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?
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.