No, I did NOT make such a claim. I brought up those other "activities" to give a more complete history of what this group has really been doing.
Please, try and get news and background information about this case from sources other than limited only to 'Life Site News' and the official Russian State informational/propaganda organs.
I did check a variety of sources before forming an opinion on this story. However, I do wonder about the sources YOU have been reading.
You compared them to tire slashers, drug dealers, and vile hoodlums in the U.S. who spread feces all over YOUR door, also. That sort of comparison would and should get you kicked off a jury.
We're not on a jury. This is an internet forum. We're not on jury duty; we're just talking. I'm allowed to say: "This group is nothing more than a group of hoodlums." Or, are you saying that this PR group can do and say anything they want as a form of protest, but no one should comment on their behavior? Why, how dare I comment on their behavior on an internet forum! What is this world coming to when a group of young women can't burst into a cathedral and cause a disturbance without being criticized for the many other disturbances they caused? /sarcasm
full-time efforts on the part of Putin's media outlets to paint these punk protestors as some sort of horrible evil..
The Russian media didn't have to do anything. The hoodlums themselves filmed their activities and posted videos and pictures of what they did on the internet.
...a component of the vocal opposition whom pointed out multiple instances of voter fraud during the last election... etc. .... Ask Gary Kasparov. He was there, and among many others, and concurs Putin's operators jiggered the election... etc.
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." 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.
Yet, without any real evidence, you believe their stories about elections being rigged. Maybe the elections were rigged; maybe they weren't. Where is your proof that they were? Because Gary Kasparov says so?
Also, you insist that the PR group's former activities should have nothing to do with the discussion. But then you keep bringing up Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church.
Putin has been doing some rather interesting things to keep himself in power. Maybe he is a bad guy. Maybe not entirely. The U.S. should never trust him completely. But that is a completely different topic of discussion. These "girls" weren't convicted of speaking out against Putin. They were convicted of Russia's version of a "hate crime."
(And, yes, I do read your entire posts, unfortunately.)
Hey Jack-ass. I never said they couldn't "be criticized" for other disturbances. Only that they were not formerly on trial for those other antics.
Quit lying about my own comments.
This obnoxious group has been running around mocking what they see as absurdities of cultural conventions in present-day Russia, using State institutions as a backdrop. That has been their schtick. I am aware enough of that.
Yet it is you and your ilk who persist in justifying long prison terms for their form of expressing "criticism", while they were tried mainly, only for offending the sensibilities of the religious, in a church of historical, religious, and now political significance.
That last part is quite important. It IS central to the entire affair, but is hiding itself behind the umbrage of the reaction, frequently characterized by such as your own refusal to consider much beyond this groups history of being disruptive.
Now they get punished for all of that, rightly or wrongly, but with the Church left holding the bag as being the repressive bad guys.
Is that the image we should want? The Church as part of a power paradigm which cannot suffer it's critics gracefully? Is willing to imprison them, if they become inconvenient to the image they have been carefully working to portray?
Putin has been at least partially successful in portraying, & selling himself as some sort of Orthodox Catholic.
Ask yourself --- do you think he has repented yet for all the killings of journalists his previous regime indulged itself with? Some criminals are punished in today's Russia. An entire other class appears to be the most deadliest to cross, and are above the law. Sound familiar?
Which is more profane, what those girls did, or Putin being given communion without repentance on his part, for evils perpetrated by his regime against critics? That is the taste left in the mouth of many in Russia and elsewhere concerning this.
It's like trying to go back to the time when the Tzars and the Church were united in one near monolithic entity.
Do we really want a return to that? With this time "the Tzars" being the oligarchs who control everything (including apparently, the Church?).
Many in Russia today, including a sizable number of Orthodox, and some number of the priesthood, do not want that.
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.
That particular guerrilla theater was employed to frame the issue of questioning support for the current cultural paradigm, in which police powers are routinely employed as political weapon against investigators, questioners, and political challengers across the board, both "morally" legitimate or otherwise.
Perhaps you've missed notice of such? Or is this a growing case of the denials, allowing your boy Putin to F' over anyone he wants to, as long as he gives the Catholic Church, in this instance the [Russian] Orthodox Church it's "due"?
Ask guys like Kasporov, what happens to some dissenters, or other competitors to the regime. It can get real ugly. Should the Church give rubber-stamp to such? All in the name of suppressing the indecency of Pussy Riot, of course...
The question remains. Should Putin be allowed to get away with cloaking himself with the righteousness which could more properly belong only to the Church?*
That is what Pussy Riot, in all their profanity, was focusing upon that day, when they entered into that church.
We can all be uncomfortable with the way the question was framed, (and who it was that framed it) yet still the question leads us to ever more questions.
Questions such as reexamining, once again; "what is the Church?", and what should be "the State"? How best should the two exist?
Kirill I has long ago made up his own mind and expressed himself concerning the hoped for inter-action of the two.
That particular hope sounds all fine and well.. but while these two entities, Putin, and the former "tobacco Metropolitan" are blowing kisses towards one another "in mutual respect", then what are the rest of us to make of it? Shall we call it "holy"? Or is it as much or more, something else instead?
I do think we have all seen this particular movie before. It has it's high points, times when the human spirit be can touched by the Divine. Yet in the basements and dungeons, are works and deeds, acts of men committed in the name of that which is Holy, but are more suited for hell itself.
In the end (of the movie?) does the cozy relationship not result in a profanity far more disgusting than even one of these girls masturbating (the one previously put in a mental hospital for being rebellious) in a grocery market, using a chicken leg?
For sake of comparison, let us now look at how the most fanatical among the Islamists, in their own wettest dreams, fantasize about a much similar Church/State relationship, as Kirill hopes for.
Why should not the Islamists think it their right? In their perspective, that "right" has been rightly endowed to them by the Creator. For they too make the claim "we have Abraham as our father", with in their instance, Mohammed of course [may-pork-be-upon-him] being the interpreter of God's heart & mind towards man.
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.