Ship of Fools: Church and State in Russia

Thread: Church and State in Russia Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023013

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Is Russia's Orthodox Church privileged or persecuted?

This article at the New York Times site reports that a protest performance uninvited by Pussy Riot, a female punk-rock group, occurred in the cathedral in Moscow. The members were arrested. Opposing demonstrations have occurred on behalf of the church and the group, the latter claiming that they broke no civil laws, only church regulations, so that there are no legitimate grounds for arrest. In other churches across Russia icons have been recently been damaged or destroyed by vandals. Thousands of the faithful are praying for the defense of the church and against descrecation and blasphemy.

The article also mentions revelations that Archbishop Kirill lives far more lavishly in Moscow than he would like the public to know. Russians perceive Putin and the Orthodox church as mutually supportive in general, to an extent that has caused Putin's detractors in Russia to take their ire out on the church.

These developments raise many issues, some specific to Russia and others more general.

The Philadelphia Inquirer report on this subject mentioned that soon after the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin's thugs shot icons full of bullet holes. At least one such icon is still revered today, holes and all, as a reminder of the official persecution that the church endured for decades. In those dark days, church attendance and Christian practice represented a quiet protest against the government, at the very least inconvenient for the worshipper's reputation, and often costlier than that. Well, how quickly things change. Less than a generation later, the church is seen as all but in bed with the state, to the extent of sustaining not-so-collateral damage in the course of essentially political protests.

Once again? Reverting to type? What is historically normal for the Orthodox church? One well-known introduction to and apologia for Orthodoxy argued that the very structure of the church obviates the kind of coziness with rulers that has often prevailed in the West. What truth is there any truth to this claim, either in theory or in practice?

The late Christopher Hitchens replies to observations about the cruelty of Stalin's atheistic regime by saying that Stalin only learned very well from the church's example, which included turning despots into demigods. He would ask the audience to put themselves in Stalin's place as a would-be autocrat. Wouldn't it be only natural, he asked, to claim all the same trappings that the people had been well-trained by the church to confer: those of someone superhuman?

It seemed like such a good argument when coming out of his mouth that one might forget to wonder why, if the church had been so good at doing exactly that for centuries, Stalin wouldn't find it easier to use it likewise, as did his predecessor-tyrants, rather than trying to eradicate it. Putin doesn't seem to have had much trouble applying this strategy.

Let's putting ourselves in Archbishop Kirill's place. Our church had borne up under sustained persecution since before most people were born, escaping oblivion in a manner that one should probably call miraculous. Of course we will be grateful for a more hospitable regime. But is it possible to be too grateful? Where is the straight and narrow between inviting persecution from the ruler and inviting desecration from the ruler's enemies?

Are groups like Pussy Riot legitimate political protesters, or are they hooligans intent on blasphemy no matter what the church's relation to the state might be?

What should the laws be against violating the hospitality of a church left open for prayer, by deliberate behavior which horrifies those who worship in it, even if it is outside service times and they leave the place physically unharmed? The house rules are that women do not enter the sanctuary of a Russian Orthodox church, and these women did that. I think that there should be some effective misdemeanor penalty and remedy, perhaps for trespass and, if necessary, the costs of reconsecration; but I don't know how such cases are handled in any country.

[ 24. April 2012, 00:12: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
What should the laws be against violating the hospitality of a church left open for prayer, by deliberate behavior which horrifies those who worship in it, even if it is outside service times and they leave the place physically unharmed? The house rules are that women do not enter the sanctuary of a Russian Orthodox church, and these women did that. I think that there should be some effective misdemeanor penalty and remedy, perhaps for trespass and, if necessary, the costs of reconsecration; but I don't know how such cases are handled in any country.

I would think that trespassing is the only legitimate charge to be applied here. With maybe the concept of tresspassing being extended to include a person entering a place(in this case, women entering a church) that the rules forbid them to enter.

I think it would be kind of daft to make Pussy Riot pay for the cost of reconsecration, since the defilement only exists in the minds of the church authorities. Otherwise, what would there be to stop some guy from declaring his back yard sacred ground, inadmissable to women, and then suing every girl who cuts through the yard on her way to school for the costs of reconsecration?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

And to answer the question in the headline...

Yes, if the Orthodox Church has more power than my hypothetical homeowner to take legal action against trespassers, than they are indeed protected, not persecuted.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Entering the sanctuary in Alogon's post almost certainly means entering what the Orthodox refer to as the altar, that is, the area behind (liturgically east of) the icon screen.

In Orthodox practice, only those who have specific business in the altar should go there. This certainly excludes women and non-Orthodox.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
The late Christopher Hitchens replies to observations about the cruelty of Stalin's atheistic regime by saying that Stalin only learned very well from the church's example, which included turning despots into demigods. He would ask the audience to put themselves in Stalin's place as a would-be autocrat. Wouldn't it be only natural, he asked, to claim all the same trappings that the people had been well-trained by the church to confer: those of someone superhuman?

Sure, wouldn’t we all proceed with the systematic killing, torture and exile of hundreds of thousands of religious believers of all stripes if we were in that situation?

Sorry, not buying Mr. Hitchens. Whatever the past sins of the church, I see no moral equivalence.

The issue in question I think probably exposes deep and long standing conflicts within the Russian church about its relation with the state. It would be a mistake to assume there is only one position. This hasn’t been true historically and isn’t today (in particular in regards to the church holding property since that was brought up in the article). I believe many of the people standing up for the band members are themselves Orthodox Christians as well as other believers who disagree with their treatment and probably with other violations of individual rights that have occurred in the Russian Federation.

quote:
What is historically normal for the Orthodox church? One well-known introduction to and apologia for Orthodoxy argued that the very structure of the church obviates the kind of coziness with rulers that has often prevailed in the West. What truth is there any truth to this claim, either in theory or in practice?

To collapse a lot down in to a summary that reflects my own understanding. There is no single model of church state relations established as normative for Orthodoxy. There is certainly nothing dogmatic. The Byzantine model of symphonia viewed the two sides as buttressing each other, but without state domination of the church. The church itself pushed back or revolted when this symphonia was violated such as was the case with the iconoclastic controversy. The imposition of the Millet system was destructive to the church and the various non Greek speaking nations chafed at the domination of the phanariots which led to the formation of the many national churches that exist now. That was the Southern model.

The Russian model coalesced under the autocratic rule of the Tsar’s, but only after the power of the church was broken and Patriarch Nikon humbled and deposed. 20th century Russian priest and theologian Fr. Georges Florovsky has a very good history called “Ways of Russian Theology” if you’re interested which covers all of this in detail. He talks about the Third Rome theory origins and how what happened in the Russian Church was not a continuation of the Byzantine symphonia, but an overturning of it. James Billington’s “The Icon and the Axe” is also a worthy history written by an outsider which covers much of the same ground.

Currently there is no single “normal” in regards to church state relations. It varies by country, culture and circumstance. Churches located in Pennsylvania are on the same Orthodox theological plane as those in Beirut, Athens or Kiev.

Lastly, my own opinion the band should be given a small fine and let go.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
What should the laws be against violating the hospitality of a church left open for prayer, by deliberate behavior which horrifies those who worship in it, even if it is outside service times and they leave the place physically unharmed? The house rules are that women do not enter the sanctuary of a Russian Orthodox church, and these women did that. I think that there should be some effective misdemeanor penalty and remedy, perhaps for trespass and, if necessary, the costs of reconsecration; but I don't know how such cases are handled in any country.

I would think that trespassing is the only legitimate charge to be applied here. With maybe the concept of tresspassing being extended to include a person entering a place(in this case, women entering a church) that the rules forbid them to enter.

I think it would be kind of daft to make Pussy Riot pay for the cost of reconsecration, since the defilement only exists in the minds of the church authorities. Otherwise, what would there be to stop some guy from declaring his back yard sacred ground, inadmissable to women, and then suing every girl who cuts through the yard on her way to school for the costs of reconsecration?

My immediate reaction upon hearing this story was likewise that the only appropriate legal charge would simply be one of trespassing. From a civil law standpoint, the only issue should be if they were asked/told to leave by due custodians of the property and then failed to leave the premises when so requested. Under such circumstances in a public venue that is normally what constitutes criminal trespassing.

The Church and Russian State are cynically using one another, although likely the Church is being more actively manipulated by the Sovi - er,Russian - authorities than vice versa. The Church will pay in the long run, as Russian citizens see the self-serving games that are being played.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

Is there any cost for reconsacration, anyway? Do they have to destroy the building and build another because a woman entered the altar?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Why do it in the first place? This group knew very well how offended Orthodox christiams would be by them desecrating a Holy place (the sanctuary). It is not true that they can NEVER be forgiven - there is always room for confession and forgiveness in the Church, but this group knew very well that what they did was much more serious than "trespassing".

"Hooliganism" some have suggested - far more appropriate!

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Only a thorough, non-coerced and unbiased mental examination of Pussy Riot and their ilk could possibly answer the question "Why?".

Do we really want to know? [Eek!]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

From what I've heard from Romanian and other Eastern European friends is that - not only in Russia but across the whole former Soviet bloc - there was a massive surge towards the Orthodox Church both in terms of active engagement and more general sympathy.

Now, both with incipient 'Westernisation' and a certain disillusionment with the way the Church can act at times - Erastianism has always been an issue, even during the Soviet era when the Church effectively collaborated with its own persecution to some extent - there are signs of some cooling off.

I think the Church will 'pay' for this in the long run too in the form of increasing indifference and secularism - as indeed we've had in the West for many years.

Orthodoxy is at once fascinating and attractive and yet also profoundly repellant. I find that it attracts and repels in almost equal measure. There's something of this dynamic playing out here, I suspect.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

This article from the BBC is more critical of the patriarch. He is *very* cosy with Mr. Putin. Personally I think getting so close to worldly power is rarely good for the church. YMMV.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

Quite like this item on this though

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/ROCChurchState.php

quote:
The Jubilee Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of 2000 also spoke out on this matter in its "Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:"

"In everything that exclusively concerns the earthly order of things, the Orthodox Christian is obliged to obey the law, regardless of how ideal or imperfect it is. However, when compliance with legal requirements threatens his eternal salvation and requires an act of apostasy or the commitment of some other definite sin before God and neighbour, the Christian is called upon to perform the feat of witness of the faith for the sake of Divine truth and the salvation of his soul for eternal life. He must speak openly and lawfully against the indisputable violation committed by society or state against the statutes and commandments of God. If this lawful action is impossible or ineffective, he must assume the stance of civil disobedience" (IV, 9).

"The Church remains loyal to the state, but God's commandment to fulfill the task of salvation in any situation and under any circumstances supersedes this loyalty. If the authority forces Orthodox believers to apostatize from Christ and His Church and to commit sinful and spiritually harmful actions, the Church should refuse to obey the state" (III, 5).

I know under the Soviets many Orthodox lost their lives for these reasons and i wouldn't
at that lightly.

Not sure where that leaves the Patriarch though.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I believe many who live in former Iron Curtain countries regard their current religious leaders with mixed feelings. Some were known collaborators with the Communists. Some suffered under it. It's a very mixed bag.

Whatever collusion there was, I'm not sure Pussy Riot made any deep, meaningful contribution to the continuing debate on this.

When is "protest" facile and possibly self-advertisement?

Is the Almighty offended by Pussy Riot and their antics?

[Confused]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...
Orthodoxy is at once fascinating and attractive and yet also profoundly repellant. I find that it attracts and repels in almost equal measure...

I think all forms of public Christianity suffer from this sort of baggage, Gamaliel.

OK, I take your point, Orthodoxy in its traditional geographic locales is something totally new and strange to us in the West.

However, I do think you could say the same about most of the familiar Western Churches as well.

I find myself feeling this way about the Anglican Church in Queensland of which I am a communicant member. It is, on the one hand, familiar and attractive and on the other weird and repulsive.

Under Communism in Russia there was the catacomb church which, although as canonically Orthodox as the Moscow Patriarchate, had nothing to do with the latter. Perhaps its flame kept Orthodoxy alive through those long black years?

What is genuine Orthodox Christianity in Russia today? A good question.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Is there any cost for reconsacration, anyway? Do they have to destroy the building and build another because a woman entered the altar?

No, they don't need to rebuild. But if a consecration rite is considered necessary, it might involve a personage or two who must take a day off from other duties and travel a good distance. The details would be a question for Ecclesiastics.

You would be a very unusual churchgoer if you can't imagine anything untoward possibly happening in your house of worship that would make you as a congregant feel that it had been desecrated, so that you would no longer want to worship there until it were rededicated to God. When I was a university student in the 1960s, the chapel of our parish church, adjacent to campus, was open for prayer 24/7. One morning the rector entered to find a used condom draped over the altar cross. I think that did it for the parish. If that doesn't turn you off, how about murder in the church? So what, no physical harm done to the building... [Roll Eyes]

One issue is whether the faithful still have the right to go into a church to pray without carrying a key and unlocking a door. This used to go without saying. But if a church has no recourse when others go in to make a foul mockery of the place, this is no longer feasible.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Orthodoxy is at once fascinating and attractive and yet also profoundly repellant. I find that it attracts and repels in almost equal measure.

Mysterium tremendum, mysterium fascinans

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
"Is Russia's Orthodox Church privileged or persecuted?"

Pretty obviously both at the same time, as in most periods of Russian history. In the Soviet times it mostly tended tp persecution (though not always and everywhere and entirely). Right now the balance is leaning more towards privilege.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Stalin made nice with the Russian Orthodox Church during WWII because of the need for national unity and the Church's traditional position in supporting patriotism. Manipulation -- the flip side of persecution.

Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :

It's also worth remembering, that while there was certainly nothing like the murderous, large-scale persecution of the Stalin era under the Tsars, the Church was stripped of automomy and purposely weakened to be clearly subordinate to the state for at least the final 2 centuries before the Soviet period: it wasn't for nothing that Peter the Great abolished the position of Patriarch of Moscow (and all Rus') - and that such a position was not again filled until the weeks following the overthrow of the Tsars in early 1917.

I don't think the situation today is quite like that of post-1943 (or rather: let us say 1943 to 1958 - when Khrushchev brought in a rather vulgar anti-religious campaign) Russia, where the church serves as a tool of nationalism and statehood (there is a more notable diversity of opinions and voices among the senior clerics, for one thing: plus the post-1988-or-so recovery of the Church is from a rather less low point than 1943).

Less still is it like that of the 1921-27 period, where the state sought purposely to meddle in church politics by sponsoring "progressive" (and in many ways really rather liberal) schismatic, "renovationist" or "living church" groups,which kept much of the ritual of Orthodoxy while combining it with decidedly secularist doctrine.

I'd agree that at the moment "privilege" rather than "persecution" is the fitting word. Although one wonders about the destiny of the bird in the gilded cage when it wishes to sing from a non-approved songbook. Since the murder of Fr Alexander Men in 1990 there hasn't been such a high prominent dissonent songbird (at least: in the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate)

Interesting times in Russia, as ever, however.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

The position of the Orthodox Church in Russian society has always been a complex one.

I think the key question is "Has real Christianity survived in Russia throughout the centuries despite all attempts to suppress genuine expressions of spirituality and collusion with the civil authorities of the worst possible kind?"

My answer would be a resounding "Yes!"

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Thanks for raising this matter, Alogon.

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Only a thorough, non-coerced and unbiased mental examination of Pussy Riot and their ilk could possibly answer the question "Why?".

Do we really want to know?

Actually, yes. And maybe all you need to answer the question is an open mind and the ability to read what's out there.

quote:
I'm not sure Pussy Riot made any deep, meaningful contribution to the continuing debate on this.

Maybe it wasn't meaningful for you - that does not necessarily mean it wasn't meaningful for anybody else.

quote:
When is "protest" facile and possibly self-advertisement?.

Well, it's probbaly not facile self-advertisement when performed in a country where outspoken critics of the government sometimes come to very sticky ends.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Lastly, my own opinion the band should be given a small fine and let go.

Indeed, if even that.

I feel seriosuly constrained in what I can say publicly about the Purry Riot protest but let it suffice to say that the cosiness between His Holiness and Mr Putin is part of the reason that not everybody is exactly doing cartwheels over this forthcoming joyous occasion of the fifth anniversary of the reunion of the Russian church.

As a son of the Russian Church Abroad, I have found myself on more than one occasion asking myself, 'What have we done?', waiting to have my fears allayed.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Purry Riot

In all honesty, that was a typo.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I can't find anyone questioning or explaining the name "Pussy Riot." Wikipedia, for example, is not helpful. They speak Russian in Moscow, don't they? So presumably their official name is something in that language. Whose idea was the English phraseology, and is it a faithful translation? I hope that one has the right to find such a name disobliging, not only in its crudity but in exploiting a double standard. (What male band either wishes to style itself with quite such explicit slang, or would get away with it even if they tried?) But I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they are fully aware of the implications of this name on Anglophone ears, if they are responsible for it at all.

It's good news that Putin's hegemony is not going unquestioned by his subjects... er, fellow citizens. I hope that the young women arrested will be let off easily. But I don't feel like demonstrating for dismissal of their case alongside people who are at best indifferent to their deliberate irreverence. The enemy of one's enemy is not necessarily one's friend.

Posted by JSwift (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
(What male band either wishes to style itself with quite such explicit slang, or would get away with it even if they tried?)

Well, this band for one.

Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I can't find anyone questioning or explaining the name "Pussy Riot." Wikipedia, for example, is not helpful. They speak Russian in Moscow, don't they? So presumably their official name is something in that language. Whose idea was the English phraseology, and is it a faithful translation? ... But I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they are fully aware of the implications of this name on Anglophone ears, if they are responsible for it at all.

No, it's not a translation: the band are called "Pussy Riot". It's far from unusual for Russian rock bands, etc, to use English names ("Bravo" and "Agata Khristi" -ok, the latter one is transliterated, so spelled and pronounced slightly differently - spring immediately to mind.) And given their self-description as a "feminist punk band", I'm quite sure they are fully aware of the implications of the name.

They sing in Russian, and their sometimes coarse lyrics, brightly coloured style of dress, and very abrasive style of music is clearly intended to be attention-provoking and shocking. - They've staged impromptu "concerts" (generally ending in their arrest) on the former Tsarist era execution-spot on Red Square, and on top of a tram, elsewhere in Central Moscow too. So...attention-seeking is what they do - evidently with the desired effect resulting.

(As a native English-speaker, I think, huh, we saw all this in the 70s - the Slits or perhaps X-Ray Spex would be their nearest equivalent...)

Although granted the context of post-totalitarian Moscow is somewhat different. They are spectacle, not substance.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Let us fondly hope that the group don't know the full connotations of the name "Pussy Riot".

It is, I hope, something like the nonsensical slogans in "English" on T-shirts worn by East Asian tourists in Australia.

Let us pray. [Votive]

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JSwift:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
(What male band either wishes to style itself with quite such explicit slang, or would get away with it even if they tried?)
Well, this band for one.

Buzzcocks and Sex Pistols. OliviaG

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Sanity for Pussy Riot?

Good T-shirt slogan, Eh?

[Killing me]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Let us fondly hope that the group don't know the full connotations of the name "Pussy Riot".

It is, I hope, something like the nonsensical slogans in "English" on T-shirts worn by East Asian tourists in Australia. Let us pray.

Did you actually read the post previous to yours?

quote:
Originally posted by decampagne:
it's not a translation: the band are called "Pussy Riot". ...And given their self-description as a "feminist punk band", I'm quite sure they are fully aware of the implications of the name.

Sir P - I guess you see yourself as an old-fashioned gentleman - and, in a way you are. Your whole attitude "Do we really want to know?", "Let's hope they don't understand the implications of what they are saying" and, finally, let's all have a good laugh at these young women risking beatings-up, imprisonment, and possibly worse, is typical of dear old-fashioned white gentlemen and their sexist, racist and homophobic attitudes. I'm sure you don't see yourself as sexist, racist and homophobic but there's a huge irony in your prayerful hope that Pussy Riot don't really mean what they appear to be saying.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
there's a huge irony in your prayerful hope that Pussy Riot don't really mean what they appear to be saying.

I'll take old-fashioned gentlemanliness any day over the even huger irony of a resort to stereotyping, in order to bring in everything but the kitchen sink to accuse Sir P. of really meaning things he didn't say.

Maybe you will prefer a little less gentlemanly statement, then: as long as these masked marauders engage in protest against a legitimate target such as Putin, they will have my support and admiration. But the moment they take their antics inside a church without invitation, they've lost it. If they really want to accomplish a political objective, they should have the good sense to appeal to as many people as possible rather than throw friends away. Maybe that isn't what they're about after all?

Would you get more upset if this happened in America and the target were a mosque?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
it's probbaly not facile self-advertisement when performed in a country where outspoken critics of the government sometimes come to very sticky ends.

People who rob convenience stores in the middle of the night, with or without covering their faces with masks, also sometimes come to very sticky ends, but that doesn't prevent it from happening.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
as long as these masked marauders engage in protest against a legitimate target such as Putin, they will have my support and admiration. But the moment they take their antics inside a church without invitation, they've lost it.

Well, I trust they're suitably devastated.

quote:
Would you get more upset if this happened in America and the target were a mosque?

You're comparing apples and elephants. Last time I looked, the US was a generally fairly free country where the rule of law generally applies and a significant shortage of journalists dying in mysterious circumstances and Islam did not have a specially privileged position

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
it's probably not facile self-advertisement when performed in a country where outspoken critics of the government sometimes come to very sticky ends.
People who rob convenience stores in the middle of the night, with or without covering their faces with masks, also sometimes come to very sticky ends, but that doesn't prevent it from happening.

Indeed, but the people who do it usually aren't all that keen on self-advertisement.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
... as long as these masked marauders engage in protest against a legitimate target such as Putin, they will have my support and admiration. But the moment they take their antics inside a church without invitation, they've lost it. ...

Putin is a legitimate target, then. Are supporters of Putin legitimate targets? Because the point that everyone seems to want to ignore is that they are protesting the church's support of Putin. From Pussy Riot's point of view, the church has already desecrated itself by allying itself with Putin. Where is the outrage over that?

Getting all frothed about the nature and location of the protest is like obsessing over the environmental impact of the Boston Tea Party. Or feeling sorry for the moneychangers getting their asses whipped in the temple. Tree, forest. Big picture.

And I'm not the only one who can smell chauvinistic condescension. OliviaG

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
... Would you get more upset if this happened in America and the target were a mosque?

As others have pointed out, fruit bowl. Let me try to come up with a similar comparable:

A band called Hijab Hussies goes into the front (men only) section of a mosque in Saudi Arabia and sings songs protesting the unequal status of women in their country. The monarchy and the religious establishment are tightly linked. Are they blasphemers or heroes? What should be done with/to them? OliviaG

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Indeed, but the people who do it usually aren't all that keen on self-advertisement.

The point is that taking a risk is no proof of honorable intentions. Some just like the thrill for the thrill, like bungee jumpers or motorcycling hobbyists.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
A band called Hijab Hussies goes into the front (men only) section of a mosque in Saudi Arabia and sings songs protesting the unequal status of women in their country. The monarchy and the religious establishment are tightly linked. Are they blasphemers or heroes? What should be done with/to them? OliviaG

If they offend numerous fellow-citizens who use the Mosque without having given a thought to the monarchy all day, but because they love God, then the protesters are at best fools.

Churches (temples, mosques, whatever) which customarily remain open for prayer outside of service times, as they have done for centuries, are doing the public a service. If their hospitality is abused, they will eventually be locked up tight, as has recently become routine in the U.S. It would be sad if their having to become like almost every other place you can name in this respect were an inevitable part of modern "freedom" and "progress."

You might as well argue that when a cowboy enters an Indian's tent univited, it's the Indian's fault for not locking his door.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
If they offend numerous fellow-citizens who use the Mosque without having given a thought to the monarchy all day, but because they love God, then the protesters are at best fools. ...

Good company, then. [Biased]

And where is it written that protests must be inoffensive? Isn't that kind of the point?

It seems like you're arguing that religious institutions are either not legitimate targets for political protest, or they should only be protested against politely. Politicians' offices, public parks and streets, university buildings, corporate HQs, etc. all get occupied. Oil drilling operations get blockaded. Whaling ships get rammed. Either one deals with church "protesters" the same way as any other trespassers, or one is arguing for some sort of special privilege for religious property. OliviaG

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Pussy Riot is more than welcome to perform at my parish.

We support the arts. [Big Grin]

Pussy Riot should be prosecuted for trespassing or whatever if any law they broke. Churches shouldn't get special treatment but protesters shouldn't get immunity just because they are protesting. Pussy Riot made the political statement they wanted to make. However, I would be surprised if many people in Russia didn't share Alogon's opinion. Pussy Riot desecrated worship space of average Russians not just the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. What better way to help the Russian Orthodox Church convince the average person to support Putin?

My opinion would be the same if a mosque in the United States was desecrated.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Either one deals with church "protesters" the same way as any other trespassers, or one is arguing for some sort of special privilege for religious property. OliviaG

I would be content with dealing with it as trespass. But what I'm hearing as that some people think they shouldn't be held accountable at all.

Failing that, yes, I would have to argue for a special privilege for church property, i.e. worship spaces. What Beeswax Altar said: they have gone out of their way to alienate citizens who would otherwise be on their side, and are actually making the best argument for a state religion that I've heard in a long time.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

You've used the analogy of the mosque -let me ask you this: suppose there was a racist state, such as the old apartheid regime in South Africa, and suppose a group of black protesters deliberately entered a white church, and that the church then claimed that it had been polluted and needed to be reconsecrated - would you support that?

It seems to me that you just want to close your eyes to the context and pick out the details that interest you. But context is everything

In the OP, you asked whether the protest was 'legitimate'. Clearly, your opinion is that it was both illegitimate and counter-productive. However, nothing you've posted on this thread convinces me that you understand enough of the context for your opinion to be of any interest, let alone have any validity.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

And Alogon should care about your opinion, why?

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Dear QLib,

Many thanks for banging me on the head with your assumed stereotype of me for my assumed stereotyping of "Pussy Riot".

I should now, if I were the silly old duffer you assume me to be, "Harrumph!" indignantly into my whisky and soda, whilst sitting in my leather armchair, in my "exclusive" club.

Perhaps you expect an indignant "Dear Ma'am" response, claiming you, as "a mere woman", should stick to "those things you understand" and "leave these matters" to "those who know" about "the real world" my having "served His Majesty" with gallantry at Shollapore, Mandalay etc. last century?

Alas, my late father, who was an Indian Army officer during WW II, was never like that. I can't do it! Good grief! Failed to live up to stereotype! He and my late mother would be proud!

I think both you and I are probably far, far more complex than our brief, seemingly failed attempt to communicate here.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
You've used the analogy of the mosque -let me ask you this: suppose there was a racist state, such as the old apartheid regime in South Africa, and suppose a group of black protesters deliberately entered a white church, and that the church then claimed that it had been polluted and needed to be reconsecrated - would you support that?.

Is this a version of Godwin's Law?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

No, it's not. Admittedly it's not a perfect parallel, but it's a damn sight closer than the mosque in the US parallel.

I chose the analogy because I want to draw attention to the appalling idea that any group of people can 'pollute' part of a Christian church simply by their presence. Not having women priests is one thing, but the idea of pollution is another. We might as well all be worshipping fucking Baal.

Let me tell you that if I anyone ever succeeds in convincing me that this is an intrinsic part of Christianity, then I personally will not rest until every church, chapel and monastery on the planet is reduced to a heap of blackened rubble.

SirP - all I can say is that, on here, we are what we post.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
...
SirP - all I can say is that, on here, we are what we post.

Methinks, Qlib, your words may speak a deeper truth than you can currently fathom.

A little self-knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

Probably best sticking to your last.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

A deeply patronizing response, SirP.

Let's not bother taking this to Hell - my general impression of you leads me to believe that you're not being deliberately offensive.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
No, it's not. Admittedly it's not a perfect parallel, but it's a damn sight closer than the mosque in the US parallel.

I chose the analogy because I want to draw attention to the appalling idea that any group of people can 'pollute' part of a Christian church simply by their presence. Not having women priests is one thing, but the idea of pollution is another. We might as well all be worshipping fucking Baal.

Let me tell you that if I anyone ever succeeds in convincing me that this is an intrinsic part of Christianity, then I personally will not rest until every church, chapel and monastery on the planet is reduced to a heap of blackened rubble.

SirP - all I can say is that, on here, we are what we post.

I've only now read through this thread and can only contribute two considerations. The first of which is that nobody may enter beyond the iconostasis without specific purpose. On several occasions, when being shown around Orthodox services, I was cautioned clearly not to enter the gates. The second is that the Orthodox are likely able to remember how agitprop theatre troupes in the 1920s performed atheist theatrical pieces within the iconostasis to make their ideological point and, coincidentally, to demonstrate their power. In many places, this was the first step in removing sacred vessels and artwork for museums and for sale, and then to removing the clergy.

Without seeing the canonical documents around the reconsecration decision, my guess is that the church might have classified the incursion as a version of the agitprop activities of the 1920s, designed to destabilize and delegitimize the church. It's not impossible that the fact that they were women was only a minor consideration, or not at all.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Yes, but part of the point is that the power boot is very much on the other foot.

Churches (etc) are entitled to have their own rules about who can (and cannot) go where (though I still find the pollution idea utterly repugnant and fundamentally unchristian). They are entitled to expect some protection under the law from trespass, particularly when accompanied by willful damage - although, like at least one other poster, I don't believe that this should extend to covering expenses for reconsecration..

However, this was a protest, so the point is not that rules were broken - clearly, that was the point - but whether the target of the protest was "legitimate". I think there is a good case to be made for arguing it was. I have no problem with the idea that some people might disagree with that - what I have a problem with is people stating that there is no case, or that they don't want to know what the case is.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The second is that the Orthodox are likely able to remember how agitprop theatre troupes in the 1920s performed atheist theatrical pieces within the iconostasis to make their ideological point and, coincidentally, to demonstrate their power. In many places, this was the first step in removing sacred vessels and artwork for museums and for sale, and then to removing the clergy.

Wow

Putin should send Pussy Riot a few bottles of really expensive Vodka. Any authoritarian despot worth his salt should be able to capitalize on this opportunity Pussy Riot was gracious enough to present to him. Putin and Medvedev aren't stupid.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by QLib:
Let me tell you that if I anyone ever succeeds in convincing me that this is an intrinsic part of Christianity, then I personally will not rest until every church, chapel and monastery on the planet is reduced to a heap of blackened rubble.

For some reason, this scene keeps popping in my head.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Yes, but part of the point is that the power boot is very much on the other foot.
quote:

This week, yes. But the past century has taught the Russian Church, if little else, how transitory this might be. In any case, we are not discussing logic, but a possible reason for a response which has its emotional component. Power shifts, in their experience, can lead to widespread closures, imprisonment, and martyrdom (as in thousands of people, if not tens of thousands). Without necessarily agreeing with them, we can perhaps understand their response.

Originally posted by QLib:
Churches (etc) are entitled to have their own rules about who can (and cannot) go where (though I still find the pollution idea utterly repugnant and fundamentally unchristian). They are entitled to expect some protection under the law from trespass, particularly when accompanied by willful damage - although, like at least one other poster, I don't believe that this should extend to covering expenses for reconsecration.
quote:

Pollution is an interesting concept, and perhaps not that clearcut. The only cases of pollution and reconsecration of which I have knowledge in Canada involve in one case a sexual assault in the sanctuary area of an RC church and an attempt at a Satanic ritual in a rural Anglican church in western Canada. I think that there can be an argument that these acts were such an incursion into normal space, let alone sacred space, that a desire to formally restore them to the human, is an acceptably Xn response. Revulsion, by its nature, is subjective and what bothers Patriarch Cyril may not bother me. However, this is perhaps best explored in its own thread as it really delves into cosmology with lots of interesting OT thinking on it. QLib has perhaps read Dame Mary Douglas' Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo?

In terms of any expenses involved, in the words of a management consultant sent to my old office, the church should just suck up the costs. Devout persons of property would normally be anxious to provide some of their substance to cover them.

Originally posted by QLib: However, this was a protest, so the point is not that rules were broken - clearly, that was the point - but whether the target of the protest was "legitimate". I think there is a good case to be made for arguing it was. I have no problem with the idea that some people might disagree with that - what I have a problem with is people stating that there is no case, or that they don't want to know what the case is.

Here I would disagree. The point is so very very much not the target. The point here is the means to protest the target and the venue selected. As an Ottawa-based example; last night I fed some nice trout and a three-mushroom risotto, washed down with cava and a decent bottle of rosado from Rioja (it being a day of abstinence) to friends, one of whom had been involved in her own agitprop piece on Parliament Hill. On the Hill, this demonstration was entirely kosher as it is a public space where spontaneous and planned events happen frequently. If it had taken place inside Notre Dame basilica, the means would have been inappropriate, and I would have told her so.

In terms of Pussy Riot's démarche, I would be tempted to say that the point of their protest was them, not the ROC, nor its links with the Russian state (by the way, I think that the links which are being established with ill-gotten wealth are more of a problem for the ROC than their government connexions, just in case anybody wants my opinion), and it is not clear to me if the public debate about the incident will actually led to as much discourse on the abuse they are protesting, or if it will be more about Pussy Riot.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In terms of Pussy Riot's démarche, I would be tempted to say that the point of their protest was them, not the ROC, nor its links with the Russian state

And you think this can be ascertained objectively in some way? You're tempted to say that their protest was about them, but on what grounds? How extensive is your knowledge of Pussy Riot? (Be careful how you answer that [Smile]

)

You say the target wasn't part of the point - but I fail to see how your friend's choice, is relevant. What we have on the ship is more or less the acceptable face of Orthodoxy. There is a less acceptable face, particularly in Russia, and not just because of its history but because of the deep streaks of misogyny and racism, which still marble the meat of Russian society. When you take into account worries about whether liberal anti-Putinists are making common cause with some rather dubious ultra-conservative nationalists, then it seems to me that the venue may well have been very much part of the point. Counter-productive? Well, perhaps. But the price of making your position clear is often that you lose friends and make enemies. That doesn't mean a decision to do so was necessarily stupid - it might even have been a moral choice.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

What authoritarian despot wouldn't appreciate counterproductive protests? If the purpose of the concert was to make the opinion of Pussy Riot clear and damn the consequences, then the performance was all about Pussy Riot and Pussy Riot's opinion. Protesting in a way that distracts from the message is just pointless narcissism.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Well, I'm aware that some people see Luther as a massive egotist - it's a point of view. Personally, I think Pussy Riot's protest is a case of the medium being the message.

Were the prophets also massive egotists? Or the martyrs? People who put themselves on the line to voice a truth that they believe in, using methods that some consider divisive and unhelpful. I think we're into declining verbs again.

X is a prophet of the Word.
Y is sincere, but wrong to place his conscience above church teaching.
Z is a shameless self-publicist.

[ 28. April 2012, 17:32: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In terms of Pussy Riot's démarche, I would be tempted to say that the point of their protest was them, not the ROC, nor its links with the Russian state
And you think this can be ascertained objectively in some way? You're tempted to say that their protest was about them, but on what grounds? How extensive is your knowledge of Pussy Riot? (Be careful how you answer that )

You say the target wasn't part of the point - but I fail to see how your friend's choice, is relevant. What we have on the ship is more or less the acceptable face of Orthodoxy. There is a less acceptable face, particularly in Russia, and not just because of its history but because of the deep streaks of misogyny and racism, which still marble the meat of Russian society. When you take into account worries about whether liberal anti-Putinists are making common cause with some rather dubious ultra-conservative nationalists, then it seems to me that the venue may well have been very much part of the point. Counter-productive? Well, perhaps. But the price of making your position clear is often that you lose friends and make enemies. That doesn't mean a decision to do so was necessarily stupid - it might even have been a moral choice.

Please note, QLib, that I used the terminology I would be tempted to say, which would clearly mean that I was making no objective statement. That was on purpose.

My grounds? I arrived at conclusions on the basis of publically (internet)-available conclusion. As an example, I noted in a previous post that I did not have the canonical documents used as an example of the limits of my knowledge on this. Another limit on my knowledge was that I have not discussed this with Pussy Riot interlocutors although with the aid of Google Translate, I might have been able to do so. I had other things to do. Objective ascertainment will have to wait for another day-- this thread is pretty subjective, wouldn't you think?

My dinner guest's choice of venues is extremely pertinent: I think that the parallel I drew is very instructive. Some venues support the protest but other venues would simply distract from the message. I think that this is the case here. You think otherwise.

As a PS-- I have just spoken with my dinner guest to ask her why they had not done their demo at the Basilica and she replied that it would have upset people at services.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

It seems to me that the Church becomes a legitimate target of civil disobedience when it colludes with the government the way the Church of Russia has.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Simple question.

Why does claiming you're protesting make something, noble, challenging, or even all right, which if you did it just because you were a vandal, trying to steal something or drunk, would be inexcusable and merit having the book thrown at you?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Simple question.

Why does claiming you're protesting make something, noble, challenging, or even all right, which if you did it just because you were a vandal, trying to steal something or drunk, would be inexcusable and merit having the book thrown at you?

Vandalism, theft, and public intoxication are crimes, while free speech is a fundamental human right?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
ow extensive is your knowledge of Pussy Riot? (Be careful how you answer that )

All I know is what I've read in the papers and Wikipedia. Do you know something the rest of us don't?

quote:
There is a less acceptable face, particularly in Russia, and not just because of its history but because of the deep streaks of misogyny and racism, which still marble the meat of Russian society.

And what I read is that they were protesting the re-election of Putin. How do you infer the above?

And BTW, someone above opined that the point of protesting was to be offensive. I don't agree. The point of a political protest is to effect political change. If otherwise, it is really about the protesters, isn't it?

[ 28. April 2012, 21:36: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
There is a less acceptable face, particularly in Russia, and not just because of its history but because of the deep streaks of misogyny and racism, which still marble the meat of Russian society.
And what I read is that they were protesting the re-election of Putin. How do you infer the above?

And BTW, someone above opined that the point of protesting was to be offensive. I don't agree. The point of a political protest is to effect political change. If otherwise, it is really about the protesters, isn't it?

There are various elements to the election of Putin. There is the question of election administration, of course, but there is also the matter of populism. It's undoubtedly the case that a lot of people voted for Putin - what led them to do that? Putin's macho posturing seems to increase his popularity, and people who support him often speak about Russia needing "strong" government. A feminist protest about Putin, therefore, is never going to be just about Putin; it's about a culture.

As for the purpose of protest - it may well be intended to bring about change - though some goals are more immediate than others - and maybe sometimes it's to prevent change: 'Not in my name' was 'let's not go to war against Iraq'. Sometimes the intention may be to merely to make one's voice heard - in the full knowledge that it will offend people who don't want to hear it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Simple question.

Why does claiming you're protesting make something, noble, challenging, or even all right, which if you did it just because you were a vandal, trying to steal something or drunk, would be inexcusable and merit having the book thrown at you?
Vandalism, theft, and public intoxication are crimes, while free speech is a fundamental human right?

Speech is speech, what a person says. Where does the claim come from, that somehow that entitles you do other things that would otherwise be beyond the pale?

Besides, is even freedom of specifically speech, yet alone any associated actions a person chooses to demand the freedom to do, a fundamental human right? If one looks round the world, even societies widely recognised as relatively free all impose restrictions of some sort on what you can and can't say and where and where not. There are things I can say and do in my country, which would get you locked up in yours and vice versa.

Why should we assume that just because a different country in our view is more restrictive than our own country, that every restriction it enforces must be misguided, illiberal, wicked, oppressive etc.?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Why should we assume that just because a different country in our view is more restrictive than our own country, that every restriction it enforces must be misguided, illiberal, wicked, oppressive etc.?

Wow, you know we're talking about Russia, right?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It seems to me that the Church becomes a legitimate target of civil disobedience when it colludes with the government the way the Church of Russia has.

This may be so. However, as a Canadian Anglican whose church colludes with the state in enjoying tax exemption, military and prison chaplaincies, not to mention the whole sorry business of the residential schools, I am reluctant to point out the other beams in eyes.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
This may be so. However, as a Canadian Anglican whose church colludes with the state in enjoying tax exemption, military and prison chaplaincies, not to mention the whole sorry business of the residential schools, I am reluctant to point out the other beams in eyes.

Is there something the world needs to know about the Canadian government? Just blink twice if they're watching you right now.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The whole residential schools idea was a horrible example of church/state collusion. The reserve where my mother preached twenty years ago did not, in general, send its children to residential schools, but a few were sent, in circumstances that amounted to kidnapping by the Indian Agent.

The Indian Agent in the reserve in the 1950's felt entitled to send children to a residential school in Sault Ste. Marie regardless of the parents wishes, consent, or lack thereof. One girl escaped that fate by escaping from the Agent's car in Peterborough, running to her cousin who worked at an auto mechanic downtown and having him call her parents.

In the 1950's what the Indian Agent did was legal. I call it kidnapping. Today he would be in prison.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

That does sound horrible, SPK, but it would seem to support my original statement that the Church can make itself a legitimate target of civil disobedience when it colludes with unjust governments.

[ 29. April 2012, 03:51: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Note my statement about church collusion with the state in enjoying tax exemption, military and prison chaplaincies. Would Zach82 have then directed civil disobedience at all US churches enjoying these privileges during the (say) Vietnamese or Iraqi wars?

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

It is never easy to grasp Slavonic styles but some of the comments here do rather confirm the view that no good Russian stylist ought ever to combine the concepts “North American” and “well-informed” in the same positive sentence about Russia.

Americans have their own ideas. They get to decide if they want a Mitt or a Newt or a Barak for president. They get to exclude holy church from her proper role in the state. The enact their own laws. God bless America as it decides between Mitt, Newt and Barak.

In Mother Russia people do things differently. The Russian people have supported President Puntin for a third term. The majority of folks in Holy Russia is Orthodox. Orthodox people (and their foreign guests) know how to behave in church, Vladimir Vladimirovich no less so than any other faithful son of Mother Russia. This is a country where women know that their place in church is standing among the faithful or singing up in gallery. If foreign-inspired hooligans choose to perpetrate sacrilege, they will find that ordinary, decent Russian people have little time for such хулиганство.

From much of what one can see here, it is indeed no idea to combine the concepts “North American” and “well-informed” in the same positive sentence about Russia.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Note my statement about church collusion with the state in enjoying tax exemption, military and prison chaplaincies. ...

AIUI, a church (or any other charity) loses its tax exemption if it endorses political candidates. So that's possibly a dividing line.

Military and prison chaplaincies are arguably a service to the soldiers / prisoners, ensuring that they can practice their religion even when they can't go to church / temple / whatever. Ditto for hospitals.

I'm not saying these things are or aren't collusion; just suggesting arguments can be made that they aren't. Also, ISTM that in the historical instances of church / state collusion that got protested (or worse), the relationship went beyond tax exemptions and chaplaincies. IF those things are collusion, they're on the low end of the scale, no? OliviaG

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Note my statement about church collusion with the state in enjoying tax exemption, military and prison chaplaincies. Would Zach82 have then directed civil disobedience at all US churches enjoying these privileges during the (say) Vietnamese or Iraqi wars?

If a Church was an outspoken supporter of government action in Vietnam, why not?

Not that mere tax exempt status is any comparison to the Russian Church's level of collusion with the Russian government. Or that a little trespassing by opposition supporters compares to the systematic persecution suffered by the Church during Communism. I mean, a little perspective would be nice.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

ah. In other words (and perhaps Berkshire has a point), then collusion as we are accustomed to it is not really collusion, and the Russian church/state nexus is collusion, because it is different from ours.

As I noted in a very early post on this thread, I think that the Russian church's real problem is with oligarchs, much as it was for Anglicans when oligarchs bothered with us.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
ah. In other words (and perhaps Berkshire has a point), then collusion as we are accustomed to it is not really collusion, and the Russian church/state nexus is collusion, because it is different from ours.

As I noted in a very early post on this thread, I think that the Russian church's real problem is with oligarchs, much as it was for Anglicans when oligarchs bothered with us.

Yeah, it's all about my prejudices against Russians and their Church. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Berwickshire wrote:

quote:
They get to exclude holy church from her proper role in the state.

Sorry, but you can't argue that the Russian church has a proper role in the state, but then turn around and argue that it should get special exemptions from the type of protests that state-institutions are normally expected to endure.

Unless of course you want to argue that ALL state institutions should be immune from protest. Which maybe is how they do things in Russia. I don't know, since North Americans are incapable of fathoming the Russian mindset, according to your post(which frankly reads like someone doing a parody of a Russian nationalist).

[ 29. April 2012, 16:52: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Berwickshire wrote:

quote:
They get to exclude holy church from her proper role in the state.
Sorry, but you can't argue that the Russian church has a proper role in the state, but then turn around and argue that it should get special exemptions from the type of protests that state-institutions are normally expected to endure.

Unless of course you want to argue that ALL state institutions should be immune from protest. Which maybe is how they do things in Russia. I don't know, since North Americans are incapable of fathoming the Russian mindset, according to your post(which frankly reads like someone doing a parody of a Russian nationalist).

Stetson and Zach, what I, and I think quite a lot of others on this thread, are arguing, is that if something would have been hooliganism or sacrilege if done just for kicks, it doesn't make it OK, or as you seem to be implying, noble, to say 'I was doing it because I'm protesting'. It is not infringing someone's freedom of speech to prosecute them for doing that would have been illegal without a message.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Zach 82,

No, it is not about prejudice. The world has learned to expect little else from all too many Americans. It is ignorance that is the problem. A tiny example is that the even half-informed should be able to see "Berkshire" is not "Berwickshire". When in doubt about UK geography, simple Americans do best to stick to the simple copying-out of any word beyond their limited, local comprehension. Prejudice may be every true-born American’s constitutional right: the problem is when they expose their ignorance of Mother Russia to the rest of us.

Informed souls can distinguish between freedom of speech and hooliganism. People may wish to spout foreign, feminist doctrine – they are not going to persuade Russians that LGBT bishops are much of an idea. Speech is one thing. It is quite another matter for women to invade sacred space where, in Orthodox custom, they have no place to be.

The American genius, which has given it its Newts, Mitts and Baraks, was republicanism. The genius of Anglicanism has been to honour and obey the Queen (whom God preserve!). The Russian genius has been autocracy. People learn to do their duty to God and their neighbour in different ways.

Much of the comment here is not prejudiced, it is ignorant: American’s cultural imperialism is a function of a profound ignorance of anything much beyond America’s backyard. If people are ignorant of the faith of Holy Russia, surviving still in the grim, grey flats of the towns, or in the endlessly remote villages of Mother Russia, then the golden rule is to refrain from ignorant comment. Глупый иностранцев.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Stetson and Zach, what I, and I think quite a lot of others on this thread, are arguing, is that if something would have been hooliganism or sacrilege if done just for kicks, it doesn't make it OK, or as you seem to be implying, noble, to say 'I was doing it because I'm protesting'. It is not infringing someone's freedom of speech to prosecute them for doing that would have been illegal without a message.

Except no one is giving a pass to any old law breaking in the name of protest. Justice cannot be reduced to mere law, and therefore civil disobedience for a just cause is entirely morally justified.

And, while I don't know for sure Pussy Riot was doing their thing in the name of real justice, their government sure gives them a lot to protest about.

Zach

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Stetson

Congratulations on the accurate transcription. The reference you quote was to the American colonies deciding to break the link, traditional in European thought, between church and state. England managed to draw back from that course in 1660 but its revolting colonies have set an evil example, which has been copied in many other countries, Russia among them. Orthodox Russians have long been clear that, back in 1917, “people forgot God”. The ensuing disasters swallowed perhaps 60 million Russian people. The good news is that Russia is returning to Orthodoxy.

Enoch is doing commendable work to explain things from the Old World but no, Stetson, there is no need to “parody” the Russian mindset; Russians are as entitled to their own nationalism as Americans are to theirs. If you suspect parody, go there, learn the language and listen to what real people are really saying. I don’t know if American media carry images of President Putin’s behavior within churches. If Vladimir Vladimirovich knows how to behave, it is not too much to expect others to follow their president’s respectful lead.

The problem, as Enoch clearly sees, is not peaceful protest, it is hooliganism. It is a hooliganism nicely calculated by a small group of women to give the maximum of religious offence to those who were brought up, under very difficult circumstances, to know better than to profane churches. It was not, on any reasonable view, “free speech”. It was hooliganism: хулиганство.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
No, it is not about prejudice. The world has learned to expect little else from all too many Americans...

Yeah, it go so pompously condescending hereabouts that I just stopped reading.

[ 29. April 2012, 18:50: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Russians are as entitled to their own nationalism as Americans are to theirs.

Ah, right there is the issue. When does it become possible to discuss principles, apart from those ignorant Americans attacking all Russians and the Russian way of life because they're just ignorant Americans?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Berwickshire - your post shows far more prejudice than anything else posted on this thread.

Nobody here is specifically trying to persuade the Russians that LGBT bishops are a good idea - if you don't wish to even discuss such matters, stay away from those threads - though my guess is that, if you stick around, you'll want to give people the benefit of your opinions on that topic.

As for all this 'foreign doctrine' nonsense - are you going to try and tell us that Jesus Christ was Russian?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
ah. In other words (and perhaps Berkshire has a point), then collusion as we are accustomed to it is not really collusion, and the Russian church/state nexus is collusion, because it is different from ours.

As I noted in a very early post on this thread, I think that the Russian church's real problem is with oligarchs, much as it was for Anglicans when oligarchs bothered with us.
Yeah, it's all about my prejudices against Russians and their Church.

@Zach82

@Berwickshire: it was I who used Berkshire and I fear that you must broaden your geographical wrath to include the ignorant Canadians with whom Berwickshirais and Jamaicans (among others) share the blessings of an anointed sovereign. It was actually a typo occasioned by a spellcheck mechanism, which I have taken to using in drafting comments before posting them.

Generally speaking, we are as well- and sometimes better-informed about Russians as they are about us. I thought I had been trying to note that we often see other people's collusions while ignoring our own.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
It is not infringing someone's freedom of speech to prosecute them for doing that would have been illegal without a message.

And I agreed, earlier on, that they can be charged with tresspassing. But I don't think that's what Berwickshire is arguing. He/she seems to think that the Russian Orthodox Church should be extended protection not granted to oridinary groups.

But I guess Berwickshire can prove me wrong. Let's say Pussy Riot had done a performance at their own private nightclub, at which they blew their noses on the Russian flag and smeared the mucus on Orthdox icons. A group of Russian nationalists try to get in to protest, but are turned away. The nationalists sneak in later and sing the Russian national anthem in protest.

Would Berwickshire argue that the nationalists should be charged with trespassing? If so, I commend his/her consistency.

But I would still say that, if the Russian Orthodox Church is going to jump into bed with politicians, they can't expect to be immune from political protest. Even as I would support the application of trespassing laws in this particular instance.

[ 29. April 2012, 20:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Russians are as entitled to their own nationalism as Americans are to theirs.
Ah, right there is the issue. When does it become possible to discuss principles, apart from those ignorant Americans attacking all Russians and the Russian way of life because they're just ignorant Americans?

I have to say, as a leftist, I've always been somewhat embarrassed by the crude anti-Americanism that get tossed around by so many of my ideological soul mates. So, it's nice to see that particular brand of jingoism migrating rightward again.

Liberators

It's all there. The crappy, shallow, cosmopolitan mongrel culture stomping on the delicate beauty of Old Europe.

[ 29. April 2012, 20:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

No, I did not imagine Our lord was Russian, but I have heard an American Schools board banned foreign langauges on the grounds that the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ. Anyway, thanks for the American welcome. Ирония теряется.

The sensible principle is that every particular or national church is entitled to autonomy. If America wants LGBT bishops that may suit them. If England goes for gay bishops there is nothing exactly new in that. Russia is entitled to take her own view of militant, foreign-inspired feminism. I don't think it is unreasonable of Russians to deal with hooliganism. The local view tends to be it was a pity the foreign press was there and stopped local people dealing with the hooligans in a language they might understand.

The principle is each to his own. American cultural imperialism needs to learn its limits.

Thank you

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
@Zach82 [Confused]...
I thought I had been trying to note that we often see other people's collusions while ignoring our own.

And I thought I had been denying it.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Berwickshire - your post shows far more prejudice than anything else posted on this thread.

Nobody here is specifically trying to persuade the Russians that LGBT bishops are a good idea - if you don't wish to even discuss such matters, stay away from those threads - though my guess is that, if you stick around, you'll want to give people the benefit of your opinions on that topic.

As for all this 'foreign doctrine' nonsense - are you going to try and tell us that Jesus Christ was Russian?

No, he's telling you the same thing you told Alogon up thread. Granted, Berweckshire's posts are arrogant and dismissive. Then, I thought your posts to Alogon...

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
No, I did not imagine Our lord was Russian, but I have heard an American Schools board banned foreign langauges on the grounds that the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ. Anyway, thanks for the American welcome. Ирония теряется.

Ah, the old Russian excuse "But in America they hang Negros." А у вас негров линчуют

quote:
The sensible principle is that every particular or national church is entitled to autonomy. If America wants LGBT bishops that may suit them. If England goes for gay bishops there is nothing exactly new in that. Russia is entitled to take her own view of militant, foreign-inspired feminism. I don't think it is unreasonable of Russians to deal with hooliganism. The local view tends to be it was a pity the foreign press was there and stopped local people dealing with the hooligans in a language they might understand.

The principle is each to his own. American cultural imperialism needs to learn its limits.

I sure hope there are people in Russia willing to talk about truth and justice rather than merely being Russian.

[ 29. April 2012, 20:28: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Beeswax: Actually, I think that what s/he's saying is more like what Alogon said - in content. And, in terms of manner, I don't think it's quite like what anybody else has said.

[ 29. April 2012, 20:36: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I have no objection to watching the cold war refought, but would ask posters to provide us with translations of their Russian-language comments. While I can struggle my way through them, I would rather spend my limited stores of karmic energy in other ways.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
The principle is each to his own.

That's not a principle that underpins human civilization;it's a principle of ignorance.

quote:
American cultural imperialism needs to learn its limits.

Feminism - if that's what you're talking about - is as much a part of European culture as it is of American culture. Don't try to tell us that Russia isn't a part of that.

And, by the way, we're not all Americans here.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have no objection to watching the cold war refought, but would ask posters to provide us with translations of their Russian-language comments. While I can struggle my way through them, I would rather spend my limited stores of karmic energy in other ways.

I object to any exercise to recreate what in real life ended when I came home from Summer Camp and found that the Soviet Union was no more.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

No, Zach, it is not an "old Russian excuse". I know words can be difficult but there is one English word "Russian" and a quite different word "Soviet". Your mistake is to assume that Soviet propaganda, aimed at rebutting American criticisms, spoke in any way for or, still less, to the Russian people. If you actually understood the language you are quoting, the ordinary Russian word for "negro" is something entirely different. Simple rule remains: "Russian" is not "Soviet".

That word, "negro", indicates the problem with Augustine's point about always giving translation. "Hooliganism" is not a word much used in English but the Slavonic languages have borrowed it from English - or Irish perhaps. It is used very extensively in common speech. The sense is pretty well what English and Scots criminal procedure prosecuted as conduct likely to cause breach of the peace. Translation is not easy when what sounds like a petty offence in English is something quite serious - and offensively anti-social and ill-mannered - for the Slavs.

As for principle, QLib, the Anglican tradition has long insisted on the authority of every particular or national church to order its own affairs - Article xxxiv, if memory serves. As for feminism, it really does not sit well with Russian tradition. Russians, men and women alike, expect to carry their father's Christian name as part of theirs for all their days. Gender is deeply embedded in Slavonic languages. The actual issue is the deliberate, wonton blasphemies of women who were determined that they would neither dress decently nor behave properly in church. I see little enough sense in this thread of the real offence such profanation has given to the ordinary, decent Orthodox: men and women alike.

But, considering the hour, спокойной ночи

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Russians are as entitled to their own nationalism as Americans are to theirs.
Ah, right there is the issue. When does it become possible to discuss principles, apart from those ignorant Americans attacking all Russians and the Russian way of life because they're just ignorant Americans?
I have to say, as a leftist, I've always been somewhat embarrassed by the crude anti-Americanism that get tossed around by so many of my ideological soul mates. So, it's nice to see that particular brand of jingoism migrating rightward again.

Liberators

It's all there. The crappy, shallow, cosmopolitan mongrel culture stomping on the delicate beauty of Old Europe.

I know, right.

Beckwickshire's posts are almost Canadian in their crude, Anti-Americanism. I'm starting to notice a correlation between living in a colder climate and irrational, knee jerk Anti-Americanism. Why do Canadians and Russians hate American children? [Two face]

[ 30. April 2012, 00:37: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

@Beeswax Altar: I differ!! Canadian anti-Americanism is far more subtle and bitter. Most folks in the US never notice! You cannot really expect us to overlook the cruel and heartless way you treated good King George.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I have no objection to watching the cold war refought, but would ask posters to provide us with translations of their Russian-language comments. While I can struggle my way through them, I would rather spend my limited stores of karmic energy in other ways.

Sorry. The line I used was what I said in English. It's an old saw from the Soviet days, as Berwickshire said, but unlike what he seems to think, I wasn't calling him out for his vocabulary.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The War of 1812, the Fenian Raids, the "ripe fruit doctrine" that we would just fall into your lap sometime in the 1890's after coming to our senses....

We've spent 145 years daring to exist, why give up now? Besides, we are still grieving for the Lost Provinces.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
"Hooliganism" is not a word much used in English but the Slavonic languages have borrowed it from English - or Irish perhaps. It is used very extensively in common speech. The sense is pretty well what English and Scots criminal procedure prosecuted as conduct likely to cause breach of the peace. Translation is not easy when what sounds like a petty offence in English is something quite serious - and offensively anti-social and ill-mannered - for the Slavs.

You're kidding, right? Have you never heard of football hooligans? Hooliganism is not a petty offence, but usually implies something more than bad-mannered an inappropriate behaviour. However, in terms of law, important distinctions are made (rightly, in my view) between offensive conduct and more serious matters such as threats, violence and damage to property. In English law, trespass itself is a matter for the civil law, it only becomes criminal when associated with wilful damage or other criminal activity.

quote:
As for feminism, it really does not sit well with Russian tradition. Russians, men and women alike, expect to carry their father's Christian name as part of theirs for all their days. Gender is deeply embedded in Slavonic languages.

It may have escaped your notice, but gender is embedded in quite a lot of European languages. French, for example, does not even have a neuter, as Russian does. Nor is Russia the only country to use patronymics - Iceland uses them as surnames. How feminism sits with tradition, and how far it matters whether something sits with tradition are matters that are open to question. If tradition was the only thing that mattered, we'd all still be living in caves.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Russians are as entitled to their own nationalism as Americans are to theirs.
Ah, right there is the issue. When does it become possible to discuss principles, apart from those ignorant Americans attacking all Russians and the Russian way of life because they're just ignorant Americans?
I have to say, as a leftist, I've always been somewhat embarrassed by the crude anti-Americanism that get tossed around by so many of my ideological soul mates. So, it's nice to see that particular brand of jingoism migrating rightward again.

Liberators

It's all there. The crappy, shallow, cosmopolitan mongrel culture stomping on the delicate beauty of Old Europe.
I know, right.

Beckwickshire's posts are almost Canadian in their crude, Anti-Americanism. I'm starting to notice a correlation between living in a colder climate and irrational, knee jerk Anti-Americanism. Why do Canadians and Russians hate American children?

A difference would be that Canadian anti-Americanism usually comes from the left, and takes the Yanks to task for being, among other things, a bunch of anti-gay and anti-feminist religious zealots, and worries that this worldview is infecting Canada.

Whereas the Russian variety, apparently, takes the Yanks to task for NOT being a bunch of anti-gay and anti-feminist religious zealots, and worries that this worldview is infecting Russia.

SPK wrote:

quote:
the Fenian Raids

Interestingly, the Fenian Raids have all but disappeared from the rhetoric of left-wing Canadian nationalism, even though you still encounter people who go on about "54/40 Or Fight" or Kennedy giving a couple of his aides a sabbatical to work on Pearson's campaign(neither of which resulted in any loss of life, and the latter of which is an extremely common sort of occurence among political parties).

I guess that's because, for a left-wing Canadian nationalist, the Fenians raise some uncomfortable questions. Like, "Why would the Irish have any cause to hate British North Americans?" and "Just how neutral was Britain during the US Civil War?"

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

The endless reference here to North-American issues or English law may reflect a limited mind-set or, more likely, inadequate knowledge. The thread, just to remind y'all, started with a complaint that the church in Russia is attacked by persecutors and anti-Russian forces.

Pussy Riot’s “performance”, complete with camera and sound crew, with sluttishly-dressed young women standing with their backs to the iconostasis in the cathedral of Christ Our Saviour has landed three of the alleged perpetrators behind bars (largely for their own protection). Their rendition of “Shit, shit, the Lord is Shit” to a traditional chant in honour of the Virgin Mother of God was puerile (“puelline” to be gender-correct). But bands need publicity. President Putin speaks the mind of the people who have just elected him by a landslide and knows the performance has Russians seething. Vladimir Vladimirovich’s rather mild comment was that the ladies have got exactly what they were asking for. Anti-Russian forces have, predictably, cheapened the currency of amnesty by leaping to defend these blaspheming hooligans as “prisoners of conscience”. Their ugly disrespect for and aggression towards Orthodox believers is absolutely unacceptable from any sensible ethical, moral and legal point of view in Russia. For the west, it is enough for hooligans to outrage Russia’s Orthodox believers, it seems, to canonize them as martyrs for feminism.

Just for the record, the three blessed martyrs have denied their participation but their promotional video has hit блогосферы, the Russian blogospehre and these good ladies are unlikely to be safe walking the streets at night.

And then, by men and angels, thy Name shall be adored, and this shall be their anthem, “Virgin Mary, Mother of God, overthrow our democratically-elected president … Virgin Mary, Mother of God, become a feminist”. Does this suggest believers are persecuted in their own sanctuaries? yes. Are anti-Russian forces at work? yes, this is no way for Russians to behave in church and nothing for foreigners to defend. Or to answer the question using a Russian sound even the dumbest Anglo-Saxon has a chance of understanding, duh, да.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

"Truth and justice" is a foreign doctrine that the mighty Russian people will have nothing of! [Snore]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't know, since North Americans are incapable of fathoming the Russian mindset, according to your post(which frankly reads like someone doing a parody of a Russian nationalist).

No. It doesn't sound like a parody of a Russian nationalist. He hasn't cried, broken any furniture, quoted Pushkin, blamed the Jews, sung a deeply moving song from the Great Patriotic War, drunkenly whispered unintelligble secrets in your ear, challeneged anyone to an arm-wrestling contest, or stormed off into the night shouting about how nobody understands him because he is a Russian. All those would be needed for a real parody of a stereotyped Russian nationalist.

On the other hand:

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
The genius of Anglicanism has been to honour and obey the Queen (whom God preserve!). The Russian genius has been autocracy.

is damn near parody. "There have been three Romes..."

and autocracy hasn't been the "genius" of the Russian people its been their curse. They have had too bloody much oif it over the last many centuries. They deserve a break.

And as for "foreign-inspired feminism" Russia has grown plenty of feminists of her own. And secularists too, and anti-clerical movements. Going back a long way. Centuries. You talk as if no Russian has ever deliberately desecrated a church bvefore

There are splits in Russian society, same as anywhere else. Disagreements, contradictions, conflicts of interest. Not to mention violence, oppression, civil wars, and revolution. This sort of protest goes way back, though it wouldl have worn different clothes and played different music in the past.

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
The endless reference here to North-American issues or English law may reflect a limited mind-set or, more likely, inadequate knowledge. The thread, just to remind y'all, started with a complaint that the church in Russia is attacked by persecutors and anti-Russian forces.
[...]
And then, by men and angels, thy Name shall be adored, and this shall be their anthem, “Virgin Mary, Mother of God, overthrow our democratically-elected president … Virgin Mary, Mother of God, become a feminist”. Does this suggest believers are persecuted in their own sanctuaries? yes. Are anti-Russian forces at work? yes...

Your Russian language may be good but it sounds like your English is a bit off. Yes, that behaviour could be described as "hooliganism" in English. But not "persecution". The English word "persecution" means something quite different.

As for "anti-Russian forces" I think your own post gives the game away. That chant and those words sound like a very Russian thing to me. Would a genuine non-Russian punk band from, say, Britain, have used thoise words, parodied that kind of chant? Of course they wouldn't. They'd have parodied British institutions and religion and it would have come out quite different.

Its a bit pathetic to blame it all on foreigners. The people who did the protest were Russians, protesting about Russian problems in a Russian style - as Berwickshire said it was nicely aimed at the target in a way that many non-Russians or non-Orthodox would not have done or maybe even understood - and in many ways they are in a tradition of Russian political protest. A minority tradition, maybe an unpopular one, but things like that really do happen in Russia.

[ 30. April 2012, 12:36: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
[qb] I don't know, since North Americans are incapable of fathoming the Russian mindset, according to your post(which frankly reads like someone doing a parody of a Russian nationalist).
No. It doesn't sound like a parody of a Russian nationalist. He hasn't cried, broken any furniture, quoted Pushkin, blamed the Jews, sung a deeply moving song from the Great Patriotic War, drunkenly whispered unintelligble secrets in your ear, challeneged anyone to an arm-wrestling contest, or stormed off into the night shouting about how nobody understands him because he is a Russian. All those would be needed for a real parody of a stereotyped Russian nationalist.

Good points. I guess I'll have to go with my second-best guess: "Recent anglosphere convert to Orthodoxy, going a little over-the-top gaga for the exoticism of Mother Russia".

And probably the real deal, not a parody.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
The endless reference here to North-American issues or English law may reflect a limited mind-set or, more likely, inadequate knowledge.

Well, you're the one who brought up the thirty-nine articles. I made the point about the distinction between trespass and criminal activity because I think it's a valid, good and useful distinction.

quote:
The thread, just to remind y'all, started with a complaint that the church in Russia is attacked by persecutors and anti-Russian forces.

Actually the thread began with what appeared to be an invitation to discuss whether Church and State are too close and whether, if so, Pussy Riot's actions were 'legitimate'.

quote:
Their rendition of “Shit, shit, the Lord is Shit” to a traditional chant in honour of the Virgin Mother of God was puerile (“puelline” to be gender-correct). …. President Putin speaks the mind of the people who have just elected him by a landslide and knows the performance has Russians seething. …. these good ladies are unlikely to be safe walking the streets at night.

And then, by men and angels, thy Name shall be adored, and this shall be their anthem, “Virgin Mary, Mother of God, overthrow our democratically-elected president … Virgin Mary, Mother of God, become a feminist”. ....

Only the last line that you quote matches the detail in reports I've read.

And it would seem from this that most people are taking a much more moderate stance on this than you suggest:

quote:
“An opinion poll released last week by the VTsIOM state pollster indicated that a mere 10 percent of Russians want to see the suspects remain behind bars. Just over half of the respondents favored community work or a fine.

In the meantime, a police inquiry has found that they did not break any laws. Furthermore, according to another report, some people saying the women should be released are themselves Orthodox.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

QLib

One is always limited if one cannot read a language.

Check out your links. The police report is in a version presented by the lawyer acting for one of the accused. Since it looks as if she denies she was there in the first place that is either a lawyer with a great case or a liar for a client. The courts will test the evidence - that promotional video will come in handy.

Yes, there have been polls; one can use them to demonstrate that people are annoyed; equally one can use them to demonstrate people are inclined to be merciful when it comes to sentence. Orthodox women are impressed by the fact there are young children and are praying that the women might repent and, like any decent Russian woman, live to see their grandchildren. There is a view that a spell in prison will teach them a lesson and give them time to repent before they go to their judgement. Look at the Russian blogs and they are still fizzing. The extreme stuff is off the scale.

I am old enough to know better than to use irony, so, sorry for that. No you are quite right, my text is not easy to Google. Naughty, naughty ironic old me. The words quoted are an old Anglican hymn, merged with part of the ladies' text and a polite expression substituted for the version of the President's name given by the accused ladies (who were not, of course, there). Russian uses polite forms in reference to public figures. The full glorious text is all over the place: there is even a Russian clip sub-titled so the hard of hearing can follow every wondrous verse and chorus of it: not that much use if the language is unknown. As Ken remarked, the version I gave is obviously full of standard Russian lines: Ken is obviously well placed to judge. And this shall be my anthem, use not ironic words.

It is a Russian story and Russian law will take its course. Try and translate it to other jurisdictions and CPS would think of prosecuting a public order offence; in Scotland COPFS would consider throwing in Sectarian Aggravation and go for consecutive sentences. Such speculation is neither here not there. The fact of it this was a calculated publicity stunt for a punk band. They have probably misjudged it and provoked a considerable counter-reaction. They are presently cooling their heels in custody - if you read what people are saying I doubt these ladies would be safe walking the streets at night.

From the merely linguistic point of view the story is a wonderful way to extend one's knowledge of the rich vocabulary of female nouns. Puellile meets puerile.

Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :

For what it's worth, the lyrics of their-so called "punk prayer" can be found on the website of the group (item 3) http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com/12442.html (along with photos showing exactly where in the church they were, and a video of their "protest")

The translation below is my own, not necessarily 100% accurate.

While the memory of desecrations of churches (and the greater, immeasurable, horrors still that it led to) by the communists and militant atheists is of course always close to the surface in Russia, the lyrics don't suggest that the group are trying to follow in their footsteps, so much as they are critical of the church (or specifically the Moscow Patriarchate) for failing to live up to (their perception of) Christian ideals - quite specifically because of its collusion with the State, and even more to the point, the Secret services

Mother of God, Virgin, Chase out Putin
Chase Out Putin, Chase Out Putin

The black cassock, gold epaulettes,
All the parishioners are bowing down
An image of freedom in heaven
Gay Pride sent to Siberia in fetters

The Chief of the KGB, their chief saint
Leads protesters to isolation camps in a convoy
In order not to offend the Holiest
Women must give birth and love.

Shit, shit, shit the Lord
Shit, shit, shit the Lord

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

The churches' praise for rotten leaders
A pilgrimage of black limousines
To school where the preacher awaits you
Go to your lesson- give him money!

Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin
It'd be better if the bitch believed in God
The Belt of the Virgin cannot take the place of rallies -
Let's go to protests with our Ever-Virgin Maria!

Mother of God, Virgin, Chase out Putin
Chase out Putin, Chase out Putin

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Praise Ken, from whom all good sense flows, praise him all creatures here below. You have clearly been there, seen the arm-wrestling and helped finish the vodka bottle.

Yes, Ken, you were absolutely right, something unmistakeably Russian in the bits of the parody quoted. It is easy enough to find the full text in Russian. The bits I left out, were routine Soviet-era anti-clericalism and present-day criticism of unofficial fees. Some is timeless Russian mockery of believers, relics, liturgy and processions. But there is much foreign stuff to take exception to: some was American propaganda lines about the KGB. Much is modern and western, attacks on the president, the military and praise for punk feminism and gay pride. It is as well not to underestimate the English influence: dodgy public schools survive thanks to Russian boarders and Oxbridge have to keep their Slavonic dons in pupils somehow. The posh boys and girls come home with decent English accents and indecent foreign ideas.

The response to foreign intrusion has been predictable. "Православие или смерть": Orthodoxy or Death (there’s an anti-Semitic touch there). The slogan "Содом не пойдет” is something one might translate “we beg to differ on the gay-liberation question”. Russians know English well enough to catch the “Pussy Riot” innuendo: they are merrily using “Восстание матки” and it is not easy to translate that clever, if somewhat gynaecological, quip back into English. As Vladimir Vladimirovich aptly put it the ladies have got exactly what they were asking for.

The thread started with the perception of the Orthodox themselves, that this is an old story of persecution. Their leaders’ call to arms has been widely-heeded: even at the harmless level of the blogosphere the traffic is enormous and pretty well one-way. The English meaning of “persecution” is neither here nor there: we need to start from a Russian perspective on hooliganism or persecution. One starting point is когда будут поносить вас и гнать и всячески неправедно злословить за Меня (men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake). So far, there have been near riots, fist-fights, death threats and some mad axeman having a go at the judge who had the dear ladies sent down for their own protection. The acid test is the Orthodox victims’ own perception. Demonic is as demonic does. Patriarch Kirill rallied thousands of believers to protest against the enemy attack. Amnesty International's hasty decision to interfere with due legal process against the hooligans has been branded a calculated insult a sovereign state as well as to those genuine prisoners of conscience who suffered under totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union. What believers and atheists alike are venting is an outraged protest against the line that west is best. Out-going President Medvedev has a better grasp of the Russian majority than some of the stuff posted here. Dmitry Anatolyevich’s view is that “Liberals have no monopoly on freedom”. I am not saying these views are correct but I do think they deserve informed consideration.

Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :

And for what it's worth, I'd say that the word "хамство" (which is somewhat difficult to translate - "cheekiness" isn't quite strong enough) was rather more what sprang to my mind than "хулиганство"

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

For what it's worth, the first time I ever heard the word in real life was in a squabble over a place in a queue when the young man who cut in was roundly accused of hooliganism. It really does cover a multitude of sins, a legal "catch all" and the point, here, is that it a specific charge under the penal code. I know it sounds trivial, even comic, to English speakers but it gets quite near to the good old catch all "breach of the peace". The charge is potentially quite serious.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Believe it or not, Berwickshire, vicious, reactionary, nationalistic mob rage is not as difficult for us westerners to wrap our minds around as you seem to think.

[ 30. April 2012, 23:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Berwickshire wrote:

quote:
But there is much foreign stuff to take exception to: some was American propaganda lines about the KGB.

So it's just American propaganda that Putin was the head of the KGB?

quote:
Much is modern and western, attacks on the president, the military and praise for punk feminism and gay pride.

Would you say that gays and lesbians in Russia regard "gay pride" as nothing more than western imperialism, with no relevance to their lives?

[ 30. April 2012, 23:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Putin was a KGB agent but not the head of the KGB.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I stand corrected.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Check out your links. The police report is in a version presented by the lawyer acting for one of the accused. Since it looks as if she denies she was there in the first place that is either a lawyer with a great case or a liar for a client.

The link is from RIA Novosti. Yes, it carries quotes from lawyers for the defendants. So what? You'd have to be a very stupid lawyer to tell a lie that could be so easily proven to be false.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
What believers and atheists alike are venting is an outraged protest against the line that west is best. Out-going President Medvedev has a better grasp of the Russian majority than some of the stuff posted here. Dmitry Anatolyevich’s view is that “Liberals have no monopoly on freedom”. I am not saying these views are correct but I do think they deserve informed consideration.

A colleague of mine, who lived in Russia for some time, says that most people in the West fail to appreciate a.) just how bad things were under Boris Yeltsin, and b.) the degree to which Yeltsin was propped up by the West.

Russians aged over 30 may well regard Putin as a poseur, but they're justifiably suspicious of anything pro-Western because that suggests a return to the Yeltsin years.

I don't know if that's a factor in this case, but it seems worth taking into consideration.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
A colleague of mine, who lived in Russia for some time, says that most people in the West fail to appreciate a.) just how bad things were under Boris Yeltsin, and b.) the degree to which Yeltsin was propped up by the West.

I think the two go together. There was all that "triumph of capitalism" shit, and Thatcher and Reagan sent in loads of 'capitalism red in tooth and claw' advisers to 'help' Russia make the transition. Yeah, they helped screw it up. Russia's ongoing love affair with strong government is almost entirely explicable in terms of twentieth century history. But it will change - it is changing. Ideas do not respect national boundaries - and, in any case, many of the ideas that Berwickshire is labelling as foreign or American belong as much to Russia and the old eastern bloc as they do to any country in the West.

Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :

Putin was head of the FSB (which then had substanitally less powers than the KGB used to have, although as President he increased them somewhat), albeit only for around about a year (1998-99), before he became PM for the first time.

quote:
There was all that "triumph of capitalism" shit, and Thatcher and Reagan sent in loads of 'capitalism red in tooth and claw' advisers to 'help' Russia make the transition. Yeah, they helped screw it up.

Well, Thatcher and Reagan both left office before the Cold War was definitively over (the Berlin Wall was still standing when Reagan's term as President ended), but this is true. All the more so that it was Bill Clinton on whose watch much of this "economic assistance and guidance" was sent (OK, "shock therapy" hit Russia just a little before that) - but the point is precisely that this was a bipartisan approach in the USA (and West more generally).

It was also the Clinton-led USA that acquiesced in what was almost certainly the fixing of the 1996 Russian presidential election run-off so that a half-dead Yeltsin won it, in preference to the Communist/nationalist Zyuganov. It was probably best that is what happened - but it doesn't do western critics any favours when they criticise the rigging of mroe recent elections in Russia. Although it really was Yeltsin's weakness (physical and mental as well as political) at this time that really gave a big boost to the "gangster capitalism" of some of the leading oligarchs: Putin's clamping down on them is certainly not altogether a bad thing.

And indeed no-one in their right mind in Russia would want to return to the chaos, disorder, intense hardship, anarchy, more than usual violence and unpredictablity of the 90s.

Although I don't think Pussy Riot incarnate "the 90s" in any sense: it was precisely then that the Russian Orthodox Church came back to life after decades of oppression; indeed then that the Cathedral in which they made the protest was built (having been blown up in the 1930s). I think there would have been, if anything, rather less sympathy for this type of "protest" 15 years ago than there may be today. (Although this is in part because the church has become more powerful, and more entwined with state structures since then)

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Besides turning a blind eye to gross mismanagement in the Russian government, how much is the West really to blame for Russian problems though?

That being said, I can understand some suspicion about the West on the part of Russians. Heck, I wouldn't trust US diplomats and economic advisers with grandma's walking stick. But none of that really explains, much less justifies, the irrational, xenophobic fury against these women.

Though, checking myself again, those polls did show that very few people are as stuck in the Cold War as Berwickshire. On the other hand, the mass demonstrations just make it look like people in Moscow have nothing better to do than get offended.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Stetson may stand corrected on the substantial point as well as the expression and past history is more than a Boston MA might grasp. Look back at the ditties that “decampagne” has gone to the (it must have been enormous) trouble to translate here. Read it carefully. As with most Russian writing, it is deep.

That complex fusion of ideas may make little sense to some, but makes a lot of sense to Russians. Back in the good old days the CIA had a bunch of tame Orthodox émigrés (living safely back in the US of A) who used to trot out the line that Russian “Bishops” were all KGB colonels, hence gold epaulettes on their cassocks. Vladimir Vladimirovich never was the target of that puellile “Восстание матки” (Pussy Riot) quip. No Russian would mistake our own dear Vladimir Vladimirovich as the “chief saint” of the KGB, whatever Americans might think. The “chief saint of the KGB” was its founder, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky.

The very name gives it all away pretty well instantly to those who have ears to hear. “Dzierżyński” has just got to be Polish. “Edmund-Rufin” is not a Russian “Christian” name. So we all know, exactly, where any so-called “Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky” is actually coming from. One glance at the face on that statute would confirm any lingering doubts. Old friend of Vladimir Ilyich and Lev Davidovich that one. And, for those who still don’t get it, Felix Edmundovich was, as the saying goes, “fluent in Hebrew”. The émigré/CIA-inspired “joke” Восстание матки have picked up on is that the benighted native Orthodox have, as their chief saint, a person whose ancestry was not just Polish but a lot worse than even Polish. And their bishops are KGB colonels.

Russian humour is subtle and one is not surprised to see Americans struggle. Even worse, the whole art of the political joke in Russia is to keep it deniable. Fancy the Party Authorities thinking that we would tell an anti-Semitic joke or suggest that an Othodox bishop worked for Felix Edmundovich? it took just the one Yiddish word aimed at the Party leadership to land Aleksandr Isayevich in the Gulag. So we make our jokes and deny them if needs be. And as one young lady’s lawyer says, his poor imprisoned client was not even there at the time. Americans have a lot to learn before they start sounding off about “Восстание матки”.

Supporters of these puellile attacks don’t get the offence to the Orthodox, they don’t even recognize anti-Semitism when they see it. The punks keep it deniable: we didn’t mean that, we weren’t there. Восстание матки.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Having read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and studied the Russian language in school, I know all about Russian pretensions to being ineffably profound souls, which they have a habit of trying to highlight by making foreigners look like ignorant, conniving savages. It is not an endearing trait.

But you, Berwickshire, are not Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, and you are not as profound as you are putting on. So until then, why don't you drop the condescension as well?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

By the by, Berwickshire, I know what you are doing with "Восстание матки." Insulting people in a language you imagine they can't understand is pathetic, and against the rules of the ship.

Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :

A particularly egregious recent example of this sort of this is reported here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6069136.stm

quote:
He said the president continued: "What a mighty man he turns out to be! He raped 10 women - I would never have expected this from him. He surprised us all - we all envy him!"

quote:
Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov admitted: "Yes really, these words were pronounced."

But he said it "in no way means that President Putin welcomes rape".

Israeli President Moshe Katsav
Mr Katsav denies the allegations

"The president was joking," he told the BBC's World Today radio programme.

"Russian is a very complicated language, sometimes it is very sensitive from the point of view of phrasing.

"I don't think that the proper translation is able to reflect the meaning of the joke."

BTW, the Russian expressions used (as reported by Kommersant) were "Привет передайте своему президенту! Оказался очень мощный мужик! Десять женщин изнасиловал! Я никогда не ожидал от него! Он нас всех удивил! Мы все ему завидуем!"

"Give my regards to your president! Turns out he's quite a strong guy! He raped 10 women! I wouldn never have expected that of him. He surprised us all. We all envy him" is a quick-and-dirty translation. And while the punctuation (and use of exclamation marks, etc) doesn't really carry over into English usage, to this Russian-speaking native Anglophone the meaning and expression seems pretty unambigious, and a lot less complicated (and also less sensitive!) than Peskov would like.

By way of an aside, I suppose.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Zach,

I am simply quoting the contemporary translation of “Pussy Riot”. Perhaps you know better but from what I have seen “Восстание матки” seems current Russian usage for the foreign name the publicity-seeking hooligans have chosen for themselves. It catches the puellile innuendo of their chosen original. If you feel like taking it to the Thought Police, do make sure in the interests of fairness that the English phrase gets put on the Index of Prohibited Words along with the Russian. If, which has neither been proved nor is admitted, the words are against “rules”, off you go and report that to your nearest Commission of Ship Security or Комитет государственной безопасности representative. There’s bound to be one about. Socialism gave the world the notion of “Political Correctness” but the former socialist world has no taste for it: we live with what real people are actually saying rather than some prissy rule-book.

And so, Slavonic humour tends to be that bit more robust than western. I am not sure an English-speaking punk band would include anti-Semitic jokes in their promotional videos but no one has accused the young ladies of good taste. It is something of a pity, however, when Vladimir Vladimirovich’s good name is smeared, a newly-elected leader fresh from a landslide victory. Smears are always that much easier than rational argument and some people are just bad losers.
Amid the abuse (water off this duck’s back) I seemed to have missed your expert take on what else the good ladies could have meant. Cats got your tongue? Who is the Chief KGB Saint of native Orthodox believers if not the sainted Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky?

It is one thing for apologists for “Восстание матки” to try to shift the focus but that doesn’t detract from the fact that these cats will use a subtle anti-Semitic smear if it helps them persecute Orthodox believers.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Ricardus:
A colleague of mine, who lived in Russia for some time, says that most people in the West fail to appreciate a.) just how bad things were under Boris Yeltsin, and b.) the degree to which Yeltsin was propped up by the West.

Oh, I don't know. Jay Leno referred to him as Boris "Buy Me a Drink" Yeltsin nearly every night on the Tonight Show. Americans still watched late night television during the Yeltsin years.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

For the uninitiated, "Восстание матки" transliterates as "Vostonie Matki." Apparently Berwickshire was too busy trolling to notice its resemblance to "Boston MA" when he rolled out that translation and referred to me as "Boston MA" in the same post. Or it's that deep Russian sense of humor that is so hard for Americans to understand. [Roll Eyes]

[ 01. May 2012, 18:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

My Russian is pretty minimal-- only about a hundred words. Could I ask shipmates to please provide translations when they use Russian texts, each time, every time/

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

For the bemused, there is a resemblance between the Russian words for "Boston" and "Revolt". It does, to be honest, beat me how anyone can get a Russian equivalent for "Master of Arts" out of the now-popular "Восстание матки". I didn't even know there was a University of Boston in the M.A. business. I knew an Emmanuel man had done his bit to englighten the colonies but that was surely Harvard. The difficulty with your game, Zach, is that it is difficult to tell when you make a mistake or when you are just evading the point that your revolting friends are not above the odd anti-Semitic jibe.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The difficulty with yours is that you think you are so much more clever than the rest of us, and imagine your trolling and malicious games are incomprehensible to us.

I haven't defended that band Pussy Riot, but only said that the general reaction to it has been ridiculous. Yours seems especially vicious, and to have no concept of justice or law above the sentiments of mob rule. So they were offensive. Have a good huff over the morning newspaper and get over it.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Guys, engage the argument, not the person. Enough, already.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
I am not sure an English-speaking punk band would include anti-Semitic jokes in their promotional videos...

Yiou obviously never heard of the 4-Skins, Skrewdriver, or Iron Cross. Or what happened at the Hamborough Tavern.

Whatever. It seems to me that your posts are nasty, snide, and demeaning to women. That doesn't mean I think that the government of whatever country you are living in should lock you up.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
,,, it is difficult to tell when you make a mistake or when you are just evading the point that your revolting friends are not above the odd anti-Semitic jibe.

I grant you that the idea that the line in question refers to Dzerzhinsky is not entirely implausible, but - given that the song otherwise appears to be about Putin - it's not very convincing.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
when Vladimir Vladimirovich’s [Putin's] good name is smeared

I'm sure a tough dude like Putin should be able to deal with a mere smear against his already reviled name. He has plenty of methods at his disposal to help him cope, for example sending a squad of ex-KGB goons around to an opposition leader's house, rigging an election or arranging a foreign leader's plane crash, any of which could be done while dazzling the tamed media with outlandish feats of self-promotion usually not seen outside of US presidential elections.

[ 01. May 2012, 20:54: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert
Can somebody please explain to me why the slogan "Orthodoxy or Death" should have an anti-Semitic flavour? I've heard it's painted on the roof of a monastery that is the Orthodox equivalent of the Rev Ian Paisley's martyrs' Memorial Church.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Gosh an easy one at last. John Enoch was never Dr Paisley's best friend but the slogan is easy. It is a choice. Do you, David Davidovitch, want to be baptised or would you prefer the pogrom we have laid on for you? Same trick with little Feliks Polak, do you want to be Orthodox or do you think it wise to continue to adhere to the bishop of Rome? In Dr Paisley's terms the question runs now, wee Davie, the boys here would like to know are you a Cathlic Jew or a Prodestan Jew? The Orthodox game is marginally more deadly. Orthodoxy or death!, meanings within meanings. Welcome to Mother Russia!

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Cake isn't an option? [Confused]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Cake isn't an option?

That's Anglicanism or death.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:Dmitry Anatolyevich’s view is that “Liberals have no monopoly on freedom”. I am not saying these views are correct but I do think they deserve informed consideration.
A colleague of mine, who lived in Russia for some time, says that most people in the West fail to appreciate a.) just how bad things were under Boris Yeltsin, and b.) the degree to which Yeltsin was propped up by the West.

Perhaps it depends on what is meant by the word "liberal", which can be as slippery as an eel. Am I correct that what you are referring to is that in the Yeltsin years, Russia suffered not from autocracy but from near-anarchy?

I can recall the glee with which Western, particularly American, libertarians, who like to call themselves "classical liberals", greeted the vacuum left by the evaporating Soviets. Prominent among was, of course, were the disciples of Ayn Rand, who was, ironically, not just American but Russian-American. This situation was hailed as the perfect laboratory and sandbox for their ideas. The ability of the free market and limited government (in this case, already limited by necessity) to make life better for everyone would be proven for all to see. But it didn't work, did it?

I lost a lot of faith in libertarian economic ideology myself during that period.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

In some parish halls, the cakes are Death and Anglicanism. Still that notorious clip to listen to for anti-Semitism but meanwhile Vladimir Vladimirovich has been having a hard old time of it here - tut-tutting over an off-the-cuff, off-mike joke. This guy is a legend in his time, yet another quip to his credit. And people think he needs to rig popular election.

But from England’s answer to the loss of their American penitentiaries, up pops southern denunciation of manifest Russian sin and wickedness: Vlad the plane-downer. Did for poor Polish Lech (the president, not the beer, but just as cold). If memory serves, Lech had a previous for ordering a pilot to land in unsafe conditions. The Poles (you have admire these guys) had the bright idea of loading their entire top brass (NATO command and all) on the same plane as the c-in-c. A Soviet-designed propeller job. Pan Prezydent, Pani Prezydentowa and brass loaded (in more senses than one) along with archbishops and God knows who all else. National airline motto: “Fly by Lot”. So, well-oiled Air-force General there to back up Mr President’s navigational judgement against the mere pilot. There are dimensions of death-or-glory genius that only Polish military planning can contrive. Never mind, let’s blame Vladimir Vladimirovich and the evil Russians.

After the accident (Poles say “katastrofa”), Dmitry Anatolyevich and Vladimir Vladimirovich (cue Putinism about sleeping arrangements) were there pronto, crossing themselves and lighting candles to the manner born. They went to Warszawa for the funeral and even the Germans got brownie points for making a big effort to get there. Again, if memory serves, the Russians got two places of honour: a vacant seat since the American military couldn’t contrive to get Barak there. Either that or he couldn’t be bothered. And the Russians are the bad guys. Polish air-force officers never partake of the inflight refreshments. Punk feminists do not make anti-Semitic jokes.

Now there is the happy thought that the bad times for Russia were way back then, decades ago. Anarchy was a thing of the past. The place is dire still. Try driving on rural roads, communal apartments and little huts at the bottom of the cottage garden. Medics guess whether the fags will get to the patient before the vodka does, or will it be the lard? Wall-to-wall foreign advice as to the theoretical solutions is no great help - Communism was the theoretical solution to all economic problems even those that did not exist. A friendly spot of economic aid might be in order. Go easy on the advice.

If there is a God, and if life is anything more than His idea of a wind-up, there has to be a serious point. Why keep persecuting Russia for the odd harmless Putinism or Polish military planning? Why exactly does Russia need to have homosexualist parades and female invasions of sacred space just because the west would like to impose them? Why not just leave the place to get there in its own good time? Perhaps even give a bit of actual help. Prayer even. Call me paranoid but it is persecution.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Reading recent posts, I have the feeling that I have inadvertently dropped into an improvisation based on a deservedly unpublished play by the later Kafka.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Berwickshire poked his head into an innocent little Presbyterian thread down in Eccles. It's interesting to see which side has the brimstone.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
A friendly spot of economic aid might be in order. Go easy on the advice.

But then, who would you blame all of Russia's problems on?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Why exactly does Russia need to have homosexualist parades and female invasions of sacred space just because the west would like to impose them? Why not just leave the place to get there in its own good time? Perhaps even give a bit of actual help. Prayer even. Call me paranoid but it is persecution.

If you think internal lobbying by your own gay rights and feminist movements are foreign impositions, then you realy have got a problem with paranoia. You are digging yourself into a pit of hate. You think nobody here has thought about offering help, or even prayer? Oh, but of course, it has to be your kind of prayer.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Now there is the happy thought that the bad times for Russia were way back then, decades ago.

Whose thought was that?

quote:
Why keep persecuting Russia for the odd harmless Putinism or Polish military planning? Why exactly does Russia need to have homosexualist parades and female invasions of sacred space just because the west would like to impose them? Why not just leave the place to get there in its own good time? Perhaps even give a bit of actual help. Prayer even. Call me paranoid but it is persecution.

I agree that certain posts seem to have absorbed anti-Russian stereotypes (in particular I doubt Putin had anything to do with the death of the Polish president), but why do you think it helps your case to respond with anti-Polish stereotypes?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

From the top: the Hitch was of course right about Stalin and his parallels in Hitler and Idi Amin and Henry VIII and the Chinese Communist Party for that matter. When it comes down to it, there can be only be one secular power. One Caesar. And they are right.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0