I know the answers to why the Islamists shouldn't be allowed to rule...but it runs a bit deeper than "the hierarchical entities of Catholicism instead...should be the ones to rule". If I have uncovered our philosophical differences here, I must tell you, it is not news to me. I have understood this from the very beginning of our conversation.

No, I don't think you've uncovered our differences at all. You seem to believe that I believe a theocracy would be a good idea. If so, you have the wrong person. I have never been in favor of a theocracy.

Here's where I think we really differ: Because you believe Putin is guilty of rigging elections, etc., you are supporting these women because they oppose Putin.

To be perfectly frank, even if Putin was guilty of rigging elections, I still would have no sympathy for these women based on their other behavior, much of which would be criminal here in the states.

Also, because the Patriarch spoke out against the group, you believe the Orthodox Church is responsible for the group's conviction. Whereas I believe many Russians were just sick of the group's antics, and the courts probably were glad to be able to prosecute them for something.

BTW, after accusing me of lying about you excusing the PR group's activities, you did it again - you excused their activities:

Such a subtle liar you are. I most certainly never "excused" the above, save for "the use of profanity", which are just words, after all. That, and my being not too overly upset with them mugging police cadets with hugs and kisses...which "mugging" had as it's basis, it's own intended agitation of the political realm in Russia today.

As posted earlier: The group was facing seven years under the law. The prosecutor asked for three. They were sentenced to two. That begs the question: How many Russians have been sentenced to the maximum under the same law? And what did they do?

Notice the PR women didn't speak out against the "hate crime" legislation under which they were prosecuted. I didn't see in their statements where they spoke out against the anti-hate crime law itself. Instead, they merely contended that they weren't guilty of breaking it.

IMHO, we've both spent too much time talking about this ridiculous group. There are many more serious cases in the world, including cases in our own country, that merit more attention. You think these women were railroaded. I think they got what they asked for. I don't think we will change each other's opinions.

The first part of the above statement is next to meaningless.
They did make the claim the prosecution didn't make the case against them, that they were "hate crime" motivated. And that they were scarcely at all allowed to defend themselves against that core element of the charge. That element was discussed by way of "expert opinion" brought in by the prosecution to prove that crucial point, but lacked basis in actual facts of evidence. They were convicted to a large extent by "opinion", if it be any "hate crime" charge stuck. As for "hooliganism", what they did falls a bit short of what that sort of law was intended to punish, for they scarcely damaged a thing. Leaving only the less than proven, religious hate crime stuff. The charges brought were a poor fit.

What is up with this other weird tangent? They are somehow supposed to be opposing "hate crime" law? What good would that do them? Bringing up that element is ridiculous. Is that the best you've got?

Here's where I think we really differ: Because you believe Putin is guilty of rigging elections, etc., you are supporting these women because they oppose Putin.

Try reading what my stated reasons for opposing this prosecution are. I have been extensive enough. Election irregularities are but one part of the larger overall picture. Am I supposed to touch upon every aspect of that larger setting?

Flat, linear descriptions of the type which you have expounded, misidentify more than adequately describe. Hence my continued effort to deny those descriptions to be fair assessment, or the real truth behind the story, the only parts which can matter.

Why persist in trying to tell me what I believe? Like you know better my own mind, than I do?
I guess subtleties, and layers of complexity are over your head. You offer above, more lopsided, woefully limited comprehension -- interestingly enough, favoring the status quo of the State. The very storyline they have been wanting to push. Half-truths designed to mislead (away from the substance of the complaint the protest punks made) leaving Putin's gang apparently more firmly in control.

"Hey, don't look at us, we are the good guys. It's those profane punks who are the real threat to your humanity. Just look at how indecent they are, blah, blah, blah..."

That issue, the emerging Church/State issues, and how such a blend is problematic given the situation in Russia (if not most anywhere), is still much larger than the conviction of Pussy Riot, in and of itself. The trial simply helped underscore those elements particularly and presently Russian.

The Patriarch publicly called for the prosecution. Now he and the church are stuck with the outcome, regardless of how much that may irk some.
The Church is being increasingly linked to the Putin regime. That can be or become a big problem, undermining the mission of the Church, turning the Church into a moral/political arm of the State -- driving many away, making it more difficult to trust the Church, since who in their right mind trusts Putin & his crew? Obama maybe?

Those are the things I "believe", that I've been trying to say. It is not limited to the overly simplistic "just because they also oppose Putin" or oppose and hate the church, etc. That sort of thing is the exact line from the Putin administration. And you are consistent in repeating it.

As far as any "excusing" of these profane punks went, I underlined and explained as honestly as possible, to what extent I did explain their reasons, or as you wish to put it, "excuse".

That admission of what my own words were intended to mean, falls far short of the way which you attempted to characterize, what I allegedly "excused".

Burning, overturned police vehicles? You included such and more in your initial list. That sort of over-reach is simply effort to dismiss the argument of those which you are in disagreement with.

I see right through that sort of half-baked "crap, crap, holy crap", to borrow a phrase from the newly minted convicts.

It's fairly obvious to me you either do not understand what I've been trying to say all along, or are unwilling to contemplate the implications of that which I have expressed.

You are correct we will not agree. Otherwise as a mind reader, you suck.

In typing my last reply, I hesitated to use the word "believe" because I figured you would respond, "How do you know what I believe? What are you, a mind reader?" I'm not at all surprised by your response. But, you yourself have been making erroneous assumptions about what I think, so I figured I might as well tell what I've construed about your beliefs based on your posts.

What is up with this other weird tangent? They are somehow supposed to be opposing "hate crime" law? What good would that do them? Bringing up that element is ridiculous. Is that the best you've got?

By pointing out the PR group's obvious lack of interest in opposing anti-hate crime legislation, here's what I'm getting at: They most likely support anti-hate crime laws. That's the irony in the whole story. Do you know what this PR group has been protesting against? Not just Putin's election and the Orthodox Church. They have been protesting against restrictions on abortion and in favor of "LGBT" issues. They are on the far left politically. Therefore, they most likely support the very kind of law under which they themselves were prosecuted - as long as they themselves aren't the ones being convicted. (If you can find evidence that they oppose such legislation, post it, but I don't want to click on a link to one of the PR websites. I checked one PR website for more information, and it turned out to be pornographic.)

Well, here's one point on which we might agree: The conviction of PR is not very important in the grand scheme of things. We're only talking about it because the press is driving the story, and celebrities and other misguided people are supporting the group. Meanwhile, Russian politics is not what people are talking about. And there are many other cases in the world that deserve far more attention than this one.

Burning, overturned police vehicles? You included such and more in your initial list. That sort of over-reach is simply effort to dismiss the argument of those which you are in disagreement with.

I don't see how pointing out their many activities is an overreach. They were prosecuted for the nature of one of those activities.

Speaking of hooligans, btw, someone stole from our car last night. But, hey, maybe whoever did the stealing was just protesting against oil dependency... maybe I should just try to understand their message...

No, nope. We're never going to see eye to eye on this issue. Good day.

I don't see how pointing out their many activities is an overreach.

Because you claimed I was defending or excusing such which include burning, overturned police vehicles, etc.

Can't you see that? I excused no such things.

As far as the irony you were pointing towards, yeah, I got that part right off the bat. No need for you to have to explain it. I can well enough imagine you posted that with a smug little smile on your face, too.

What is actually more ironic, while you continue to post against crime in general, mentioning your own car being broken into, etc., the "hate crimes" this group have been convicted of, could hardly have occurred.

That is, unless the mocking of Putin's recent exploitation of the Church in using it as campaign backdrop "scenery" (both physical & conceptual) and the mocking of some of the "religious" in the blind following of the man, can be best interpreted and defined as "hate".

Which ends up with YOU supporting the hate crime legislation! Even as it was misapplied! How's that for irony?

It's not like Putin's electoral competition ran on a pro-crime platform, either. But he did paint his opposition as being of the lawless profane sort such as these punkers.

You seem to keep trying to do the same thing, to me.

The inherent irony, the reality turned inside out, is obviously lost upon you.

It's a good thing you have decided to have made your "last reply" to me concerning this. The hole you dig just keeps getting bigger.

Because you claimed I was defending or excusing such which include burning, overturned police vehicles, etc. Can't you see that? I excused no such things.

You have defended/excused their "protest" inside a cathedral even though they were disrupting everything and using foul language.
Here are the other activities you've defended:

You've defended their interruption of the court hearing (according to the translation, they were using profane language there, too):

The trial they disrupted... interrupting the hearing set to send 2 leading curators of contemporary critical art in Russia to prison. needed interrupting. Simply respectfully "protesting" outside wouldn't accomplish diddly squat. That action most certainly WAS civil disobedience.

You defended their pranks:

The one with the guy running on foot over the top of the "KGB" political police official's car qualifies as a form of civil disobedience. It was funny in a way. The guy making a fool of himself did a good job of making a fool of the political minders/ political police.

You defended the women for walking up to and forcibly kissing policewomen who quite obviously were trying to fight them off:

The girls kissing other girls -- whom cunning fish termed "attacks on police cadets" --- were "attacks" of unasked for hugs and kisses. Oh the horror!

You have been consistently defending this group.

I can well enough imagine you posted that with a smug little smile on your face, too.

Not so. I'm not smiling at all. Discussions on the internet can be very frustrating because no one really knows each other and cannot see each other (therefore, cannot read facial expressions). So, everyone fills in the blanks with their own imagination, whether we realize we're doing it or not. When you read what I've written, you imagine me smiling smugly. And, when I read your posts, I hear the voice of Stewie on Family Guy. That's why these types of discussions never get anywhere.

Which ends up with YOU supporting the hate crime legislation! Even as it was misapplied! How's that for irony?

I oppose "hate crime" legislation because all crimes are hate crimes. IMHO, public disturbance and harassment are bad enough. I don't care what reason this group used for their public disturbance. I don't care if they were poking fun at the church (which they were) or criticizing Putin. Based on their other despicable behaviors (for example, having public sex as a form of protest), I wouldn't care if their message was the opposite of left-wing, and they were protesting in favor of traditional marriage and against abortion.

When I first heard the story, I was on their side... but decided to do some digging. When I found out what they actually did in the cathedral, I thought two years was too excessive. When I found out the maximum they faced was seven years - and that the prosecutor asked for three - two years didn't sound so long. And then when I found out about their other "performances" in public, the story was complete - it's obvious they've been a nuisance, and the public probably wanted to catch them on something and teach them a lesson.

There are other real cases of innocent people being thrown into prison wrongly in other countries (and in our country, too). The only reason these women are receiving so much international support is that they're left-wing.

Here's the parts of the paragraph you wrote which I objected to. Notice how it starts. With things I in no way defended, but which you lumped in there with all. Which is why I called you a LIAR.

On the one hand, you're very defensive of this group of hooligans who engage in sexual activities in public, flip police cars, set police vehicles on fire, and use profanity to disrupt the public, among other "activities."

The bolded portions I of course in no way defended, and objected to your adding those. Then you end with the twisted and specious

Because they were convicted for only ONE crime, you seem to think no one should criticize their other activities. You even excuse their other activities.

Which is galling, for you bring up these things consistently to provide cover for the sham of a trial, ending with them convicted of "hate crimes", which you otherwise claim to oppose. Some claim. HA.

I don't believe you. You seem all for it, in this instance. Along with having repeatedly reminded you they were not on trial for these other things mentioned (which you seem rather desperate to pin on myself also) I pointed out to you also, that they were not allowed much opportunity for defense against those particular "hate crime" charges, either.

As others here have mentioned, including myself, the charges didn't fit well. Something like trespass, disturbing the peace, etc., would be more fitting. I didn't as you say "excuse" the actions as much as you would like to twist my own words into meaning. They could well enough have been tried for other disturbances of "the peace", and I wouldn't much complain of criminal, "civic" charges in and of themselves, for those other offenses. But they were not put on trial for those other disturbances, no matter how much you'd like to obfuscate your way away from that. Which leaves us in the end with a misapplication or miscarriage of justice having your seeming support.

I can only assume, judging from your own words, it is because you find PR offensive. Jesus never promised us we would not be "offended" for His sake. He promised us the opposite.

What is truly frustrating here, is the scarce attention paid to all the rest of the pertinent issues touched upon. I can only conclude you wish to avoid looking into the more difficult elements which extend beyond that which I've mentioned. That sort of thing is near replica of how the social "conversation" went on in Russia concerning the trials, first of the art curators, then Pussy Riot.

Although it is easy enough to see how many of the "forbidden images" can be found offensive, the curators too, were brought up on "hate crimes". Concerning that trial; http://finrosforum.fi/art-trial-reveals-clash-of-russian-cultures

"The culture minister, Aleksandr Avdeyev, told the Itar-Tass news agency last month [in 2010] that he did not like the exhibition, but that criminal charges were excessive."

Russian society was pretty well split over that issue.

"Mr. Samodurov was convicted and fined on similar charges in 2005 for a 2003 exhibition at the museum called “Caution, Religion!” which he said was meant to provoke discussion about religion and modern society, but enraged the Russian Orthodox Church and was vandalized by fundamentalists, who damaged some of the art on display."

Of course no charges were brought against the "vandal", but I can easily enough understand why he tore the image in two which he did. It was without a doubt provocative. I don't much like that image, and another like it, in particular. Using the same reasoning which you've previously employed against my own person, (here used for "excusing" the vandal) am I now to be seated with the fundamentalist Orthodox babushkas?

"The trial, held in Moscow’s Tagansky District Court, has become almost a site of pilgrimage for fundamentalist Russian Orthodox believers. Women attend in head scarves and with prayer books to express support for the prosecution."

Yet you've continued here to make one over-simplistic statement after another, ending the latest diatribe with the partially true, (which results in coming across as another LIE);

The only reason these women are receiving so much international support is that they're left-wing.

The only" The ONLY? What of the Orthodox priests whom opposed the trial, conducted as it was, with the charges which were brought? Are they of the profane libertine left also?

I object to the phrasing, using the word "only". You have held closely to the Party line. Congratulations comrade. Putin and his band of powerful thieves thank you.

Alexander Kosolapov: Caviar-Icon

Bon Appetit!

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.