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.
I'm not forced to watch the video, while people in the Moscow church had no freedom of a decision. And then I'm a Lutheran with strict views on making images... :-)
That a heathen approached the altar? That someone dressed provocatively in church? That a heathen prayed in church?
That's all thoughtcrime, based on the fact that their piety was insufficiently sincere. Something you could only ascertain based on either their general habitus - religious profiling, if you will - or long after the fact, once they had added sound to the performance and uploaded it on the internet.
Well, I'm not a fan of retroactive criminalization of otherwise legal actions, and I'm not a fan of religious profiling.
As far as I can tell, the only substantive charge here is that they painted graffiti in the church. Which is a real and substantive charge, aggravated by the fact that the church in question is a building of historical and cultural significance.
It's also not what they were charged with.
So what exactly happened in the church, which was obviously criminal at the time (except for defacing a building, which is a crime everywhere, not just in church)?
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
What, precisely, happened in the church which should be a crime?
A violation of space that serves the exercise of religion. The arrogant violation of rules Christians want to see observed in their churches. The altar has a significance, and don't tell me PR didn't know what they were doing. That was intent, not accident.
Which of their concrete actions would you prohibit?
Otherwise, you are entering the murky netherworld of banning general habitus which would not in and of itself be criminal, based on some future action which may be taken at some future date, or some past action which in and of itself was also legal.
Or, to put it concisely: Thoughtcrime.
Besides, the only applicable delineation on the act in its totality is that it offends religious sentiment. Which was established around the time of the French Revolution to not be a valid argument for censorship.
by Oui - Feb 4 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 49 comments
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 269 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2732 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2561 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments