Flouting.
Flouting, indeed!
Posted on 08/22/2012 4:31:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
If Justin Bieber or the Rolling Stones suddenly decided to stage an impromptu concert in a public place somewhere in America without a permit, would the authorities ignore it and shrug it off? Doubtful. Even buskers performing in the New York City subway system can't play without formal authorization from the city.
What about taking such a musical performance into a church? If Jennifer Lopez or Madonna just showed up in a place of worship, stripped down to their skivvies and started dancing around the altar, would that fly in any Western democracy? Not likely.
So why, then, are three young women in Russia getting so much sympathy from the mainstream media for doing precisely this inside a Russian Orthodox church?
Last week, three members of the activist group Pussy Riot were each sentenced to two years in prison for hooliganism motivated by religious hatred. The group's members are part of a larger protest group called Voina, which has previously been involved in various acts of public nuisance, including group sex in a museum and shoplifting a whole chicken from a supermarket by stuffing into an activist's lady parts.
Voina and Pussy Riot are the Russian version of the Occupy Wall Street protest crowd. Their modus operandi is to use "art" in its various forms as a cover for acting like jerks and flaunting police warnings. They exploit the sentiment that artists worldwide generally should be given more behavioral license than the general public because they've historically pushed the boundaries of free expression.
One would hope that the public is able to tell the difference between Pussy Riot and, say, Voltaire -- who was thrown into a French prison for criticizing government and the Catholic Church in his extensive body of writing. Voltaire's career was writing, while Pussy Riot's entire career consists of hooliganism with a sprinkling of poor-quality "music" thrown in. Voltaire published several novels, plays, poems and essays, and in doing so, just happened to tick off the powers that be. Pussy Riot hasn't even recorded an album. Their credibility as artists is poorly established, unlike their activist background.
Boiled down, the Pussy Riot case is just another example of the social media generation's demand for instant gratification and attention in the absence of any sustained hard work. The protesters chose the shallowest form of subversion possible, their rationale apparently being that by doing a lewd can-can-girl number in a church, they can successfully overturn the government of a G8 country. That's some serious stoner logic.
The longer game of subversion would have required them to spend years working to get into a key position within the power structure, then influencing and subverting the system to change what they don't like. The effects of such an effort would have been more organic, credible and durable.
Or, at the very least, they could have practiced for several years to hone their "art" in the event that they were serious about being artists and not just serious about being hooligans. That's why Madonna can say all sorts of nonsense from a concert stage and constantly push the boundaries of free speech without getting arrested -- because she's actually earned the "artist" label and the leeway society affords it.
Somehow Russian President Vladimir Putin has been dragged into all this, presumably because this story is sexier with a Bond villain -- and because it's always preferable to hold someone else responsible for one's own bad behavior. Pussy Riot supporters claim that Putin has the long knives out for the band because they mentioned him in a song. The idea of Putin sitting around blubbering over being badmouthed by some girls in a YouTube video certainly undermines any evil image. The smearing of Putin as hypersensitive and vindictive would have been more credible had they intelligently addressed Putin's policies without breaking any laws, or associated themselves with a larger group of activists known for flaunting it relentlessly and treating it as a joke. Pussy Riot didn't keep its powder dry.
It's not as if Putin just invented the Russian law against hooliganism. The penalty of up to seven years in prison wasn't concocted especially for Pussy Riot. In fact, the same crime of religious hooliganism in Germany carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment -- a year more than the sentence Pussy Riot members received.
The Western media should save its tears for those who truly deserve them.
So do I. They're great for a laugh. :-)
I do think there is some confusion pertaining to this issue. Inconveniently enough, the outward appearance of this group, and some of it's other member's antics are off-putting enough that deeper underlying issues become lost.
As you're link outlines, what they were on trial for;
Yet since Putin successfully plays the sentimentalist, and gives to the Russian church some support and funding from the present regime's ill gotten, criminally contrived gains, some are fooled into thinking him some sort of righteous fellow.
He and his people have killed journalists who ask the wrong questions, or find out too much. How soon we forget, how easily misled...
Putin and his criminals, by co-opting the Russian Church, have succeeding in making their own murderous selves into the voice for morality?
As one of the defendants, Maria Alyokhina put it;
From an article published April 10, 2012;
Three members of Pussy Riot were remanded in custody and charged with hooliganism, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, after conservative Orthodox activists called on the authorities to punish them.
One prominent Orthodox commentator even called for them to be "burnt at the stake".
There was widespread dismay at the women's treatment and the Church's attitude to them, including from some Orthodox Christians.
Hospice charity worker Lidiya Moniava wrote an open letter to the Patriarch urging him to adopt a "Christian attitude" to the women and to stop the "hatred and anger" being vented at them.
The letter was signed by nearly 6,000 people. According to Ms Moniava, more than 1,900 of them were Orthodox Christians and 23 clergy.
Patriarch Kirill was unmoved. He issued a stern rebuke to believers who sought to "justify this sacrilege, to minimise it".
He was referring to relics housed in the cathedral, including a nail said to have been used in Jesus's crucifixion.
Hey great. Protect relics, icons, and one's own personal religious sensibilities concerning them, from perceived insult, at the cost of contradicting example and instruction, provided by Christ Himself. With friends like that, does Jesus really need other enemies?
And once again, that church is now headed by an ex-KGB associate of Putin's and is now a cheerleader for Putin's fascism.
I would think that desecrates the church far worse than anything Pussy Riot could dream up.
I know that. That’s why the issue is hopelessly confused.
The indisputable fact is that you can’t mock God and the sign of the cross in a Russian Orthodox Church without bringing anti-Putin actions to a completely different level.
Someone told them to do this, without telling them that the goal was to fire up anti-Christian sentiment and block the arguments against what they did with the chess piece that is opposition to Putin.
Clever, but “your arms too short to box with God.”
They'll likely be treated very well in prison. Putin turned them into heros.
Yes, I read Kasparov’s article in the Journal.
But if “Pussy Riot” had come and done a pro-Obama thing in front of the altar at St Patrick’s Cathedral, I would have wanted them arrested - and sentenced.
I think the sentence was excessive, but most sentences under the Russian legal system would be considered excessive by us.
That's open for discussion, if a person has nothing else to do. Certainly a case can be made that destroying property to make a political statement is wrong, and an additional case can be made that destroying property to make a political statement is counterproductive. A separate case can be made for the principle that a person who breaks the law to make a political statement should expect to face legal consequences. All these cases stand or fall independently of the content of the political views stated.
Not exactly Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but the Pussy Riot might have a bit of the same idea.
Flouting.
Flouting, indeed!
However, if St. Patrick's Cathedral had become an organ of state facism, that changes the nature of the offense quite drastically.
I think this crosses a lot of wires. People think, what would I feel if they did this in MY church? But your church is not an organ for fascism. The ROC has become just that and therefore a legitimate target for protest.
I’m still pissed about that guy going into the Temple and knocking over all of those tables and chasing folks and animals out with a whip.
Good find, thanks or posting.
It's pretty sad that you failed to raise the case that standing up to tyranny was a higher principle than any of the offenses you cited.
Now that fellow was a radical!
You may be sad if you like. In my opinion, “standing up to tyranny” is too vague a principle to be unquestioningly prioritized over all others.
My teenagers think they’re “standing up to tyranny” when they eat all the ice cream we had planned for everyone to share, or leave a mess in the bathroom and their clothes all over the floor. Students think they’re “standing up to tyranny” when they agitate for the “right” to attend class naked, pay no fees, or have curriculum requirements relaxed.
Much political protest is at no greater a level of maturity than that. Why should it be considered so superior as to override, without question, considerations of universal morality?
It is no one's fault but their own that they chose the method which put them in conflict with the law, and now have to serve time. The sentence was appropriate, even mild: they could have gotten seven years but seven years' upkeep would be expensive. Maybe they can spend their two years learning some manners and sewing mittens in the prison shop, but as old as they are, they should already have learned how to respect fellow human beings and should already have found a useful occupation. Two years probably won't be enough for them to learn the difference between protesting and criminal behavior.
But at least they won't have to serve their time in a US jail, where they would learn nothing at all except how to game the system and lie for more sympathy.
Why should it be considered so superior as to override, without question, considerations of universal morality?
Standing up to the likes of Putin are enshrined in the core values of this country and its founders. Sorry that isn't profound enough to pass muster with you.
And with any luck they'll learn to love Big Brother as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.