Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
What, precisely, happened in the church which should be a crime?

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)?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:25:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:31:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not concrete.

Which of their concrete actions would you prohibit?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think it would be analytically correct to divide this action into its components. Note how carefully PR have composed (not sure if I like the word here) it.
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:07:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, there are quite clearly at least two distinct actions here: One is filming a mock prayer in church, and the other is adding a song you don't like.

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.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series