Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Philip Jenkins on Why He Won’t Be Donating for Pussy Riot

Over at Real Clear Religion, Baylor historian Philip Jenkins has a powerful essay on the Pussy Riot trial and the Western media’s failure to take seriously the religious provocation the stunt represented:

Putin may be a thug, and Pussy Riot might be feminist warriors for human rights, but the particular act for which they faced trial is much more controversial than is commonly reported in the West. A good case can be made that it was a grievous act of religious hate crime, of a kind that would be roundly condemned if it happened in a country that the West happened to like.

Jenkins recounts the long history of Christian persecution under the Soviets, which involved intimidation and murder on a massive scale, often accompanied by anti-Christian agitprop in sacred places. Jenkins writes:

Russia’s new religious freedom is a very tender shoot, and the prospect of future turmoil has to agonize those believers who recall bygone horrors. These fears are all the more pressing when modern-day activists seem to reproduce exactly the blasphemous deeds of the past, and even in the precise places. When modern-day Orthodox look at Pussy Riot, they see the ghosts of Alexandra Kollontai and her militiamen, or the old Soviet League of Militant Godless. Are they wrong to do so? . . .

So no, I won’t be giving to any Pussy Riot support groups.

I’ve written before that Pussy Riot has been in prison for long enough; a two-year sentence for what they did seems very disproportionate.  I’d have fined them for trespassing and let them go. But it is striking that so few in the West see the other side of the story.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Good Thing They Didn’t Try It in France

Anatole France famously observed that the law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges. What would he have said about this weekend’s events in Marseille? At a rally in solidarity with Pussy Riot, the Russian punk band currently in prison for hooliganism, a group of protesters donned the band’s trademark neon balaclavas (above). The police immediately arrested the protesters for violating the French ban on veiling one’s face in public. The ban, which went into effect last year, was obviously directed at Islamic niqabs. To avoid any appearance of bias, however, the law formally forbids face veils generally. If tried and convicted, the protesters are subject to a fine of €150 and a compulsory citizenship course. CLR published a symposium on the ban and other aspects of church-state relation in France in 2010 – check it out here.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian · 2 Comments

Update: Pussy Riot Gets Two Years

An update on a story we’ve been following. A Russian court today convicted  three members of Pussy Riot, a punk band that stormed the altar of Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral last winter to perform a “punk prayer” to protest Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, of criminal hooliganism and sentenced them to two years in prison. By Western standards, it’s a harsh and disproportionate sentence. By way of comparison, when members of a group called ACT-UP disrupted a Mass at New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989, they received only misdemeanor convictions and no jail time. Similarly, in June, a New York court convicted Occupy Wall Street protesters of trespassing on property owned by Trinity Church; again, only misdemeanor convictions and no jail time.

But Russia is different. Before we get all sanctimonious about how much better we are in the West, though, it’s worth reflecting on a couple of things. First, as I’ve written before, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour has a sad history. The Communists dynamited the first version of the cathedral as part of an anti-Christian campaign in the 1930s, and Christians remain very sensitive about it. Notwithstanding the politicization and corruption in the Russian Orthodox Read more

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Pussy Riot and the Legacy of Persecution

This week in Moscow, trial began for Pussy Riot, the feminist punk band that stormed the main altar of Christ the Savior Cathedral last winter to perform a “punk prayer” protesting the Russian Orthodox Church’s support for Vladimir Putin. (I wrote about the protest here). Prosecutors charged members of the band with “hoooliganism,” a crime that carries a seven-year prison term, and have detained them in prison for months. The long detention has created  sympathy for Pussy Riot among Western human rights campaigners and even among the Orthodox faithful, many of whom think the state has punished the protesters enough. This week, Vladimir Putin himself signaled that the state would show some leniency, telling reporters that he didn’t think the band “should be judged too harshly.”

It’s easy to dismiss the Pussy Riot prosecution as an example of typical Russian authoritarianism — the charge of “hooliganism,” so closely associated with Soviet “justice,” doesn’t help — and I’m sure that the Putin regime and its supporters in the Church hierarchy relished the chance to teach protesters a lesson. It’s not clear to me that authoritarianism completely explains things, though. Westerners may not understand the sensitivities that surround Christ the Savior Cathedral. The present building is, in fact, the second Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow. The Communists dynamited the first in the 1930s as part of their campaign against the Orthodox Church (above); they replaced it with a public swimming pool. In the 1990s, with the help of donations from Orthodox faithful, the church was rebuilt, almost exactly as it was, in the same spot. The cathedral thus symbolizes for many believers the rebirth of Christianity in Russia after decades of brutal persecution. Pussy Riot has been punished enough; but the history of Christ the Savior Cathedral no doubt explains why so many Russians, even those who detest the Putin regime, resent the disrespect shown it.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

“Pussy Riot,” Russian Feminist Punk Band, to Remain in Jail

I don’t know how many CLR Forum readers are following this story, but it’s a major news item in Russia and has drawn attention in the international human rights community as well. Last February, in a protest against Vladimir Putin, a Russian feminist punk band called “Pussy Riot” (above) stormed the altar at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow and performed performed a”punk prayer” called “Mother of God, Cast Putin Out.” You can find the video on the internet; it’s pretty juvenile. Authorities arrested three members of the band for the crime of “hooliganism,” which carries a sentence of seven  years. They have been in jail since March. A Russian court today extended their pretrial detention for another six months, to January 2013. The imprisonment and prosecution has become a cause célèbre in Russia, pitting the Orthodox Church hierarchy, which resents the cathedral protest as a sacrilege, against liberals, who resent the Orthodox Church’s support for Putin and see the threatened punishment as arbitrary and extreme. Amnesty International has declared the members of Pussy Riot “prisoners of conscience.” Russians themselves are divided about the case. In a recent poll of Muscovites, half said they opposed the prosecution, but 36% approved.

Posted on by

Hertzke (ed.), The Future of Religious Freedom

This November, Oxford University Press will publish The Future of Religious Freedom: Global Challenges edited by Allen D. Hertzke (University of Oklahoma). The publisher’s description follows.

What is the status of religious freedom in the world today? What barriers does it face? What are the realistic prospects for improvement, and why does this matter? The Future of Religious Freedom addresses these critical questions by assembling in one volume some of the best forward-thinking and empirical research on religious liberty, international legal trends, and societal dynamics. Top scholars from law, political science, diplomacy, sociology, and religion explore the status, value, and challenges of religious liberty around the world – with illustrations from a wide range of historical situations, contemporary contexts, and constitutional regimes. Read more

Posted on by

Blitt on the Secular Influence of the Russian Orthodox Church

Robert C. Blitt (University of Tennessee College of Law) has posted Whither Secular Bear: The Russian Orthodox Church’s Strengthening Influence on Russia’s Domestic and Foreign Policy. The abstract follows.

As 2012 presidential elections in Russia draw near, evidence points to a collapse in that country’s constitutional obligation of secularism and state-church separation. Although early signs of this phenomenon can be traced back to the Yeltsin era, the Putin and Medvedev presidencies have dealt a fatal blow to secular state policy manifested both at home and abroad, as well as to Russia’s constitutional human rights principles including nondiscrimination and equality of religious beliefs.
Read more

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

God’s Candidate

In December, we posted about the Russian Orthodox Church’s expressions of support for protests against the results of parliamentary elections, widely seen as fraudulent, that returned Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party to power. At the time, we noted, some observers said the Church’s support was actually strategic, a political device meant to help Putin by co-opting the protests before they went too far. Some evidence for that analysis: this week, Putin traveled to the Danilov Monastery, headquarters of the Russian Orthodox Church, to receive the endorsement of Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. According to reports, the Patriarch told Putin that his time in charge of Russia had been a “miracle” for the Church and the country. In return, Putin told the Patriarch that the Church deserved more time on Russian television. Other religious leaders also gave their endorsement at the meeting, including Russia’s chief rabbi and the head of  Russia’s council of muftis. “Muslims know you,” the latter told Putin. “Muslims trust you. Muslims are wishing you success.” Nice when religious leaders can find common ground like this.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Same Name, Different Case

American law and religion scholars know the case of St. Nicholas Cathedral, a Supreme Court decision from the 1950s, about which Rick Garnett has  written recently. Briefly, the case involved a dispute over a Russian Orthodox cathedral in New York between two parish councils, one loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate and the other loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), a group that broke away from the Communist-dominated Patriarchate in the twentieth century. It turns out that a similar dispute has been making its way through the French courts. Since the fall of Communism, the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR have reestablished communion, and the Patriarchate has been reasserting its right to church properties around the world, including St. Nicholas Cathedral in Nice (above), an impressive, onion-domed structure, reputedly the largest Orthodox cathedral in Western Europe. The local parish council objected to returning St. Nicholas to Moscow and a six-year legal battle ensued. The battle ended last week, when the local council sadly turned over the keys to the Patriarch’s representative. The story is here, from a local paper (in French).

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Russian Church Supports Critics of Parliamentary Elections

The Russian Orthodox Church, which has been regaining influence in Russian society since the fall of the Soviet Union, has signaled it support for the tens of thousands who have been protesting the results of this month’s parliamentary elections. The elections, which returned Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s United Russia Party to power, are widely seen as fraudulent. This past weekend, a prominent Church spokesman, Fr. Vsevolod Chaplin, called on the government to address the allegations of fraud and said that the Church itself would be prepared to question those responsible. His comments, similar to those of another prominent priest who recently referred to government officials as “Pharisees” who tolerate lies and hypocrisy, are seen as significant because the Church has often supported Putin in the past. It is not clear that the criticism signals a break with Putin, though; some analysts believe Fr. Chaplin’s comments are meant to co-opt the protests before they get out of hand. Nor should one view the Church as a force for liberalism. Fr. Chaplin also recently criticized the Western Christian tradition for separating religion from public life.