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.
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.