Mm hmm. So, they've been sentenced, and will likely be going to jail for a couple of years. And the majority of discussion that I'm hearing is about how freedom of speech is being set back decades in Russia, and about how church and state should separate. I'll deal with each of these things in turn.
Firstly, vis-a-vis freedom of speech, and my support of it. I am very in favor of freedom of speech, including speech that I don't like. And this was speech that I wasn't really on board with. I'm not a real fan of their music (really, Pastor Jim doesn't care for punk music. I'll give that a second to sink in). I was also a little perturbed by their lyrics for the song, which I won't repeat here, by virtue of this being a sanctified blog. But if you want to find them, or an english version of them, it's out there.
Happy to give you the video in Russian. It doesn't take long, does it? Not a super long concert that gets them arrested and carried away. But you can see from the second it gets going, that people want it to stop. The good staff of the cathedral are not interested in this concert proceeding, and seek to have it grind to a halt. And they try to stop them from playing.
And I don't believe that their free speech was violated by this.
I'll explain myself. I'm in favor of "Kitten" riot being allowed to say what they like. They can be as anti-Putin, or as anti-church, or any mixture of the two as they like. I don't care for it, but I wouldn't say that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they like. Of course they should. But I'm not in favor of them commandeering the cathedral to make their point. However valid of a point it may be.
It reminds me of graffiti in a way. Graffiti in this area is largely illegal, even though it happens all the time. If you get caught 'tagging,' you can face some penalties or other. And why might that be? Doesn't that violate your freedom of expression as well? Isn't telling people what they can and cannot spraypaint a violation of their rights? Not at all. If you want to Banksy yourself up, and put street art up all over the place, then you have some choices - get the permission of the people who own the wall that you're about to repurpose, or second, build your own wall, and illustrate that. Otherwise, what you're doing is ruining something that someone else has paid money for, something that doesn't belong to you. And that's not okay. In the same way that you'd resent someone coming into your home and writing their name all over your kitchen walls. You'd likely claim 'hey, that's mine! Get off!" It's the same thing, just with an increased sense of justification.
Can you write what you like? Absolutely. Can you write what you like even though I disagree with it? Sure! Can you write what you like all over stuff that isn't yours? I'd say no.
The principle carries over to staging a punk rock protest in a cathedral. If the people who own and operate and administrate the cathedral don't want you having a protest there, then you probably shouldn't. It's not yours. If you would have asked, they would have said no, and they clearly wanted you out of there from the second you started. You can say what you like, but not wherever you like.
Which brings me to my second point. Separation of church and state. Happily enough, this story about the conviction of "Kitten riot" comes on the same day that the CBC is running a story about Kelowna mulling over flying a pro-choice flag from city hall.
One of the commenters had this to say:
Public institutions have a mandate to serve the public,
and refrain from pandering to special interests.
Private citizens have the right to live their lives according to their
own conscience. They may not hijack public offices for personal propaganda.
Fly your flag, fly it in the face of the truth. Religion does not belong anywhere near politics.
The poster in question would like religion and politics to stay far far apart from each other. Okay. But does that idea go both ways. I have been told many times (over the internet), that I am free to be as religious as I like, as long as I don't force my beliefs down anyone else's throat, which usually means that I can be religious as long as I don't talk about it outside of home or church.
Ah. If we believe in a separation of church and state, that means that political buildings should be neutral in regards to faith, and religious buildings should be neutral in regards to politics. It cuts both ways. I would imagine that were I to break into the house of commons and start conducting a full liturgy, I would be asked to leave very quickly (in this country, I might not be arrested, though I might if I refused to leave). You may very well agree with the sentiments behind the punk band's song, and support them in their efforts, but is this what the church is for?
I for one, and quite in favor of separation of church and state, mainly because the marriage of the two creates a horrible, moribund church. It's funny that most atheists that I meet are very in favor of the separation of church and state, when in reality, they might want to consider being pro union of church and state, the Christian church at least. Further to my point, check out these nations with established churches:
Weekly church attendance statistics
| Country | Attendance (%) | Country | Attendance (%) | Country | Attendance (%) | Country | Attendance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Austria | 18% [8] |  Belgium | 7% [9] |  Canada | 20%[10] |  Denmark | 3% [8] |
 Cyprus | 25% [8] |  Czech Republic | 11% [8] |  Estonia | 4% [8] |  Finland | 5% [8] |
 France | 12% [11] |  Greece | 27% [8] |  Hungary | 12% [8] |  Iceland | 10% [12] |
 Ireland | 46% [13] |  Italy | 31% [8] |  Latvia | 7% [8] |  Lithuania | 14% [8] |
 Malta | 75% [8] |  Norway | 3% [14] |  Poland | 63% [8] |  Portugal | 29% [8] |
 Slovakia | 33% [8] |  Slovenia | 18% [8] |  Spain | 21% [8] |  Sweden | 5% [8] |
 United Kingdom | 14% [15] |  United States | 43%[16] |
The UK has an established church, as does Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Greece. So does Malta, which seems to be bucking the curve. Oh dear. Canada does not, and nor does the United States. And the United States is the shining star of separation of church and state, and the originator of having such a thing be in a constitution. They say that government should make no law establishing or favoring one religion over another. And so the individual men and women of that nation have had to shoulder the burden of their belief on their own. And you know what? it's worked out pretty well for them. Sitting back and waiting for the state to run your church, having them operate them through tax dollars, only creates in the Christian a sense that this isn't something that they actually need to work on for themselves.
It reminds me so much of the story of Palm Sunday, when Jesus rode his ass into town. And everyone there was tossing down their cloaks on the road, and waving palm branches, and shouting loud hosannas in a public space. Almost like a pro-Jesus protest. And when they did have this annoyingly loud pro-Jesus protest, they were urged to shut it by the local temple authorities, who told him "Teacher, order your disciples to stop." And Jesus replied with the salient quote:
"I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out." (Luke 19:39-40)
Lots of people want to remove government endorsement of religion, which I get. But then that places it in the hands of the people, and they may very well be MORE vocal, MORE committed, and MORE enthralled than those who are in power, and who have to worry about votes. You put that responsibility into the hands of the people, and like in the United States, they may very well take it seriously.
So, to recap. I am in favor of separation of church and state, and I think it makes both things better. Lashing your church wagon to the state donkey only really ends up in disastrous results, usually for both. I am in favor of free speech, and I acknowledge that it's the offensive speech that needs to be protected. Nobody needs to protect the freedom to say that puppies are cute, or that sunny days make for better baseball. You need to protect the right to say stuff you don't like. However, I am not in favor of using a church as a staging area without permission. Ask nicely, and if they say no, then go elsewheres, in the same way that you would if a group came to your home and asked to perform a black mass, or a Christian prayer service. You may be fine with it, but you'd probably like to be asked.
I am in no way a legal expert, though, so I don't dare comment on legal proceedings, especially in Russia. But I don't think they should be jailed for any longer than they already have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment