The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church wants to prevent people from holding a silent performance after service hours in a historical church which is open to everyone who does not disturb the peace.
Huh... you simply do not know what you are talking about...Church is NOT public place open to whoever pays for it like some public hall. It is place of worship. The fact that it is open for tourists to see its historical value does NOT mean that tourist do not have to obey with rules of this specific place. C'mon, is it so hard to understand? And this was hardly silent performance...and even if it was, and even if we ignore dress code, the fact that they hijacked altar is a huge thing in the eyes of believers...And I do not even ask you to understand this cause it is beyond of your "progressive"mind. Putting the whole shit on YouTube is another story but not less offensive...to ridicule believes of so many millions of people pointing what they ( those few so called artist, huh, fucking their political position in the museum before) happen to think about " God's shit" is definitely criminal act. They can do that in public hall tho (if they pay to rent it for their performance) and still some of believers or church can sue them. All tho the punishment is draconian. But it is to make case for others in the future and this is well known in UK, USA end elsewhere, so be it. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
Church is NOT public place open to whoever pays for it like some public hall. It is place of worship.
It is a historical site, and as such belong to all the people. You don't get to exclude non-communists from visiting Lenin's tomb, or the memorial to the fallen of the Great Patriotic War either.
The fact that it is open for tourists to see its historical value does NOT mean that tourist do not have to obey with rules of this specific place.
What we're discussing here is whether the Orthodox Church should get to make the rules for how to use a public historical site which it happens to use for ceremonies.
C'mon, is it so hard to understand?
And this was hardly silent performance
and even if it was, and even if we ignore dress code, the fact that they hijacked altar is a huge thing in the eyes of believers
The eyes of believers do not matter. Only the eyes of disinterested secular observers. And no disinterested secular observer can find anything particularly special about the alter, aside from the fact that it can be seen from most of the church. But that is also true for a great many other places in the church.
Putting the whole shit on YouTube is another story but not less offensive
to ridicule believes
of so many millions of people
pointing what they ( those few so called artist, huh, fucking their political position in the museum before) happen to think about " God's shit" is definitely criminal act.
Thank you for clearing that up. You must be on Medieval Savings Time - when it's 12:00 in London, it's 1200 AD where you live.
Question: Do you support criminalizing drawings of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? Do you support criminalizing videos that insult Bush the Lesser? No? Then on what basis do you want to criminalize the particular videos that offend you?
They can do that in public hall tho (if they pay to rent it for their performance) and still some of believers or church can sue them.
Wonderful. Do you also want it to be illegal to wear provocative clothing, or to push elevator buttons on Saturdays? To get a divorce? For two men to kiss in public?
Where does your privilege to not have your parochial religious feelings "offended" end, and my freedom to not have to live in a fucking theocracy begin? And who gets to decide that?
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
It is a historical site, and as such belong to all the people.
Wishful thinking. You have lost touch with reality.
The eyes of believers do not matter. Only the eyes of disinterested secular observers.
And there is the core of our disagreement. There you say that we are not free to our beliefs. Only secularity is, if you have your will.
It is a historical site, and as such belong to all the people. Wishful thinking. You have lost touch with reality.
The cathedral is not owned by the church, which rents out space on the premises.
Now, that's something that would actually deeply insult me. Does that mean I get the right to sue? Or is "deeply and sincerely insulted" only the standard for determining whether religious bigots get to sue?
You're not free to demand that I submit to them. That's called theocracy.
If they don't, then they are in receipt of an implicit state subsidy, and as such no different in any respect from any state-funded war memorial. They shouldn't get to discriminate even if they owned the place or paid market rent, of course, but at least that would be a problem with private property privileges rather than with religious discrimination.
But does it matter to your argument at all? I thought you were arguing that the real crime was offending religious feelings. Does the validity of religious feelings hinge on whose property the offense is made from?
If you want to construe an analogy with war memorials, then where the hell IS the analogy?
Because otherwise you're really stretching when you argue for rules of the church that don't apply to publicly funded war memorials.
Unless, of course, you think that religion should get special treatment over any other form of political party or social get-together.
Yad Vashem certainly is a memorial. What would happen if a group of Israeli Arabs would stage a protest there?
memorials while generally open to the public, are not public spaces in the sense that you can stage political demonstrations there. And I don't really think the ownership of the cathedral on Moscow is relevant any how. The church seems to be the only and the permanent user and the owner is some foundation for the rebuilding of the cathedral.
memorials while generally open to the public, are not public spaces in the sense that you can stage political demonstrations there.
And it's a silly rule in those jurisdictions that have it.
It is unfortunate that so few Palestinians visit Yad Vashem. Understandably, many argue that they were not involved in the Holocaust and resent hearing again about Jews as victims of Nazis when the whole world has so long failed to recognize Palestinians as victims of Zionists. Many also believe that the Holocaust was (mis)used as a justification or rationalization for the creation of the state of Israel and for the conquest and confiscation of their homes and villages. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate because from Yad Vashem, looking north, is a spectacular panoramic view of Deir Yassin. The Holocaust museum is beautiful and the message "never to forget man's inhumanity to man" is timeless. The children's museum is particularly heart wrenching; in a dark room filled with candles and mirrors the names of Jewish children who perished in the Holocaust are read along with their places of birth. Even the most callous person is brought to tears. Upon exiting this portion of the museum a visitor is facing north and looking directly at Deir Yassin. There are no markers, no plaques, no memorials, and no mention from any tour guide. But for those who know what they are looking at, the irony is breathtaking.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 20 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by Oui - Jan 2728 comments
by Cat - Jan 2520 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 219 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1215 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments
by Oui - Jan 68 comments