and women" attend our lectures at the Mechanical Engineering Department? Could it really be that so many twenty-year-olds attend our lectures? Could it really be that "the same youthful audience, of normal appearance, for which it would be more appropriate to spend this time in a cinema or a café" does not show signs of boredom even after ninety minutes of a lecture? Therefore, the problem is that these topics are making inroads among ordinarily dressed people, among youth who besides visiting cafes and cinemas also go to the church and visit lectures with national topics, instead of "expressing boredom" when it comes to God, morality and traditional national values.
Is there no other solution than to portray visitors of such lectures as "visitors from the mediaeval times"? It is only unclear which mediaeval times the author was referring to: those of the Spanish inquisition, Bartholomean night or Crusades (leaving aside other more recent achievements of the Western European civilization, such as the French guillotine and Nazi gas chambers), or from the age of despot Stefan Lazarevic, who initiated renaissance before Italy, or other Serb centuries under Turkish occupation?
And just consider the consternation in the face of the fact that bishop Porfirije replies to questions as "any other educated secular person - by promoting tolerance and personal choice". Bishop's assertion that "eighty or ninety percent of saints, if one paid attention to their moral purity during their whole life, instead of their later acceptance of God, would be ejected from the Church calendar", can easily be confirmed by consulting descriptions of saints' lives. But precisely that acceptance of God, or repentance is the point of human life. And precisely in that acceptance of God one finds the essence of the spiritual renewal of the Serb youth, which in turn inspires fear in the followers of those ideologies for whom God has died a longtime ago.
How dare they, I paraphrase the author,to address topics that only we are permitted to discuss: "Church as the core of the nation", "Radovan Karadzic", "Eastern Orthodox response to feminism", "Eastern Orthodoxy and war"... That Eastern Orthodox worldview is impermissible, especially at the University, the spot where "during the day laws of science rule".
Finally, has it occurred to anyone that such an analysis of the phenomenon of Dveri can pass without the old canard, out of context accusations of anti-Semitism? Serbs are probably the last nation in the world that can be accused of anti-Semitism. We are convinced that there are more anti-Semites among Jews than among Serbs. We are also certain that no other nation in the world has forgiven so many crimes and genocides carried out by occupiers, let alone "brothers" and "allies". But, in order to address such slanderous accusations that always stand at the ready, we published in our magazine analytical paper by Vladimir Dimitrijevic about incredibly close relations between Serbs and Jews through history (Dveri Srpske, issue 11/12, Vidovdan [June] 2001), as well as the opinion of one of the younger Serbian bishops, bishop Grigorije, who is convinced that there is no chance that Serbs show enmity towards Jews. Bishop Grigorije says: "if anything comes out of that, it can only be compassion [for Jews]" (Dveri Srpske, Issue 3/2004, page 20.)
The anger at the fact that such lectures have been held regularly over the last few years on the premises of the officially autonomous Belgrade University is fully expected. Naturally, we immediately get questions about "the ban on all political and religious activities at the University". It makes even more sense to add the question about "the true role of the Mechanical Engineering Department as the host and the fact that the dean himself addressed an assembly of Eastern orthodox youth". "They were even allowed to organize at the same University the first Assembly of Serbian Orthodox Youth at the Belgrade University since 1944!" Just consider that outrage: a Serbian University opens up its premises to Serbian youth to organize lectures addressing Serbian topics?!? And how politically incorrect is the dean who fails to ban those lectures! (The very same dean offered others, if they desire so, to use the premises of the Mechanical Engineering Department. However, one wonders what the attendance of such lectures would be.)
If you have forgotten that Serbia was ruled for fifty years by Communism, the article must have reminded you of its mode of thinking. The only difference is that these were not the words of Communists but of Liberal Democrats. Try to spot the difference between them when it comes to the Serb issue.
However, the University Act clearly states that "at the University and its Departments political, political party and religious education and activities are not permitted". It does not say anywhere that student or non-governmental activities, which applies to the activities of Dveri, are also banned. On the other hand, how come no one was bothered by political, political party and religious activities of the professors and students of the Belgrade University since 1990 as well as their copious use of "University resources"? The problem is that some would gladly fence off the Belgrade University from everything that is Serb and Eastern Orthodox. When a dean does not want to ban expression of free thought, he paradoxically violates the autonomy of the University. But that dean was an honorable man who responded to the Minister of Education by saying that "such calls did not happen at the Philology Department even at the peak of Communist rule". Therefore, it is not true that activities of Dveri were "ignored by the Ministry of Education", let alone by "academic tolerance" of our professors from the Philology Department, especially given that we questioned many cultural and political idols from Dositej Obradovic to the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS). It is enough to mention the glorious example of freedom at the Philology Department where our lectures were banned once the number of visitors exceeded one thousand.
The biggest problem of the lectures at the Mechanical Engineering Department is no different than the problem we faced at the Department of Philology: it hides in the fact that "the hall that normally seats 700 was overflowing so that the audience spread over the stairs, stage and floor" as well as the fact that "this organization has managed for already four years what many local politicians can only dream of - to regularly gather at one place more than a thousand supporters". What a paradox for Liberal Democrats! Numbers and public support are crucial for democracy, unless those numbers and public support Serbs. Or, as has been said on one occasion: media attention, financial support and institutional support should be focused on those topics that interest modern students and youth, but that is not the case because those interests are rejected by the ideologists of the New Age. Here numbers have no importance. On the other hand, all media attention, financial support and institutional support are focused on those whose activities meet with marginal interest.
The biggest problem is that magazine Dveri Srpske as well as the lectures at the Mechanical Engineering Department, addressing "eternal questions" provide "not at all naïve answers". This lack of spiritual, cultural and political naivete among the youth is the biggest problem for tireless creators of denazification since Josip Broz Tito's rule until today.
How can such an organization, without any offices and financial support organize most popular lectures in Belgrade? And we, with plentiful resources, large budgets, donations, offices, salaries and total media support remain on the margins of the interests of modern youth. And really, how can Dveri achieve all that? How did they get the seed money for the first issue?
How could have we failed? Didn't we clean up every mention of Serbdom with Milosevic? What was our mistake? Did we not offer everything to our youth? How can it be that so many young men and women, after everything, still show interest in such topics? Who is to blame?
The only liberal democratic and freedom loving answer is: "Those who allowed that in 1999 and still haven't banned it".
The author is editor in chief of the magazine Dveri Srpske. This article is his response to the article Academic Self-denial, published in Vreme.