quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Need I say any more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
One begins to think present-day Orthodoxy in Russia is a thin membrane with an entirely different thing just under the surface.

In the past people have pelted priests with walnuts during the divine services, and for their pains they were elevated as saints. Not saying Pussy Riot are saints, just countering the idea that people behaving badly in church are always and everywhere total demon spawn that need to be treated like vermin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
...Putin and his pals are making a big deal out of this because they're butthurt over being lampooned. Poor babies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HenryT:
The proposed/potential legal penalties seem outrageously harsh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Most of the information we have to go on is through the lens of a secular biassed western media. We talk as if St Saviour's Cathedral was just a meeting hall, which was not having a service at the time...

Er, no. No-one has claimed that there wasn't a service and/or other devotions going on.

We talk as if these poor naive russian girls didn't know what they were doing, but I don't believe it.

Didn't know that they were doing what? Interrupting a service? I'm sure they knew that. Singing an anti-Putin song in an increasingly repressive state? Yep, I'm pretty sure they knew that as well.

It is interesting that anyone with a disruptive anti-christian secular agenda is considered a saint in the western media, and churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

How was this an anti-Christian agenda? Their protest was about Putin. I've read nothing to suggest that selecting a church was anything other than getting a captive audience. Nor have I read anything demonising the church (although plenty of anti-Putin comments).

What I am questioning is the apparent collusion of the church in creating a repressive political environment.

I've thought about what would happen if this occurred, say, in St George's Cathedral here in Cape Town during a service. I can't see the clergy supporting a prosecution (though I could be wrong), it would be completely at odds with what St Georges stood for during the apartheid years. I would expect a more pastoral approach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Most of the information we have to go on is through the lens of a secular biassed western media. We talk as if St Saviour's Cathedral was just a meeting hall, which was not having a service at the time, but open for saturday morning coffee and fellowship.

This isn't how the russians see their churches at all. In the Orthodox Church there are always blessings and confessions going on in the background before and after liturgy, and to them services never really begin or end, and they all know that. We talk as if these poor naive russian girls didn't know what they were doing, but I don't believe it.

---

This is about sentencing and where they fit on the scale. If these girls get the maximum sentence, it's basically saying that they have committed the most serious form of 'disruption of a church service' imaginable.

Even to a Russian, I find it hard to believe that a brief political protest is remotely on the same level as, say, a group of protesters who barricade themselves in the church for days on end, spout large amounts of blasphemy and urinate on the altar.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
If an Observer article I read a few weeks back is to be believed, some devout Orthodox believers feel tha t the threatened sentences are out of proportion to the offence.

It also acknowledges that the protest could and did offend ordinary Russian church-goers.

Hardly an example of virulently anti-Christian reporting in the secular media ...
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
President Putin has said he hopes the young ladies (they are not really "girls") get leniency, and I think they will. The point has been made, and it should be enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

---

Leaders of churches (not necessarily the whole of the church that they lead) who call for prison sentences of years for disrupting a service should be demonised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
But what is the point that you think that has been appropriately made? The accused have been held on remand since February and threatened with a seven year jail sentence. Is the point that in future people shouldn't mess with the State or else, or shouldn't mess with the Church or else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And look what happened to The Person who made a fuss in the Temple. Even less due process than the Pussy Riot girls are getting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
This isn't how the russians see their churches at all. In the Orthodox Church there are always blessings and confessions going on in the background before and after liturgy, and to them services never really begin or end, and they all know that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is interesting that anyone with a disruptive anti-christian secular agenda is considered a saint in the western media, and churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wonder if journalists are throwing around the possibility of Pussy Riot serving 7 years in prison as a way of making the story more interesting. In the United States, journalists often do this. You hear stuff like this, "John Doe was arrested for aggravated jaywalking. If convicted, Mr. Doe faces up to 3 years in jail and a $5,000 fine." Everybody knows Mr. Doe will get off with probation and a fine under a thousand dollars.

Let's say Pussy Riot pulled the same stunt at Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Los Angeles. Theoretically (if they drew a zealous yet creative prosecutor, hanging judge, and an unsympathetic jury), Pussy Riot could face up to 3 years in state prison and something like a $7,500 fine. In actuality, the chances of them spending more than a few hours in the local jail would be slim to none.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is interesting that anyone with a disruptive anti-christian secular agenda is considered a saint in the western media, and churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Let's say Pussy Riot pulled the same stunt at Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Los Angeles. Theoretically (if they drew a zealous yet creative prosecutor, hanging judge, and an unsympathetic jury), Pussy Riot could face up to 3 years in state prison and something like a $7,500 fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You're trying to deal with several issues at once here. Let's just deal with Pussy Riot. As President Putin hinted, supposing they had done what they did in St Saviour's Cathedral, but in a mosque?

Need I say any more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
We talk as if these poor naive russian girls didn't know what they were doing, but I don't believe it.

---

quote:

---

President Putin has said he hopes the young ladies (they are not really "girls") get leniency, and I think they will.

---

quote:

---

It is interesting that anyone with a disruptive anti-christian secular agenda is considered a saint in the western media, and churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is interesting that anyone with a disruptive anti-christian secular agenda is considered a saint in the western media, and churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

---

I am told that at least two of the women in question are Orthodox believers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is interesting that anyone with a disruptive anti-christian secular agenda is considered a saint in the western media, and churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

---

I am told that at least two of the women in question are Orthodox believers.

---

I'm sure they are Orthodox in much the same way Madonna was Roman Catholic before becoming sort of Jewish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is interesting that anyone with a disruptive anti-christian secular agenda is considered a saint in the western media, and churches which just want to get on with the business of putting people right with God are demonised.

---

I am told that at least two of the women in question are Orthodox believers.

---

I'm sure they are Orthodox in much the same way Madonna was Roman Catholic before becoming sort of Jewish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Arguably, what they did was a form of prayer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
No, there's nothing aguable about it - the song was a mockery both of Putin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Mocking a crooked bishop is not the same as mocking the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Mocking a crooked bishop is not the same as mocking the church.

---

Not crooked, but maybe lacking in wisdom on occasions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If an Observer article I read a few weeks back is to be believed, some devout Orthodox believers feel tha t the threatened sentences are out of proportion to the offence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I have made my unease at current goings on in the patriarchate known before and recent events both in Russia and at home have not helped to calm my corruption-o-meter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Arguably, what they did was a form of prayer.

---

No, there's nothing aguable about it - the song was a mockery both of Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church (which, contrary to what Ken claimed, is not the established church of Russia nor wants to be.)

---

quote:

---

The phantom of liberty is in heaven
Gay-pride sent to Siberia in chains

The head of the KGB, their chief saint,
Leads protesters to prison under escort
In order not to offend His Holiness
Women must give birth and love

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am told that at least two of the women in question are Orthodox believers.

---

I'm sure they are Orthodox in much the same way Madonna was Roman Catholic before becoming sort of Jewish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Many western countries have laws against interfering or preventing church services. If Pussy Riot had made their demonstration/done their prayer in (say) the German Lutheran church on Parkdale Avenue in Ottawa during a service, or delayed a service by doing so, they could reap a sentence of up to two years under the Criminal Code, sec 176(2). This is a hangover from Victorian times when orangemen would disrupt RC services and feuding Presbyterians would engage in fisticuffs over the wee cuppies, but it's still on the books.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
When Peter Tatchell disrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter Sermon in 1998 he was fined the princely sum of £18.60.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You may have said it before, but it didn't make sense then either.

Whether in Britian or Russia shouldn't change the morality of the threat of a 7 yr jail sentence for... for what? For blasphemy? For a disruption in church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You may have said it before, but it didn't make sense then either.

Whether in Britian or Russia shouldn't change the morality of the threat of a 7 yr jail sentence for... for what? For blasphemy? For a disruption in church?

---

Hooliganism. Anyway, the prosecution is asking for a maximum of 3 years, not 7 - and they probably won't get anything like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
I don't get why you're defending this shit. I really don't. You've said that their offense was insulting Pooty-Poot and "the church" (aka Kirill). Do you think it should be criminal to criticize a political leader?

---

quote:

---

The court has had them in pretrial detention for over a year.

---

quote:

---

In the civilized world this kind of behavior would get you AT MOST, if the judge were having a bad day and you really pissed him off and your conduct were just really egregious, six months and a few thousand dollars in fines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

And that's probably the maximum they will get, probably less so long as they get it into their heads what they did wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
When Peter Tatchell disrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter Sermon in 1998 he was fined the princely sum of £18.60.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
As for getting it into their heads that they are wrong, in their position their current treatment would convince me that the state and church really were corrupt and worth protesting against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
As for getting it into their heads that they are wrong, in their position their current treatment would convince me that the state and church really were corrupt and worth protesting against.

---

That's the real political point. Pussy Riot have already won the propaganda war. Their view of things is being spread, and the prosecuters get to look cruel and stupid. The political bosses of Russia are pissing on their own shoes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So you think, Ken, that it's OK for anyone to stand up and shout anything they like in Church, with no fear of repurcusions? Would you want that in your church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
When Peter Tatchell disrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter Sermon in 1998 he was fined the princely sum of £18.60.

---

Yes, and Saint Pater Tatchell was championed as a martyr (metaphorically speaking) for his cause. Besides, this is Britian we're talking about here, but I've already said all this earlier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
As for getting it into their heads that they are wrong, in their position their current treatment would convince me that the state and church really were corrupt and worth protesting against.

---

That's the real political point. Pussy Riot have already won the propaganda war. Their view of things is being spread, and the prosecuters get to look cruel and stupid. The political bosses of Russia are pissing on their own shoes.

---

quote:

---

I might add that it also highlights the difference between the dignified conduct of Lord Carey with Patriarch Kirill's hysterical demand for the maximum sentence to be imposed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
As for getting it into their heads that they are wrong, in their position their current treatment would convince me that the state and church really were corrupt and worth protesting against.

---

That's the real political point. Pussy Riot have already won the propaganda war. Their view of things is being spread, and the prosecuters get to look cruel and stupid. The political bosses of Russia are pissing on their own shoes.

---

So you think, Ken, that it's OK for anyone to stand up and shout anything they like in Church, with no fear of repurcusions? Would you want that in your church?

---

What's that got to do with what mdijohn or I wrote that you quoted? Did you even read what we wrote?
 

---

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
As for getting it into their heads that they are wrong, in their position their current treatment would convince me that the state and church really were corrupt and worth protesting against.

---

That's the real political point. Pussy Riot have already won the propaganda war. Their view of things is being spread, and the prosecuters get to look cruel and stupid. The political bosses of Russia are pissing on their own shoes.

---

I suspect these things play differently in Russia than beyond her borders. The Russian public have a deep and not unreasonable fear of chaos and anything which smacks of firm government is likely to be popular even if to us it seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In any other country a government which has allowed the nation's natural resources to fall into the hands of a kleptocracy would be reviled so I doubt the nation is too bothered by what happens to a bunch of punky girls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

@Mockingale, I did read the Canadian statute which I quoted (I normally read things before I quote them, possibly a weakness). I noted the difference but thought it was not germane to the point I was trying to make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
As for getting it into their heads that they are wrong, in their position their current treatment would convince me that the state and church really were corrupt and worth protesting against.

---

That's the real political point. Pussy Riot have already won the propaganda war. Their view of things is being spread, and the prosecuters get to look cruel and stupid. The political bosses of Russia are pissing on their own shoes.

---

So you think, Ken, that it's OK for anyone to stand up and shout anything they like in Church, with no fear of repurcusions? Would you want that in your church?

---

What's that got to do with what mdijohn or I wrote that you quoted? Did you even read what we wrote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
The Russian public have a deep and not unreasonable fear of chaos and anything which smacks of firm government is likely to be popular even if to us it seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Russia's response is beyond the pale and the fact the church is going along with it is disturbing. Especially given the Russian Orthodox Church's past history of being joined at the hip with the Soviet state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I might add that it also highlights the difference between the dignified conduct of Lord Carey with Patriarch Kirill's hysterical demand for the maximum sentence to be imposed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You may have said it before, but it didn't make sense then either.

Whether in Britian or Russia shouldn't change the morality of the threat of a 7 yr jail sentence for... for what? For blasphemy? For a disruption in church?

---

Hooliganism. Anyway, the prosecution is asking for a maximum of 3 years, not 7 - and they probably won't get anything like that.

---

quote:

---

Quote from the link above: The church, after removing the doctored photo, blamed photo editors in its press service for the “technical mistake.”

“A gross violation of our internal ethics has occurred, and it will be thoroughly investigated,” the church said in a statement. “The guilty will be severely punished.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
This is confusing. Was Kirill telling the truth about not owning the watch and the doctored photograph is the one with him wearing the watch, and the 'altered' photo just some inexplicable random aberration?

---

quote:

---

It was first sighted on the patriarch’s wrist in 2009 during a visit to Ukraine, where he gave a televised interview on the importance of asceticism.

---

I am sure it is still the faults of atheists, though.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Mockingale writes:

quote:

---

At most they committed a "summary conviction" crime, which basically means that a judge gets to impose whatever penalty he feels fits the crime. I would imagine in Canada that they would be fined and given a stern talking to. They wouldn't be treated like Hannibal Lecter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

“A gross violation of our internal ethics has occurred, and it will be thoroughly investigated,” the church said in a statement. “The guilty will be severely punished.”

---

This is confusing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
The Russian public have a deep and not unreasonable fear of chaos and anything which smacks of firm government is likely to be popular even if to us it seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

---

Yes, they're secretly hoping for the return of the Gulags. They love that firm government hand. The knock in the middle of the night. The hush-hush about where Uncle Dmitry went. Give me that old-time firm government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Russia's response is beyond the pale and the fact the church is going along with it is disturbing. Especially given the Russian Orthodox Church's past history of being joined at the hip with the Soviet state.

---

Exactly. It's very chilling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
This is confusing. Was Kirill telling the truth about not owning the watch and the doctored photograph is the one with him wearing the watch, and the 'altered' photo just some inexplicable random aberration?

---

If you read the article more carefully, and examine the photos, you will note the watch still exists in the reflection on the table even after is was Photoshopped off his wrist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To the Outside World: "Look how forgiving and tolerant we are, the sentence could have been much worse."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To the Russian People: "The little tarts got 2 years for a silly song. What do you think you'll get for anything more serious?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
If Pussy Riot did it as a publicity stunt...

---

If?!!!! What else was it? A trick cycling demonstration?
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I wonder if a swap could be organized with this gentleman.

Sadly, Russia doesn't seem to have a monopoly on loony sentencing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Hyperbole does not make a very good argument as there has not been a return to the Gulags.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
If Pussy Riot did it as a publicity stunt...

---

If?!!!! What else was it? A trick cycling demonstration?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
If Pussy Riot did it as a publicity stunt...

---

If?!!!! What else was it? A trick cycling demonstration?

---

A political protest. Why is this such an impossible concept for you to imagine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
If Pussy Riot did it as a publicity stunt...

---

If?!!!! What else was it? A trick cycling demonstration?

---

A political protest. Why is this such an impossible concept for you to imagine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
On Sunday, we shall pray, as we always do, for "our great lord and father Kyrill, the most holy patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias". Perhaps we should revert to praying for "the Orthodox episcopate of the Church of Russia" as we did before the union. It would allow us at least to still offer those prayers without saying anything that I, if a deacon or priest, simply could not say. May God forgive me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
If Pussy Riot did it as a publicity stunt...

---

If?!!!! What else was it? A trick cycling demonstration?

---

A political protest. Why is this such an impossible concept for you to imagine?

---

I assume that, unless aumbry has knocked ken over the head and replaced him with a pod person, ken means 'publicity for anti-Putin sentiment in the Orthodox Church' or some such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
It would allow us at least to still offer those prayers without saying anything that I, if a deacon or priest, simply could not say. May God forgive me.

---

quote:

---

 Text of the song included phrases like "Virgin Mary, drive Putin away", "Virgin Mary, become a feminist", "all parishoners crawl on their bellies", "holy shit", etc. 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
For the Orthodox, the presence of women will profane the most sacred spaces and, while they kept clear (or were locked out) of this pollution,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
The statutes of the medieval western church excluded women from the chancel for the same reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
I will defer to your judgement on the classification of my heresy but if I read you correctly, you disagree with the traditional view that the presence of a woman will pollute sacred spaces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
I don’t see much understanding in this thread of either the depth of offence these punks have given or of the extent to which it was commercially calculated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
...if I read you correctly, you disagree with the traditional view that the presence of a woman will pollute sacred spaces....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
We need to understand how the Orthodox think rather than impose our values on them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
If you want to understand how the Orthodox think, if you are, as you said, "more interested in understanding the Orthodox than telling them what they ought to do" you could try asking us. There are a number of us here. Some of us have even posted on this thread.

Your statements misrepresent our faith and our Tradition. To be quite frank, I found them vile and insulting.

---

quote:

---

I would appreciate it very much if you'd quit speaking for us. We are quite capable of speaking for ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

As for the West making martyrs of the band members; only possible thanks to the heavy-handed Russian authorities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Pussy Riot were prosecuted by the State, right? Not the Orthodox Church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm a Western liberal, if that means not wishing to see people imprisoned for two years because of a political stunt, where things ended, effectually, harmlessly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So the fact that you can watch this video, filmed inside Moscow's cathedral, and read the lyrics, is why the young ladies got two years instead of a slap on the wrists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So the fact that you can watch this video, filmed inside Moscow's cathedral, and read the lyrics, is why the young ladies got two years instead of a slap on the wrists.

---

Indeed. They are being punished because their protest was successful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm a Western liberal, if that means not wishing to see people imprisoned for two years because of a political stunt, where things ended, effectually, harmlessly.

---

Haven't you forgotten about the youtube video?

...and the lyrics which were circulated around the world:

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, put Putin away
Put Putin away, put Putin away

Black robe, golden epaulettes
All parishioners crawl to bow
The phantom of liberty is in heaven
Gay-pride sent to Siberia in chains

The head of the KGB, their chief saint,
Leads protesters to prison under escort
In order not to offend His Holiness
Women must give birth and love

Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!
Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, become a feminist
Become a feminist, become a feminist

The Church’s praise of rotten dictators
The cross-bearer procession of black limousines
A teacher-preacher will meet you at school
Go to class – bring him money!

Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin
Bitch, better believe in God instead
The belt of the Virgin can’t replace mass-meetings
Mary, Mother of God, is with us in protest!

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, put Putin away
Put Putin away, put Putin away.

---

quote:

---

(Putin) felt the need for more persuasive, transcendent guarantees of his long tenure at the pinnacle of power. It was then that it became necessary to make use of the aesthetic of the Orthodox religion, which is historically associated with the heyday of Imperial Russia, where power came not from earthly manifestations such as democratic elections and civil society, but from God Himself….
How did Putin succeed in this? After all, we still have a secular state, and any intersection of the religious and political spheres should be dealt with severely by our vigilant and critically minded society. ……. in Soviet times, when the Orthodox religion had an aura of lost history, of something that had been crushed and damaged by the Soviet totalitarian regime, and was thus an opposition culture. The authorities decided to appropriate this historical effect of loss and present a new political project to restore Russia’s lost spiritual values, a project that has little to do with a genuine concern for the preservation of Russian Orthodoxy’s history and culture…..
“We are . . . stoning you . . . for blasphemy.” [John 10:33] Interestingly enough, it is precisely this verse that the Russian Orthodox Church uses to express its opinion about blasphemy. This view is certified on paper, it’s attached to our criminal file. The Russian Orthodox Church refers to the Gospels as static religious truth. The Gospels are no longer understood as revelation, which they have been from the very beginning, but rather as a monolithic chunk that can be disassembled into quotations to be shoved in wherever necessary—in any of its documents, for any of their purposes. The Russian Orthodox Church did not even bother to look up the context in which “blasphemy” is mentioned here—that in this case, the word applies to Jesus Christ himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
These women are extremely well—educated...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
If you want to understand how the Orthodox think, if you are, as you said, "more interested in understanding the Orthodox than telling them what they ought to do" you could try asking us. There are a number of us here. Some of us have even posted on this thread.

Your statements misrepresent our faith and our Tradition. To be quite frank, I found them vile and insulting.

---

I don't think this is entirely fair, Josephine. All of us Orthodox go wrong sometimes and say things which misrepresent our tradition.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't go as far as Berwickshire, especially in his reference to the death penalty (which has never even been mentioned before), but there are some within Orthodoxy who think this way.

---

quote:

---

He has, however, touched on the eastern/western differences on how we view holy places, which is an important part of the discussions, without which we cannot hope to understand what's gone on.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I would appreciate it very much if you'd quit speaking for us. We are quite capable of speaking for ourselves.

---

As said, neither do the few Orthodox on this board entirely represent Orthodoxy perfectly - so let him say what he likes, and if you disagree then fair enough - but just tell us, without trying to censor equally valid viewpoints.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
...But surely you are familiar with the Holy Fools who are so well known in Russia, who are a living part of Holy Tradition as it is lived out in Russia. It seems to me that these women were acting within that Tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
These women are extremely well—educated...

---

So are you saying it wasn't a naive immature prank that was taken too far then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
...But surely you are familiar with the Holy Fools who are so well known in Russia, who are a living part of Holy Tradition as it is lived out in Russia. It seems to me that these women were acting within that Tradition.

---

I disagree - all the Holy Fools I know about (both eastern and western) had something which the girls lack - humility ...and that's important.

---

quote:

---

The yurodivy (Russian: юродивый, yurodivy) is the Russian version of Foolishness in Christ (Russian: юродство, yurodstvo or jurodstvo), a peculiar form of Eastern Orthodox asceticism. The yurodivy is a Holy Fool, one who acts intentionally foolish in the eyes of men. The term implies behaviour "which is caused neither by mistake nor by feeble-mindedness, but is deliberate, irritating, even provocative."

In his book "Holy Fools in Byzantium and Beyond,” Ivanov described ‘holy fool’ as a term for a person who “feigns insanity, pretends to be silly, or who provokes shock or outrage by his deliberate unruliness.” ... Some characteristics that were commonly seen in holy fools were going around half-naked, being homeless, speaking in riddles, being believed to be clairvoyant and a prophet, and occasionally being disruptive and challenging to the point of seeming immoral (though always to make a point).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So the fact that you can watch this video, filmed inside Moscow's cathedral, and read the lyrics, is why the young ladies got two years instead of a slap on the wrists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Pussy Riot were prosecuted by the State, right? Not the Orthodox Church?

---

Correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So the fact that you can watch this video, filmed inside Moscow's cathedral, and read the lyrics, is why the young ladies got two years instead of a slap on the wrists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
For the Orthodox, the presence of women will profane the most sacred spaces and, while they kept clear (or were locked out) of this pollution,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So the fact that you can watch this video, filmed inside Moscow's cathedral, and read the lyrics, is why the young ladies got two years instead of a slap on the wrists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Just thought I'd get clarification on that - thread seems to be blurring the line a tad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I do not know if the reporting is accurate, but the paper edition of today's Globe & Mail tells us that the Orthodox Church has urged leniency and would not object to a pardon. I think that it would have been a helpful gesture if they had done so before sentencing, although I am not sure if Russian legal procedure has a sentencing stage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
For the Orthodox, the presence of women will profane the most sacred spaces and, while they kept clear (or were locked out) of this pollution,

---

Much as i admire the orthodoxen, I can't help thinking that the very notion of women 'polluting' a sacred space by their mere femininity is subChristian if not antiChristian.

Can someone please explain how women pollute places? Without referring to Old testament purity laws which were supposedly superceded by Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
For the Orthodox, the presence of women will profane the most sacred spaces and, while they kept clear (or were locked out) of this pollution,

---

Much as i admire the orthodoxen, I can't help thinking that the very notion of women 'polluting' a sacred space by their mere femininity is subChristian if not antiChristian.

Can someone please explain how women pollute places? Without referring to Old testament purity laws which were supposedly superceded by Christ?

---

This is a lie and a damned lie. Some Orthodoxen alas may believe this but it is not the teaching of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

This is a lie and a damned lie. Some Orthodoxen alas may believe this but it is not the teaching of the Church.

---

Please clarify - this is really important and I want to know, please. (Because I love Orthodox Christianity and I am finding this issue difficult.) [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Do you see, Mark Butts...

---

Mark, please forgive me. This was entirely unintentional. I am posting from my phone and it auto-"corrected" your name. I had already edited the post once before I realised, by which point it was too late to edit again.

I meant no disrespect.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
(I see I have x-posted with Mr. Scrump. (Can we still use your first name?) He has said succinctly what I take a lot of words to say. But I worked at it a long time so I am going let it stand. )

It is true there is a mean streak in some Orthodoxen, particularly of the old world or of the sort of converts from fundamentalist Protestantism that bring the uglier bits of their fundamentalist baggage with them, that is misogynist, sometimes also antisemitic and subject to other prejudices.

It is also true that women are not allowed to be priests or (nowadays) deacons*, or altar servers. It is true this is a stumbling block for many, and I understand why people feel that way. I myself am not entirely comfortable with it, but I submit myself to the teachings of my Church. (There are other goads I kick against, to be sure, although to what avail I do not know.)

Thus women do not serve in the altar*. Because of this it is generally not "the done thing" that a woman enter the altar. Although there are certainly exceptions to this as need demands. The abbess of a monastery will go into the altar to do things, even if a priest is present (I have seen this myself). In other cases a woman will usually get a man to go into the altar if she has cause, but if no main is available, she will go in herself, without worry she is polluting the place.

And indeed what I object to so vehemently is the idea that the presence of a woman can defile or pollute a place. If this were the case then the place would have to be ritually cleansed if a woman had entered it, and that is not at all the practice of the church.

There are some men who feel women are pollutants (as mentioned above). They do not have the mind of the church.

__________________________
*There was a female diaconate in olden times and there is a small but vocal movement in the church today calling for its reinstatement.

*The altar is the term we give to the area behind the iconostasis. The table that in the west is called the altar, we call the altar table. Not that people aren't sloppy about their use (self included); you keep it straight by the preposition: IN or ON the altar, respectively.

[ 18. August 2012, 21:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:

---

Do you see, Mark Butts...

---

Mark, please forgive me. This was entirely unintentional. I am posting from my phone and it auto-"corrected" your name. I had already edited the post once before I realised, by which point it was too late to edit again.

I meant no disrespect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
as for "women poluting the sanctuary" - Berwickshire was originally referring to a medeaval western belief, I don't understand how it suddenly became Orthodox practice.

---

quote:

---

For the Orthodox, the presence of women will profane the most sacred spaces

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Nevertheless, Berwickshire is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Why do westerners have to impose their view of "justice" on the russian people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
the very intention of the women was to create a video to broadcast all over the world, and it was this that incensed the Russian Orthodox. It's obvious the video was intended to ridicule them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
the very intention of the women was to create a video to broadcast all over the world, and it was this that incensed the Russian Orthodox. It's obvious the video was intended to ridicule them

---

If you read the women's closing statements linked to by Josephine above you will see that this is very far from being 'obvious'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Why do westerners have to impose their view of "justice" on the russian people?

---

Dangerous territory. Why should westerners impose their view of how to treat Jews on the German people? Justice is not one thing among men and another among elves or dwarves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But I was talking about the video - the statements came later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But I was talking about the video - the statements came later.

---

You were talking about the intent of the video, which has light shed upon it by the court statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If these women really cared about their children, why did they do it in the first place? Why weren't they at home looking after their children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
You were talking about the intent of the video, which has light shed upon it by the court statement.

---

Sorry, but I can't agree - the video was the original intention, most likely for publicity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If these women really cared about their children, why did they do it in the first place? Why weren't they at home looking after their children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If these women really cared about their children, why did they do it in the first place? Why weren't they at home looking after their children?

---

I beg your pardon, Mr. Betts. I don't think I have ever seen a statement that reeked quite so much of mysogyny and male privilege in the time I have been on the Ship.

If you don't understand why, we might need a separate thread to discuss it. I wouldn't want to totally derail this one. But if you think for about 30 seconds, you should be able to figure it out for yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
If these women really cared about their children, why did they do it in the first place? Why weren't they at home looking after their children?

---

I beg your pardon, Mr. Betts. I don't think I have ever seen a statement that reeked quite so much of mysogyny and male privilege in the time I have been on the Ship.

If you don't understand why, we might need a separate thread to discuss it. I wouldn't want to totally derail this one. But if you think for about 30 seconds, you should be able to figure it out for yourself.

---

You've missed the point - it wasn't as if they were just going to work and leaving the children with a nanny for the day. ISTM that they cared more about their own publicity than they did their children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Shall we start a separate Purg thread to discuss this? Or do you want to take it up in Hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Why do westerners have to impose their view of "justice" on the russian people?

---

Dangerous territory. Why should westerners impose their view of how to treat Jews on the German people? Justice is not one thing among men and another among elves or dwarves.

---

The germans are westerners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

If these women really cared about their children, why did they do it in the first place? Why weren't they at home looking after their children?

---

No, I'll use the two-minute window to edit a more wordy reply on top of that:

Your question applies to every single parent in history who has ever made a serious political protest, or gone to war, or played sport at an elite level, or gone exploring, or bloody well got a job with long hours or dangerous conditions or in a different city or country. Would you ask it about fathers as well as mothers? If not why not?

I mean seriously. The men who are fighting in Afghanistan. If they really cared for their children would they have joined the army? Sailors, fishermen, miners, policemen, missionaries, roustabouts, travelling bloody salesmen, anyone who risks their lives or is away from home for days or weeks on end. If they cared for their children would they do that? What do you think? Is it something you think men can do but women can't?

[ 19. August 2012, 01:40: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Ken, I don't want to discuss motherhood anymore - I understand there must be something profoundly unnatural about a woman wanting to take care of her own children.

Regarding the comparison to nazi holocaust, I don't think it's a very good one. We are not talking about gas chambers and extermination camps here, just a group of fame-hungry young ladies who would do anything for publicity, no matter who they offended.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Ken, I don't want to discuss motherhood anymore - I understand there must be something profoundly unnatural about a woman wanting to take care of her own children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Mark, maybe, just maybe, they want their children to grow up in a better world than the one they grew up in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Regarding the comparison to nazi holocaust, I don't think it's a very good one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Regarding the comparison to nazi holocaust, I don't think it's a very good one. We are not talking about gas chambers and extermination camps here, just a group of fame-hungry young ladies who would do anything for publicity, no matter who they offended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

Regarding the comparison to nazi holocaust, I don't think it's a very good one. We are not talking about gas chambers and extermination camps here, just a group of fame-hungry young ladies who would do anything for publicity, no matter who they offended.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
... it was this that incensed the Russian Orthodox. It's obvious the video was intended to ridicule them, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Mark, maybe, just maybe, they want their children to grow up in a better world than the one they grew up in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Regarding the comparison to nazi holocaust, I don't think it's a very good one.

---

I think I missed something. Who compared what to the Nazi holocaust?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Why do westerners have to impose their view of "justice" on the russian people?

---

Dangerous territory. Why should westerners impose their view of how to treat Jews on the German people? Justice is not one thing among men and another among elves or dwarves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK, so why didn't they protest in a way that wouldn't risk them being arrested?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Mark, maybe, just maybe, they want their children to grow up in a better world than the one they grew up in.

---

OK, so why didn't they protest in a way that wouldn't risk them being arrested? They are intelligent women, and there are other ways of putting your point across in Russia - but unfortunately they don't necessarily make you famous.

I'm not answering my Hell call, because I'm being accused of being against any mothers working - I made it clear earlier in this thread that this wasn't my point at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You have not addressed the whole of the complaint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Familiar ? Or this ?

---

Yes, of course! Johnny Lydon could write fantasticly meaningful songs, in spite of what the Sex Pistols were best known for. However, again he was no "Holy Fool." Charismatic though he is, he was in it for publicity, fame and personal wealth. Can anyone honestly say that Pussy Riot are any different?
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Women do not enter the altar, except, by explicit permission, to do any necessary work such as cleaning. That may not be the “consensus here” but it is clearly the popular eastern view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

This is a lie and a damned lie. Some Orthodoxen alas may believe this but it is not the teaching of the Church.

---

Please clarify - this is really important and I want to know, please. (Because I love Orthodox Christianity and I am finding this issue difficult.)

---

Do you see, Mark Butts, why Josephine called Berwickshire to task for misrepresenting our faith?

@ leo, Josephine and Mousethief have made clear that what Berwickshire said about this matter is simply not true. Some Orthodox may believe that women pollute a place by their presence, just as some Anglicans might or some atheists might. Misogyny doesn't need a particular religion or any religion at all to exist, although people do sometimes hide their misogyny behind a veneer of faith.

If there are Orthodox Christians who think in this way, then their views are in opposition to those of the Orthodox Church. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
BTW, from what I have seen of the video, the women didn't go into the altar area. There were on the congregational side of the iconostasis. or have I missed something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
It is as well simply to ignore the overt personal abuse offered, and repeated, by Josephine

---

quote:

---

State President Putin followed this up with a comment that had the girls defiled a shrine in Israel or a Muslim republic they would have been lynched.

---

quote:

---

Even without the punks invading the altar, Archpriest Vsevolod expressed a view that this was “a crime worse than murder”.

---

quote:

---

... this is a situation where native Russians have a distinctive “take” which Americans may struggle to grasp.

---

quote:

---

Western liberals have no monopoly on truth...

---

quote:

---

In the instant case the applicable law is the Russian Penal Code

---

quote:

---

...whatever foreigners think lesser breeds without the law should do with Mr Putin’s profane girls.

---

quote:

---

Police initially just took down their names and let them go, probably because the church was largely empty at the time, no one was hurt, no property damaged, and the women had left voluntarily when asked to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I understand the reaction, however I do no accept it as valid reason for imprisonment. In my statements, I have not addressed the Russian people's reaction so much as Kirill's. He is called upon to be better than he is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is rubbish. They did nothing of that sort in the church.
I am not asking Kirill to like or approve of what they did in the church. His job is not to prevent anything. His is to promote. Right now he is promoting Putin's message, not that of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't doubt that the You Tube piece was edited, nor do I think that the motives of the protestors were entirely as pure as the driven snow - far from it. Nor do I think that the Western media has represented the whole picture.

But I am getting rather tired of this 'You lot don't really understand as much as I do ...' schtick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
... The prosecution produced nine victims of the offence, perhaps the worst a security guard who had been off work for two months ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I am not asking Kirill to like or approve of what they did in the church. His job is not to prevent anything. His is to promote. Right now he is promoting Putin's message, not that of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Vermin to vermin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
On Sunday, we shall pray, as we always do, for "our great lord and father Kyrill, the most holy patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias". Perhaps we should revert to praying for "the Orthodox episcopate of the Church of Russia" as we did before the union. It would allow us at least to still offer those prayers without saying anything that I, if a deacon or priest, simply could not say. May God forgive me.

---

I treat the adjectives attached to the names of bishops as titles, not descriptors. I do the same with adjectives attached to the names of elected officials. I could therefore say "The honorable gentleman from Wisconsin" (or "the most holy patriarch of Moscow"), regardless of what I believed about the honor or holiness of the gentlemen in question.

Perhaps that's a kind of mind game that is not entirely honest. But it works for me.

---

Thank you for this, Josephine.

As it happens, my parish hasn't used the polychronion (the only place where the congregation might be expected to sing the "offending" words) for very long. I don't know why it was customarily omitted but it had been that way since I joined the parish. I introduced it with the new choir music book that I finally completed a few weeks ago. What that means is that the choir isn't yet accustomed to it. This morning, they forgot.

Thank you, as well, mdijon, for your sentiment in response to mine. It was appreciated.
 

---

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
(I see I have x-posted with Mr. Scrump. (Can we still use your first name?

---

Of course! although I quite like that Mr Scrump thing you've got going on.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
We seem to be getting round to a view that the customs of the Russian church are indeed much against the presence of women in the altar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Russia’s values ay endure, ever faithful , ever sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Vermin to vermin.

---

You should reflect a bit on this. The women concerned have not physically harmed anyone, have not damaged any property, have caused no substantive loss to anyone, but seem to have outraged you enough by what they did for you to describe them as vermin.

Can you really be comfortable with yourself as someone who describes other human beings like this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I tend to think, given the way they performed + other antics by members of the group (such as a live orgy in a museum and sex with a chicken in a supermarket) that this is what we mean when we point out they are "Orthodox".

---

quote:

---

Why is it not Patriarch Kirill's duty to ensure things like this cannot happen in the churches of the faithful?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think I trust your words, Berwickshire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Russia’s values ay endure, ever faithful , ever sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Russia’s values ay endure, ever faithful , ever sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Russia’s values ay endure, ever faithful , ever sure.

---

The most dangerous thing in the world, some person, nation, or religion that is ever sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I tend to think, given the way they performed + other antics by members of the group (such as a live orgy in a museum and sex with a chicken in a supermarket) that this is what we mean when we point out they are "Orthodox".

---

Ummm.... where did you get the information about the museum and the supermarket? I've seen that said, of course -- but it appears that the people who did those things were members of a different group, one called Voyna (War), not Pussy Riot. One member of Pussy Riot was formerly a member of Voyna, but is not any longer.

---

quote:

---

So are you just looking for garbage and slime to throw at these young women, to justify your outrage? Have a care, because you may find yourself bearing false witness against your neighbors (for these women are your neighbors). If you confess yourself the chief of sinners, you should understand why your offense may well be greater than theirs.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it not Patriarch Kirill's duty to ensure things like this cannot happen in the churches of the faithful?

---

The way it was handled at the time was perfectly appropriate. Their protest was interrupted, after less than a minute, they were asked to leave, and they left. That is exactly what should have happened, and if Patriarch Kirill was responsible for that, then he fulfilled his duty admirably.

---

quote:

---

I don't see how it could be considered the Patriarch's duty to ensure that the state prosecute the people involved in the protest, though. Could you explain?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You make it sound like it was a peaceful protest - the women didn't leave quietly when asked, they had to be restrained and pushed out, as is clear in the news videos. They forced their way into the place just in front of the iconostasis - no-one invited them there. And as you know, the real intention was to film footage for a video which they put together to send all over the world

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You make it sound like it was a peaceful protest - the women didn't leave quietly when asked, they had to be restrained and pushed out, as is clear in the news videos. They forced their way into the place just in front of the iconostasis - no-one invited them there. And as you know, the real intention was to film footage for a video which they put together to send all over the world

---

That would meet most definitions of peaceful protest. 'Peaceful' refers to non-violence on the part of the protesters, rather than the absence of any commotion or noise. "Needing" to be restrained or pushed doesn't mean that the protesters can be considered 'violent'.

Whatever criticisms you level against the women, I still think it is worth considering the sentence in the grand scheme. Compare the sentence with the usual terms served for common assault, for instance. Or the terms served for spreading violent racist propaganda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The purpose was to spread propoganda all over the world to discredit Russia and the ROC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Same stuff again

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The purpose was to spread propoganda all over the world to discredit Russia and the ROC, which entailed forcing their way into the Cathedral and taking over it for a short while.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The purpose was to spread propoganda all over the world to discredit Russia and the ROC, which entailed forcing their way into the Cathedral and taking over it for a short while. It is this that upset the Russian people, and the court decided that it didn't want to send out a message which said that it is OK for anyone to do this, lest others try to do the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Late Paul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The purpose was to spread propoganda all over the world to discredit Russia and the ROC, which entailed forcing their way into the Cathedral and taking over it for a short while. It is this that upset the Russian people, and the court decided that it didn't want to send out a message which said that it is OK for anyone to do this, lest others try to do the same.

---

And do you think that it's the business of a court, of the criminal law, to protect the reputation of the Church and the State?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Shoot the rabid dogs!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
but that will just attract humourless ire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Charlie Gilmour recently received a 16 month sentence in prison for swinging on the Cenotaph in London during the Tuition Fees protest. I suspect many members of the British Public would have been delighted if he had got 10 years. This was considered a desecration of a monument of a quasi-sacred status.

I for one think the level of tuition fees is wrong and I have a low opinion of Vladimir Putin but if you go about outraging public sensibilities either for publicity or because you are drugged up as in Gilmour's case then you run the risk of a custodial sentence in most countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Double standards anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But Gilmour also hurled a dustbin lid at Charlie's car, and smashed a window in Topshop, and set fire to stuff outside the Law courts.

I also think his sentence was too harsh, in fact, quite ludicrous.

Not double standards at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not double standards at all.

---

quote:

---

...who had pleaded guilty to violent disorder... ... There was serious mob disorder. In Oxford Street there were mass attacks on shops. Shoppers and staff were besieged inside. Heavy plate glass windows were kicked in and goods were looted...

....The defendant admitted violent disorder. He was unmistakeably captured on CCTV footage in Oxford Street joining in the attack on the windows of a shop. He was part of a violent crowd laying siege to the shop, in which both staff and shoppers were trapped. He twice ran up and launched heavy kicks at the window, as did others
before him and, no doubt, after him. The combined effect of the attack was that the windows were at some stage broken...

...he then sat ostentatiously on the bonnet of one of the escort cars, because that too was plainly shown on camera. ...the cars were pelted with objects which included three large bins. It seems to have been at this stage that the windows of the cars were smashed, although by precisely which object(s) is not clear... the defendant threw one of the bins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
You must have neglected to read the link to the judgement I posted. Let me help;

quote:

---

...who had pleaded guilty to violent disorder... ... There was serious mob disorder. In Oxford Street there were mass attacks on shops. Shoppers and staff were besieged inside. Heavy plate glass windows were kicked in and goods were looted...

....The defendant admitted violent disorder. He was unmistakeably captured on CCTV footage in Oxford Street joining in the attack on the windows of a shop. He was part of a violent crowd laying siege to the shop, in which both staff and shoppers were trapped. He twice ran up and launched heavy kicks at the window, as did others
before him and, no doubt, after him. The combined effect of the attack was that the windows were at some stage broken...

...he then sat ostentatiously on the bonnet of one of the escort cars, because that too was plainly shown on camera. ...the cars were pelted with objects which included three large bins. It seems to have been at this stage that the windows of the cars were smashed, although by precisely which object(s) is not clear... the defendant threw one of the bins.

---

I'm prepared to accept that the sentence was harsh, and that the public outrage was partly to blame (although this is arguable). I don't see much parallel with pussy riot though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One of the members of pussy riot was in that orgy - heavily pregnant at the time - source: RT.com

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So are you just looking for garbage and slime to throw at these young women

---

I'm not condemning them for their past misdemeanors, simply pointing out that they can't be likened to the "Holy Fools" which you seem to insist.

---

quote:

---

You make it sound like it was a peaceful protest -

---

quote:

---

We have to accept that it might just be possible that the court reached it's own conclusion without having to be prompted by Putin, nor the Patriarch. Is that completely beyond the realms of possibility?

---

Is Russia, no?

RT. com, aka Russia Today, is government owned.

BTW, Pussy Riot did not offend the Russian People, they offended some Russian people.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
RT. com, aka Russia Today, is government owned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think...

---

Jury's out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
I think you did not get the point I was making: the fact that there were other acts was a suitable pretext for the Court to convict and sentence him harshly but the punishment was really for the outraging of the Cenotaph.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
I think you did not get the point I was making: the fact that there were other acts was a suitable pretext for the Court to convict and sentence him harshly but the punishment was really for the outraging of the Cenotaph.

---

Depends on whether other rioters were also charged and punished.

Correct me if I'm wrong from halfway across the world, but I seem to recall that they were. In which case the 'pretext' is no pretext. Cenotaph-swingers and non-Cenotaph-swingers alike were punished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't see if the closing statements by Pussy Riot members have been posted or not. Anyway, here they are, including a nice quote from Berdyaev, which must have given Putin hot sweats:

http://nplusonemag.com/pussy-riot-closing-statements

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Double standards anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
He may well set litter bins on fire and swing from cenotauphs and therefore ought rightly to have the book thrown at him.

---

quote:

---

From the judgment:
He was unmistakeably captured on CCTV footage in Oxford Street joining in the attack on the windows of a shop. He was part of a violent crowd laying siege to the shop, in which both staff and shoppers were trapped ...

The Crown case was that the defendant also took violent part in the attack on the royal cars a little earlier ... the cars were pelted with objects which included three large bins ... the judge had to assess the evidence. He did so and heard full argument. He concluded that he was sure that the defendant had indeed thrown a bin....

A little later he was to be found swinging in an exhibitionist manner and for quite a prolonged period on one of the flags on the Cenotaph. This was an incident which unsurprisingly subsequently attracted a good deal of attention. Deeply offensive as it undoubtedly was, it did not amount to violence and thus was not part of the offence of violent disorder with which he was charged. Its relevance in law is limited to the fact that, along with the other behaviour we have mentioned, it demonstrates that he was at times over-excited, out of control, and raising the temperature in a manner which could only be dangerous in the context of a large and angry crowd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Reposted from the Mark Betts hell thread:

Here is the kind of child neglect that would get you going on for two years in jail in the UK.

Whereas apparently in Russia it may get you nothing at all.

Methinks there is a problem of priorities.

---

Ridiculous! It is well known infants routinely insult Putin and the church. They are lucky to only received neglect, they should be sent to prison.

[ 21. August 2012, 01:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

From the judgment:
...

A little later he was to be found swinging in an exhibitionist manner and for quite a prolonged period on one of the flags on the Cenotaph. This was an incident which unsurprisingly subsequently attracted a good deal of attention. Deeply offensive as it undoubtedly was, it did not amount to violence and thus was not part of the offence of violent disorder with which he was charged. Its relevance in law is limited to the fact that, along with the other behaviour we have mentioned, it demonstrates that he was at times over-excited, out of control, and raising the temperature in a manner which could only be dangerous in the context of a large and angry crowd.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been away for a few days and so haven't commented up to now on this.

I know what I am going to say will get up most shipmates' noses, but nevertheless, here goes.

If you live in a state which habitually exercises force against protesters, those are the parameters you have to live by. It's pointless people elsewhere, where the rules are different, being all high-minded about what heavy handed states do. If you live in one, and you challenge its establishment, you can't really complain when it does what it's likely to do.

So Pussy Rioters, for what is after all, by any objective standards, an offensive and rather juvenile protest. So Tiananmen Square.

If you want to protest, you have to take, and accept, the risk that the state may throw the book at you, or shoot you. That is the price of protest. It is higher in some countries than in others. That is the way those countries do political debate.

It's like getting into a cage with a tiger. If it's feeling relaxed, it may let you tickle it. If it's hungry or angry, you can't complain when it attacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
If you live in a state which habitually exercises force against protesters, those are the parameters you have to live by.

---

quote:

---

It's pointless people elsewhere, where the rules are different, being all high-minded about what heavy handed states do.

---

quote:

---

If you live in one, and you challenge its establishment, you can't really complain when it does what it's likely to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The young ladies could have protested as much as they liked, sang, done cartwheels - almost anything, with no fear of arrest or imprisonment. They could have done it in almost any public space they pleased. The only problem is that doing things that way won't get you publicity.

So, for fame and publicity, they had to take things one step further - can you people really not see it?

---

quote:

---

Mark Betts: The young ladies could have protested as much as they liked, sang, done cartwheels - almost anything, with no fear of arrest or imprisonment. They could have done it in almost any public space they pleased. The only problem is that doing things that way won't get you publicity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What's this weird idea that you can't complain?

So Aung San Suu Kyi should just have sucked it up, when she was punished in various ways?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The young ladies could have protested as much as they liked, sang, done cartwheels - almost anything, with no fear of arrest or imprisonment. They could have done it in almost any public space they pleased. The only problem is that doing things that way won't get you publicity.

So, for fame and publicity, they had to take things one step further - can you people really not see it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The young ladies could have protested as much as they liked, sang, done cartwheels - almost anything, with no fear of arrest or imprisonment. They could have done it in almost any public space they pleased. The only problem is that doing things that way won't get you publicity.

So, for fame and publicity, they had to take things one step further - can you people really not see it?

---

We've seen it all along. The only difference between you and others is that you think they ought to be condemned for seeking publicity.

Indeed, I explicitly acknoweldged the goal of publicity in an earlier post. Did you really not see that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, Pussy Riot should have done their protest in their own homes. With the shades drawn and the lights off. At night. With heavy clouds and no moon.
And they should have protested Russia's every problem, except they shouldn't have protested any of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also think the name is a bit tacky. After all, some US magazines have been forced to search for other phrases, such as 'Russian female beat combo' and the like.

I suggest instead of Pussy Riot, something like 'Cardigan Balm' or 'Dishcloth Tea-time'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also think the name is a bit tacky. After all, some US magazines have been forced to search for other phrases, such as 'Russian female beat combo' and the like.

I suggest instead of Pussy Riot, something like 'Cardigan Balm' or 'Dishcloth Tea-time'.

---

Hmmm, so instead of The Sex Pistols, it should have been The Only Heterosexual Married Couples at Night in the Bedroom in the Missionary Position for the Purpose of Procreation Pistols?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Oh yes it could be called The Madonna School of Publicity the tenet being that nothing is sacred if it gives publicity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, has anyone got any hard evidence in relation to Kirill in the KGB? There was a turbulent priest who claimed to have seen all the files, full of church leaders, working as KGB agents.

But this may be just froth and sour grapes. Is there anything solid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, has anyone got any hard evidence in relation to Kirill in the KGB? There was a turbulent priest who claimed to have seen all the files, full of church leaders, working as KGB agents.

But this may be just froth and sour grapes. Is there anything solid?

---

Russian Orthodox online circles often make mention of documents and other publications in Russian that are claimed to show a number of things. This purportedly includes evidence that the actions of puppet patriarch Sergius were far more sinister than merely those of a bishop bending over backwards to save the church, that both the current and previous occupants of the patriarchal throne (code names Mikhailov and Drozdov, respectively), were indeed KGB agents and contemporaries of the current president, and that much of the friendliness presently observed between church and state is closely bound with morally questionable dealings.

I do not have Russian so have not read such things myself and would not know how to search the internet but there it is as I have heard it from those who do. How trustworthy that is, I do not know.

As for the claim that Pussy Riot's protest has failed, I disagree. It has revealed to me that, despite what many of us were told five years ago, the claim that Sergianism is alive and well amounts to more than just the fanatical ravings of over-zealous converts in the west.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The young ladies could have protested as much as they liked, sang, done cartwheels - almost anything, with no fear of arrest or imprisonment. They could have done it in almost any public space they pleased. The only problem is that doing things that way won't get you publicity.

So, for fame and publicity, they had to take things one step further - can you people really not see it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This might be interesting as a Russian cleric's view on the matter - an open letter to Sir Paul McCartney.

(If I mess up the link could some kind Host sort it for me?)

http://www.pravmir.com/open-letter-of-fr-sergy-ribko-to-sir-paul-mccartney/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
You said that if this happened in Canada, they could go to jail for two years. But there are no allegations that they were violent, which is what justifies a two-year sentence. At most they committed a "summary conviction" crime, which basically means that a judge gets to impose whatever penalty he feels fits the crime. I would imagine in Canada that they would be fined and given a stern talking to. They wouldn't be treated like Hannibal Lecter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He speaks of peace, freedom, and love. Yet his letter is antithetical to this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Mark Betts: The young ladies could have protested as much as they liked, sang, done cartwheels - almost anything, with no fear of arrest or imprisonment. They could have done it in almost any public space they pleased. The only problem is that doing things that way won't get you publicity.

---

Uhm, the whole point of protesting is getting publicity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He speaks of peace, freedom, and love. Yet his letter is antithetical to this.

---

Just to prove we aren't one big conspiring clique, I though I'd nitpick on this point.

---

quote:

---

If you live in a state which habitually exercises force against protesters, those are the parameters you have to live by.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Do as I say, not as I do, that seems to be the message of the West to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though the Naked Rambler shows enforcement is a matter of interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Of course as noted the West has been utterly silent about the violent smashing of protest in Bahrain and the recent jailing of an activist there for three years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Of course as noted the West has been utterly silent about the violent smashing of protest in Bahrain and the recent jailing of an activist there for three years.

---

I don't think the West has been completely silent, actually.

But in any case, the problem with this sort of argument is that anytime someone complains about or denounces a particular wrong, one can immediately silence them with a list of equal or worse wrongs about which they haven't complained.

It is the sort of reasoning that leads one to conclude any problem isn't worth solving or even thinking about because there are worse problems in the world that should be solved first.

---

So, if we say our own injustices are no better or worse than Russia's, which problems should we tackle first? Our own, or other countries'?
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think that's too schematic. I can't plan my own responses to various outrages. I protest about the Syrian repression, about the anti-gay marriage lobby in the UK, about the Pussy Riot debacle, about the imprisonment of Bradley Manning, but I don't sit down and work out a check-list. I just resonate with some things.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I agree with quetzalcoatl, one can't be prescriptive about it.

And having said that, I don't think it is true that the UK injustices are equivalent. There are problems with heavy handed policing, but as far as I know no-one has received a prison sentence for protesting in the complete absence of violence or vandalism.

The nude hiker is about as close as it comes, and is a particular form of very persistent offending that doesn't quite parallel Pussy Riot in church.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
It can work the other way of course - the problem may not be that we punish too severely, but that we are too soft (and therefore disproportionate) on certain types of crime. Gosh, we have got a lot of work on our hands to put the world to rights!
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So, if we say our own injustices are no better or worse than Russia's, which problems should we tackle first? Our own, or other countries'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It can work the other way of course - the problem may not be that we punish too severely, but that we are too soft (and therefore disproportionate) on certain types of crime. Gosh, we have got a lot of work on our hands to put the world to rights!

---

You'll remember, I'm sure, that that was an implication of one of my earlier posts?

And yes you're right. We do have a lot of work on our hands. But then from the Christian perspective, at least, we are committed to work with God towards the petition 'your kingdom come, on earth as in heaven'. Of course, there are numerous ways of attempting that.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's too schematic. I can't plan my own responses to various outrages. I protest about the Syrian repression, about the anti-gay marriage lobby in the UK, about the Pussy Riot debacle, about the imprisonment of Bradley Manning, but I don't sit down and work out a check-list. I just resonate with some things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
How about we subscribe to the idea that human rights and liberties are an issue for as many of us as possible wherever we live?

---

quote:

---

Without specifically invoking good old Godwin, there have been some notable periods of history where the question of 'minding our own business' and 'ignoring serious injustice elsewhere' were one and the same thing. The results were pretty much universally felt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
How about we subscribe to the idea that human rights and liberties are an issue for as many of us as possible wherever we live?

---

But who gets to define what "human rights" are? America?

quote:

---

Without specifically invoking good old Godwin, there have been some notable periods of history where the question of 'minding our own business' and 'ignoring serious injustice elsewhere' were one and the same thing. The results were pretty much universally felt.

---

Oh, I'm sure America won't be minding it's own business when there's oil to be considered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
.... some of these intellectuals ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Our lack of tolerance for poppy burning on armistice day might be a better comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that breaking into the House of Commons was a reasonable comparison. Should that receive a prison sentence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
...No, if no-one is hurt and nothing very important is stolen or damaged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There are other ways to hurt people besides violence Ken, and there are other ways of stealing and damaging (such as sacrilege) besides your masked villain dragging a sack behind him with "loot" written on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sacrilege?! That nearly deserves a hell call in itself. Is your god so weak? So petty as to be offended by a few people singing a silly song? Meanwhile, one of his senior priests abuses power, using His name to legitimize a budding dictator, but that is not offensive. There is this character in your holy book, named Jesus. I really think studying him might benefit your world view. Even we heathens can appreciate the words therin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...and one more thing lilBuddha - nobody actually died, did they?

---

quote:

---

I understand why people might be offended when others show disrespect to what they hold sacred, I truly do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mark

quote:

---

I understand why people might be offended when others show disrespect to what they hold sacred, I truly do.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?

---

I can see that Alogon. In fact, despite what I have said, it has been in the back of my mind - who else will our nanny-state government decide is not "in the public good" in months or years to come?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That is the EXACT OPPOSITE to the position you are defending on this thread.

Whiuch, if either, is your real belief?

---

Both - really. Let me explain. My personal opinion of some of the forementioned persona non grata is not very rosey - however, the principle of the government deciding who is good for british people or not, with no consultation, reeks of "nana knows best". If someone I do admire wants to visit the UK, but nana decides against it, then where will it all end?
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Darn it Ken you've gone and mixed up the threads so badly, even I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be answering to now!
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Ken, no, it isn't. Mark agrees that a government should let a controversial person visit the country and address those who want to hear him. It is a total non-sequitur to infer that if a church is open for prayer, then we must look the other way when people abuse that hospitality, insist on going into areas where they do not belong, and use the place as a platform for shameless self-promotion.

Do you object to the fact that we couldn't perform on the stage of Royal Festival Hall without paying a hefty fee for the use of the place? For that matter, I doubt that we could perform there, no matter how much we offer to pay, unless we had a respectable artistic reputation. And according to NPR, no one-- but no one-- claims any musicianship for Pussy Riot. They might be called a rock band, but that should go in quotes. They are better described as performance artists, i.e. people who think up new and bizarre ways to push the envelope; and once a given act has seen the light of day, it is no longer of any interest. All they can do for an encore is think up an even more shocking way to cross some boundary or other.

The performance artist wins. The church loses, and so does everyone who expects it to remain open for prayer.

Part of Mark's freedom, and mine, and yours, is that as Christian worshippers we can walk into a church to pray on our own ad libitum, unannounced and unplanned, at various hours of the day or night. It is valuable to be able to do this. Our forebears took it for granted for centuries that they could do this, before the term "bill of rights" was even heard of. Only recently has it become necessary to lock many Western churches up tight six days a week.

The precedent set by Pussy Riot is not a wholesome one and will invite worse to come. If they have served any jail time at all for this, I'd be quite happy to let them off with time served (especially given that Mousethief and Josephine, as Orthodoxen, aren't particularly bothered and can even see some possible benefits), but what they did is not o.k.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Thankyou Alogon, so much... thankyou! You put it far better than I could have done, and have resolved the thread mixup (intentionally perpetrated by Ken) at the same time! For what it's worth, I would have thought 2 years, with 18 months suspended, would have been enough, provided that the girls showed remorse for what they did (which they didn't.)
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
In which case you are still punishing the offence more severely than common assault. Which seems odd.

I think Alogon showed clearly enough there are differences between the Todd Bentley case and Pussy riot, but I think it was a fair challenge to ask how the apparent dissonance between "I disagree with him but we shouldn't allow the state to censor him" and "The state should lock these protesters up".

Alogon has answered, and that seems all good to me. But to say that ken intentionally perpetrated a thread mix-up as if this was some nefarious deed to confuse you isn't the right way of looking at it. He made you think about the apparent contradictions in what you were saying in two different instances. Alogon answered rationally and dealt with the point, you didn't.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
The precedent set by Pussy Riot is not a wholesome one and will invite worse to come. If they have served any jail time at all for this, I'd be quite happy to let them off with time served (especially given that Mousethief and Josephine, as Orthodoxen, aren't particularly bothered and can even see some possible benefits), but what they did is not o.k.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

Do you object to the fact that we couldn't perform on the stage of Royal Festival Hall without paying a hefty fee for the use of the place?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alogon:
do you agree or disagree that a sentence of two years is inappropriate for what the protestors did? That, for me at least is the point here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

Do you object to the fact that we couldn't perform on the stage of Royal Festival Hall without paying a hefty fee for the use of the place?

---

No, but I'd object even more if someone was sent to jail for trying it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

Do you object to the fact that we couldn't perform on the stage of Royal Festival Hall without paying a hefty fee for the use of the place?

---

No, but I'd object even more if someone was sent to jail for trying it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Alogon has answered, and that seems all good to me. But to say that ken intentionally perpetrated a thread mix-up as if this was some nefarious deed to confuse you isn't the right way of looking at it. He made you think about the apparent contradictions in what you were saying in two different instances. Alogon answered rationally and dealt with the point, you didn't.

---

My comment about Ken was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I wasn't really accusing him of anything, except confusing me.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Re Bishop Kiril and his crookedness or lack thereof, would that we could determine whether he still owns that Rolex watch that he used to own but didn't want the public to know he owned.

If he has repented of his ownership of the watch and gotten rid of it (preferably donating the proceeds to a good cause) then I can accept that he was lacking in wisdom and has since gained a little more. But if he still has the watch (secretly, because he'd rather not explain how he came by it), then he is crooked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
...do you agree or disagree that a sentence of two years is inappropriate for what the protestors did? That, for me at least is the point here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
He shouldn't have had the watch in the first place.

By the way you haven't really commented on the scale of the sentence compared with the sentences for assault and other crimes as I laid out earlier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
So you do think it appropriate if they were not remorseful about their actions ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems odd to me that you could be so clear those saying the sentence was too harsh were wrong earlier in the thread, but now can't answer what seem to me fairly simple questions following from that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
So you didn't disagree per se that the sentence was too harsh, simply that our reasons for thinking the sentence was too harsh were wrong?

And as to it not being up to you, I venture to suggest that most of the things you have discussed on this board are not up to you.

But it seems to me that one way to work out whether a 2yr sentence for Pussy Riot is harsh is to consider what sentences one would give for other crimes. If common assault deserves a substantially lesser sentence, then that is an indication that something is out of proportion. So it's not a question of whether it is up to you, it is a question of whether you can answer in a way that is consistent with previously expressed sentiments.

If one can't follow through in a consistent way on sentencing, than that suggests that the 2 yr sentence is disproportionate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't see why that should be a precondition to a simple question on what sentence to give.

The world needs a view on the correct sentence for common assault, and on the correct sentence for being a nuisance in church.

You might argue in your justification for very different sentences that the religious element is important, but there must be a comparison of sorts, since both are going through the same justice system.

If you think the two crimes are completely incomparable, then to my mind the only logical response to that is to suggest that the two sentences must have completely different modalities in order to prevent any comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Most places enforce important "authorized personnel only" or "do not enter" restrictions with lock and key. I daresay it would usually be simply impossible for anyone who is in a place like Royal Festival Hall as a member of the audience, or on a guided tour, to walk onto the stage without deliberate and premeditated subterfuge, stealth, or damage to the property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Do you think that religious hatred should be disregarded then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
In most places if you walk through a door looking like you know where you are going you have a decent chance of getting through. I've done just that in theatres and concerts a couple of times myself. In my younger naughtier days, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Do you think that religious hatred should be disregarded then?

---

No I don't.

Can you imagine what conclusions I am drawing from your repeated avoidance of a simple question about the appropriate sentence for common assault?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
But on the other hand I suppose it is a fair point.

The answer is, under article 115 "Intentional Infliction of Light Injury... from 50 to 100 minimum wages... or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one month, or punishable by compulsory works for a term of from 180 to 240 hours, or corrective labour for a term of up to one year, or by arrest for a term of from two to four months."

How do you think that compares?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think what Pussy Riot did really qualifies as religious hatred in terms of criminal sentencing. They weren't expressing vindictive wishes towards Orthodox believers or inciting violence in any way.

But there are only so many points one can debate at once, particularly when each one is like pulling teeth...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't understand why you defend them... unless you have a similar disregard for christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Ken, no, it isn't. Mark agrees that a government should let a controversial person visit the country and address those who want to hear him. It is a total non-sequitur to infer that if a church is open for prayer, then we must look the other way when people abuse that hospitality, insist on going into areas where they do not belong, and use the place as a platform for shameless self-promotion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
"Religious hatred" has a precise meaning in legal terms - it doesn't just mean what you want it to mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sacrilege?! That nearly deserves a hell call in itself. Is your god so weak? So petty as to be offended by a few people singing a silly song? Meanwhile, one of his senior priests abuses power, using His name to legitimize a budding dictator, but that is not offensive. There is this character in your holy book, named Jesus. I really think studying him might benefit your world view. Even we heathens can appreciate the words therin.

---

lilBuddha, you may believe in none of it, and have your own personal worldview and philosophy, but if you can't even empathise with others who believe differently you devalue your whole argument.

As Fr. Sergy (Ribko) explained, your idea of "freedom" seems to be to trample all over others' freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't understand why you defend them... unless you have a similar disregard for christians.

---

Yes, I do. I believe that they were speaking prophetically to a church that needed to be awakened from a trance-like devotion to political corruption. Agreed, they are an odd choice for prophecy. But the Lord has a history of choosing surprising voices to carry His message. God's people have an equally long history of finding ways to imprison the prophetic voices that are raised up.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
When you force your way into a sacred place, trampling all over it with no respect, disrupting people's private devotions and mimicking them in a mocking way, shouting, swearing, blaspheming, screaming and dancing and playing guitars, quite likely frightening some of the elder christians, is that just "making a nuisance of yourself?"

"Religious hatred" has a precise meaning in legal terms - it doesn't just mean what you want it to mean.

I don't understand why you defend them... unless you have a similar disregard for christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think what Pussy Riot did really qualifies as religious hatred in terms of criminal sentencing. They weren't expressing vindictive wishes towards Orthodox believers or inciting violence in any way.

But there are only so many points one can debate at once, particularly when each one is like pulling teeth...

---

When you force your way into a sacred place, trampling all over it with no respect, disrupting people's private devotions and mimicking them in a mocking way, shouting, swearing, blaspheming, screaming and dancing and playing guitars, quite likely frightening some of the elder christians, is that just "making a nuisance of yourself?"

...

I don't understand why you defend them... unless you have a similar disregard for christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I want you to reflect on the fact that if beating someone up gets you a fine or up to 4 months, then 2 years for being a nuisance in church and causing offence to people but no physical harm seems disproportionate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Now I'll throw in something new - Supposing instead of females, the offence had been committed by males. Now, with western equality laws being sacrosanct, should they have been dealt with in exactly the same way,

---

quote:

---

with the same western media sympathy?

---

quote:

---

Should they have been let off with a slap on the wrist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
With regard to the legal definition for religious hatred, my reading of the act is that it is about hatred for persons based on religious grounds, and therefore unless it could be shown that what Pussy Riot did stirred up hatred towards Christians (either generally or of a particular denomination) then I don't think it qualifies. Read here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Politics is something that belong specifically to natives and citizens, something a foreigner should not meddle in. It's not their politics.

---

Try telling that to some of the guys on here!
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
IngoB,

Intention defines the crime for many offences in much of the world, I am not certain how you avoid this. Murder vs. manslaughter being a big one. Yes, problematic. But draconian without such consideration.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Politics is something that belong specifically to natives and citizens, something a foreigner should not meddle in. It's not their politics.

---

Try telling that to some of the guys on here!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Can you conscientiously say that the Pol Pot politics of the Kmer Rouge should have been safeguarded by the championing of this principle?

The Mao Tse Tung politics of China?

The local politics of Pakistan where a Down's Syndrome child is about to be prosecuted under Blasphemy Laws? (And that's in the face of national political pressure within Pakistan itself; bearing in mind the assassination of the last senior politician who stood for the rights of a Christian.)

The Afghan/Middle Eastern local/national political scene that permits hangings/be-headings of gay people, adulterers etc?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So don't you think we should have some sense of priority?

And if we did, don't you think that a longer than expected prison sentence for a few girls who almost asked to be incarcerated comes down pretty low on the list?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
If we're going to talk priorities, and the "girls" [sic] (at least in views you expressed elsewhere) should have been home with their children instead of protesting, then surely a 2-year sentence which separates the same women from the same children is pretty harsh.

If an evening away from child-care is irresponsible on their part, then two years away demanded by the government is certainly even more irresponsible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But you've missed the point completely. In your zeal for justice, why aren't you more concerned about the things which Anselmina listed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:


But there are only so many points one can debate at once, particularly when each one is like pulling teeth...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well there you have it. We can't count all the injustices in the world, never mind right them all. So don't you think we should have some sense of priority?

And if we did, don't you think that a longer than expected prison sentence for a few girls who almost asked to be incarcerated comes down pretty low on the list?

---

My post already acknowledges that.

I'm asking you if the principle you're applying of 'ignore it, it's foreign' is responsible and conscientiously applicable in all cases, as you seem to be saying?

If you think Pussy Riot were appropriately dealt with, great. That's your judgement call, your personal opinion; one of many which may or may not agree with others here. But if your defence of the Russian action in this case is 'it's none of our business', that's a very different debate.

Look, I'm boring myself. Heaven knows what I'm doing to you and others! The thread's run its course, imo. So I'll bow out here.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm asking you if the principle you're applying of 'ignore it, it's foreign' is responsible and conscientiously applicable in all cases, as you seem to be saying?

---

quote:

---

The thread's run its course, imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So don't you think we should have some sense of priority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So don't you think we should have some sense of priority?

---

Everyone has a sense of priority. The question is: why do you think someone else's sense of priority has to match yours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Russians will not be surprised to see that two of the band are foreigners (the Canadian might be able to plead the obvious mitigation) and so put out their message in English.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So don't you think we should have some sense of priority?

---

Everyone has a sense of priority. The question is: why do you think someone else's sense of priority has to match yours?

---

So, it's a top priority for you then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What do you suggest? A "humanitarian" intervention?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
After all, there is oil in Russia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
This has all been pointed out before, but here's another attempt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So don't you think we should have some sense of priority?

---

Everyone has a sense of priority. The question is: why do you think someone else's sense of priority has to match yours?

---

So, it's a top priority for you then.

---

1. This response states an unwarranted assumption. Orfeo did not mention his own priorities; you have no basis for inferring that Pussy Riot's sentence is a "top priority" for him. PR's sentence IS, however, the primary topic of this thread, at least at the point of its apparent death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What do you suggest? A "humanitarian" intervention?

---

2. This response may be slightly less off-topic, but neither does it further discussion; it continues to deflect the question put to you about your principled basis, assuming there is one, for your stance regarding PR's sentence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
After all, there is oil in Russia.

---

3. This response may be Hell-worthy, though I lack the time or energy to pursue one.

In my opinion, your total response shows contempt for the discussion process. This contempt is shown by:

(A) constantly ignoring or deflecting on-topic questions put to you;

(B) trivializing other posters' genuine concerns (e.g. "humanitarian" intervention);

(C) constantly attempting to shift the discussion focus with illegitimate and/or disproportionate comparisons with and questions about non-related issues (e.g. Russian oil).

If any of that hits the mark, what's your aim in posting on this thread? There's no need to participate in threads that arouse your contempt. Scroll on by. It's no skin off your nose if others wish to discuss issues you find unworthy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
This thread has most definitely run out of steam and no amount of bluster like the above will warm it up again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
But on the other hand I suppose it is a fair point.

The answer is, under article 115 "Intentional Infliction of Light Injury... from 50 to 100 minimum wages... or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to one month, or punishable by compulsory works for a term of from 180 to 240 hours, or corrective labour for a term of up to one year, or by arrest for a term of from two to four months."

How do you think that compares?

---

But do you see where I'm coming from? The legal system is complicated in Russia, as it is in the UK. I am not a lawyer, how can I compare two offences and come up with a recommended tarriff for one crime based on that for a completely different offence? Seriously, what do you want me to say?

---

That's a cop-out. You don't think that the average person is competent to decide what punishments are just and proportional? That only a lawyer can decide whether it makes sense to punish an outburst in church many times more severely that an assault?


 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
That's a cop-out. You don't think that the average person is competent to decide what punishments are just and proportional? That only a lawyer can decide whether it makes sense to punish an outburst in church many times more severely that an assault?

---

Lawyers don't decide just punishments, but they do understand the law better than you or I do (Personally I don't think Pussy Riot had very good legal representation.) I see you have again forgotten to consider the religious offence aspect.

Anyway, this thread is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned (although I know it is the Hosts' decision to move it there - standard disclaimer!)
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I see you have again forgotten to consider the religious offence aspect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, this thread is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned (although I know it is the Hosts' decision to move it there - standard disclaimer!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
That's a cop-out. You don't think that the average person is competent to decide what punishments are just and proportional? That only a lawyer can decide whether it makes sense to punish an outburst in church many times more severely that an assault?

---

Lawyers don't decide just punishments, but they do understand the law better than you or I do (Personally I don't think Pussy Riot had very good legal representation.) I see you have again forgotten to consider the religious offence aspect.

Anyway, this thread is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned (although I know it is the Hosts' decision to move it there - standard disclaimer!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
This has all been pointed out before, but here's another attempt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So don't you think we should have some sense of priority?

---

Everyone has a sense of priority. The question is: why do you think someone else's sense of priority has to match yours?

---

So, it's a top priority for you then.

---

1. This response states an unwarranted assumption. Orfeo did not mention his own priorities; you have no basis for inferring that Pussy Riot's sentence is a "top priority" for him. PR's sentence IS, however, the primary topic of this thread, at least at the point of its apparent death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Here is the response of a Russian Orthodox Christian in Russia to a blog post by Frederica Matthewes-Green on Ancient Faith Radio.

If anyone still has any interest at all in understanding how the events appeared in Russia, it's well worth reading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

I have seen some Orthodox (usually what could be called intellectuals) seem to defend it because it is a gesture against Putin. I think they need to really consider this band and what they stand for. They aren't modern day Anna Akmatovas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Perhaps they choose to support the message, even if they might not approve of the messenger. That would indeed be rational and intellectual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
Here in the United States we don't have a right not to be offended. The idea of going to jail for offending someone else's religious sensibilities is anathema to our legal system over here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I have seen some Orthodox (usually what could be called intellectuals) seem to defend it because it is a gesture against Putin. I think they need to really consider this band and what they stand for. They aren't modern day Anna Akmatovas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Could it possibly be they do understand? Perhaps they choose to support the message, even if they might not approve of the messenger. That would indeed be rational and intellectual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
Here in the United States we don't have a right not to be offended. The idea of going to jail for offending someone else's religious sensibilities is anathema to our legal system over here.

---

Are you so sure of that? Wasn't there a long thread on this board a few months ago about an atheist schoolgirl who had gone to court to insist that she was entitled to have a hanging in her school removed because it had a prayer on it?

Or is it that only some people are entitled to be offended?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
In US terms, students have the right to attend a government-run school which does not give the appearance of endorsing one particular religious tradition.

It's possible she may also have been offended, but that's not what our First Amendment concerns itself with, and it's not (or shouldn't be -- courts sometimes err) the basis for deciding such cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
religious believers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It is perhaps also worth saying that Russian Orthodox Christians have a right to be able to pray and hold services in church without being disrupted by punk rock bands.

It is just that it is not appropriate to enforce that with 2 year prison sentences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
So why isn't it right that religious believers should be entitled to be protected from having their worship disrupted [snip]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It is perhaps also worth saying that Russian Orthodox Christians have a right to be able to pray and hold services in church without being disrupted by punk rock bands.

It is just that it is not appropriate to enforce that with 2 year prison sentences.

---

In all the millions of words spoken and written on this matter, this is by far the most sensible comment I've heard or read. Thank you, mdjohn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
So why isn't it right that religious believers should be entitled to be protected from having their worship disrupted [snip]

---

I thought we had established that this wasn't during a worship service? Did I miss something that indicated otherwise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
So why isn't it right that religious believers should be entitled to be protected from having their worship disrupted [snip]

---

I thought we had established that this wasn't during a worship service? Did I miss something that indicated otherwise?

---

You did miss something. To the Orthodox, services never really begin or end. There are always blessings of some sort and confessions going on in the background.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
it was quite deliberately intended as civil disobedience, and that they fully expected to be arrested. They may have been surprised by the severity of the sentence, but they haven't complained or asked for amnesty... I do find it remarkable that Putin (like Mubarak, Ahmedinejad, Assad, etc.) has not yet seen the brilliance of the US government's approach to protestors:having a revolution for 200-odd years now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
So why isn't it right that religious believers should be entitled to be protected from having their worship disrupted and sacred buildings violated - particularly in a country where until recently under a different ideology, this was routinely denied?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm sorry, but No. I don't know who told you this but it's simply not true. And service do begin and end. That's how they can be advertised in the bulletin. This is überstupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm sorry, but No. I don't know who told you this but it's simply not true. And service do begin and end. That's how they can be advertised in the bulletin. This is überstupid.

---

Well, excuse me, but when did you last go to an Orthodox service? I can tell you it is true - not just from what people tell me, but from experience.

---

Yeah, come on, mousethief. What do you know about going to Orthodox worship or even being Orthodox!
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
*Gets popcorn*

This is going to be great. A newbie trying to tell Josephine and mousethief, the Ship's Orthodox power-couple, all about Orthodoxy.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
*Gets popcorn*

This is going to be great. A newbie trying to tell Josephine and mousethief, the Ship's Orthodox power-couple, all about Orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
*Gets popcorn*

This is going to be great. A newbie trying to tell Josephine and mousethief, the Ship's Orthodox power-couple, all about Orthodoxy.

---

Anyone want some ice cream?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Actually, yeah, I think I'd prefer ice cream over popcorn.

Meanwhile I'm wondering how the devil I ever found a description of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, to help me understand the attempt that Sergei Rachmaninov made to set the liturgy, if there's no such thing as the beginning and end of a service.

I mean, that's a seriously impressive trick right there. Not only composing a piece for a service with a defined beginning and end that doesn't exist, but rewriting history so that I can find dozens and dozens of links to the liturgy in question around 100 years later. Sergei was craftier than I realised!
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, excuse me, but when did you last go to an Orthodox service?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, excuse me, but when did you last go to an Orthodox service?

---

Come on mousethief - we are keen to hear your reply!

<brings home made lemon cake to the party>

---

MT might be a while - after all he might be at an endless service right now...
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Mark,

Thank you for the humour break. Oh, wait, you were serious?
My advice is to buy a soft cushion upon which to sit. You are going to need it while you heal.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mark,

Thank you for the humour break. Oh, wait, you were serious?
My advice is to buy a soft cushion upon which to sit. You are going to need it while you heal.

---

Yeah, get me some popcorn and a coke too, while we're waiting for mousethief, yeah? cheers!
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
You may have to wait a while, Mark. It's still early here, and I'm not sure he'll have time to check in on the Ship before we head off to Church. Given that he's a tonsured reader, and a member of the choir, we usually try to arrive early.

Before the services start.

In the mean time, enjoy the popcorn.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mark,

Thank you for the humour break. Oh, wait, you were serious?
My advice is to buy a soft cushion upon which to sit. You are going to need it while you heal.

---

Yeah, get me some popcorn and a coke too, while we're waiting for mousethief, yeah? cheers!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
You may have to wait a while, Mark. It's still early here, and I'm not sure he'll have time to check in on the Ship before we head off to Church. Given that he's a tonsured reader, and a member of the choir, we usually try to arrive early.

Before the services start.

In the mean time, enjoy the popcorn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

And shame on you others expecting some kind of a hell fight on a Purg thread. And shame on me for not licensing the manufacture of Mousethief Coolers™ so that people can enjoy the PROPER refreshment for such events when I am not available. Please PM me if you are interested in a franchise.

---

You're right. We have been very naughty and deserve to be chastised... oops, sorry, was getting mixed up with the wifely submission thread...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Amazingly I managed to go into an Orthodox church today (mine), when there was no service going on! Can you believe it? It just so happens I had my camera and am thus able to provide cinematographic evidence of this claim.

Click here.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
What is the proper response to Pussy Riot's action? For Putin to say "Yes, I am the greatest of sinners--I have been a vicious, corrupt, oppressive dictator--I repent of my sins and will immediately resign my office and retire to my dacha on the Black Sea to live on my ill-gotten fortune." And for Patriarch Kirill to make a similar statement.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I enjoy these latter, and am not quite certain why I'm not on the rotation to do them. I shall ask Reader Bede. When I have to do them it means I have to unlock the church building, turn on the lights, rearrange a little, then turn off the lights and lock up when I leave. I hope the implication of this is not lost on you.

---

quote:

---

I imagine what you mean about services already starting when you arrive is that you don't show up on time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

In our church we usually serve Matins before Liturgy, rather than combining it with Vespers the night before in the (so-called) All-Night Vigil. I hope you didn't take the "All-Night" thing literally! That would be too funny! I mean unfortunate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Amazingly I managed to go into an Orthodox church today (mine), when there was no service going on! Can you believe it? It just so happens I had my camera and am thus able to provide cinematographic evidence of this claim.

Click here.

---

You can be as condescending as you like, everyone knows you have been Orthodox longer than I have, but you shouldn't forget the worst sin of them all - pride.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


For some reason I've cut you more slack than some of the other posters have, Mark. Pride cuts both ways.

If I know Mousethief well enough he'd be the first to acknowledge that he can suffer from this sin, as well as the next man. As can I, as can anyone else.

What is unforgiveable in Ship terms is continuing to be a plonker.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
But he does it so well!
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Nothing to see here. Move along.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I invite those who consider Mark Betts a plonker and so on to join us on the Hell thread dedicated to him, which has been inexplicably silent since 1:30 NAEDT.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
I invite those who consider Mark Betts a plonker and so on to join us on the Hell thread dedicated to him, which has been inexplicably silent since 1:30 NAEDT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Amazingly I managed to go into an Orthodox church today (mine), when there was no service going on! Can you believe it? It just so happens I had my camera and am thus able to provide cinematographic evidence of this claim.

Click here.

---

You can be as condescending as you like, everyone knows you have been Orthodox longer than I have, but you shouldn't forget the worst sin of them all - pride.

---

What am I reading??
 

---

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 
Erm, I hope this isn't transgressing any hostly instruction, but I feel I must make a comment in the interests of factual accuracy and to support Mousethief's and Josephine's assertions. Should anyone doubt them or say they only apply to their Church.

I have been to lots, a very large number, over many years, of Greek Orthodox services of various types in Greece. And despite my limited knowledge of Greek I never had any trouble finding out when they started and finished. No-one ever told me they went on all the time.

I always knew when they started and finished because when I arrived people were arriving and they started when the liturgy started. I could always tell the difference between the liturgy and normal pre-service social conversation despite not knowing much Greek.

Likewise when they finished, people left.

I often visited churches when no service was taking place.

Perhaps the Russian Orthodox church is different,but I doubt it.

I do hope this helps clarify any confusion.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Amazingly I managed to go into an Orthodox church today (mine), when there was no service going on! Can you believe it? It just so happens I had my camera and am thus able to provide cinematographic evidence of this claim.

Click here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Amazingly I managed to go into an Orthodox church today (mine), when there was no service going on! Can you believe it? It just so happens I had my camera and am thus able to provide cinematographic evidence of this claim.

Click here.

---

Correction to keep Gamaliel happy:

You can be as condescending as you like, everyone knows you have been Orthodox longer than I have, but WE shouldn't forget the worst sin of them all - pride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thyme:
Erm, I hope this isn't transgressing any hostly instruction, but I feel I must make a comment in the interests of factual accuracy and to support Mousethief's and Josephine's assertions. Should anyone doubt them or say they only apply to their Church.

I have been to lots, a very large number, over many years, of Greek Orthodox services of various types in Greece. And despite my limited knowledge of Greek I never had any trouble finding out when they started and finished. No-one ever told me they went on all the time.

I always knew when they started and finished because when I arrived people were arriving and they started when the liturgy started. I could always tell the difference between the liturgy and normal pre-service social conversation despite not knowing much Greek.

Likewise when they finished, people left.

I often visited churches when no service was taking place.

Perhaps the Russian Orthodox church is different,but I doubt it.

I do hope this helps clarify any confusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
What is the proper response to Pussy Riot's action? For Putin to say "Yes, I am the greatest of sinners--I have been a vicious, corrupt, oppressive dictator--I repent of my sins and will immediately resign my office and retire to my dacha on the Black Sea to live on my ill-gotten fortune." And for Patriarch Kirill to make a similar statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The real point is that Orthodox christians should treat the Church as if a service is always taking place, even when it is quiet. This may be a Russian tradition, I don't know, because I don't have much experience outside of it. Maybe Michael Astley can help us out here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
So why isn't it right that religious believers should be entitled to be protected from having their worship disrupted [snip]

---

I thought we had established that this wasn't during a worship service? Did I miss something that indicated otherwise?

---

You did miss something. To the Orthodox, services never really begin or end. There are always blessings of some sort and confessions going on in the background.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So which is it? Are there always things going on, or is it merely that we should treat the worship space AS IF there were always things going on? And if you meant the latter, why did you say the former? Are you admitting you were wrong?

---

Let's just stick with the latter for now. Maybe I was either wrong before, or could have worded things better.

I have, though, spoken of Holy Spaces and devotions, which would indicate that there may not be a planned service taking place.

NB. Just a general point, there is a place for a christian to point out his brother's (or sister's) transgressions outside Confession, although as we know, he should check his own faults even more vigorously. Speck in eye, beam, I know, I know!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I'm not sure your comment has kept me happy, it's just made me want to insert another Hell Post.

More Purgatorially, it has made me realise the possible purpose of your existence and presence here. It is to remind us of the unlimited grace and patience of Almighty God. If he can put up with you, he can put up with any of us ...

More seriously, there does seem to something amiss when you start rounding on Mousethief and Josephine purely because they don't join in with the almost universal Orthodox chorus of disapproval on this one.

Had the protest/stunt/call-it-what-you-will had taken place in an RC cathedral or Protestant place of worship I daresay we'd have a similar range of reactions - from outright condemnation to a more liberal 'cut-em-some-slack'. The mileage would vary. I don't see why there should be one single, catch-all reaction to this within Orthodoxy any more than there would be or should be within any other Christian confession.

Heck, reactions within Russia seem mixed, although I would imagine there'd be more condemnation than we've seen in most circles over here. From what I've read the reactions seem to range from 'hang 'em/shoot 'em' through to 'I don't approve of what they did but I think the sentence is too harsh.'

Which is what your reaction seems to be.

Which is fair enough. So what's the big deal if Mousethief and Josephine have a different viewpoint on this issue?
 

---

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:


NB. Just a general point, there is a place for a christian to point out his brother's (or sister's) transgressions outside Confession...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:


NB. Just a general point, there is a place for a christian to point out his brother's (or sister's) transgressions outside Confession...

---

Yes, here on the Ship we refer to it as a Hell Call.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:


NB. Just a general point, there is a place for a christian to point out his brother's (or sister's) transgressions outside Confession...

---

Yes, here on the Ship we refer to it as a Hell Call.

---

Lalalalalala... (not listening) - I flounced my Hell thread a week ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So which is it? Are there always things going on, or is it merely that we should treat the worship space AS IF there were always things going on? And if you meant the latter, why did you say the former? Are you admitting you were wrong?

---

Let's just stick with the latter for now.

---