Sunday Reflections

By Rev. Dai Morgan

This past Friday, a Russian judge sentenced three young women to two years in jail for "Hooliganism." The women are members of Pussy Riot. The media has described Pussy Riot as a “feminist punk rock band.”

However, characterizing Pussy Riot as a musical group is a bit of a stretch. They have never released a song or produced an album, and probably do not intend to. The purpose of these three women—and the other members of their group—is social and political activism. Their chosen form of expression is, more accurately, Performance Art. So, how effective are they with this method? Very effective!

Over the last several months these women have become an international cause. Many observers perceive their case as a show-trial reminiscent of the Soviet era. The women, who have been in jail since March, have been receiving international support, which culminated Friday in rallies in dozens of cities around the world.

Here is what happened:  On Feb. 21, this year, the members of Pussy Riot entered Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, wearing their signature ski masks, short skirts and tights. They danced and pranced, punk-style, in front of the golden Holy Doors of the altar chamber. All the while they lip-synced a song that was being guerrilla filmed for a music video (you can find the result on Youtube). The performance was a so-called prayer asking the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Vladimir Putin—including scatological language.  

As a result of this stunt, Pussy Riot has gained more notoriety, outside of Russia, than the opposition leaders who organized the Moscow street protests of this past winter and spring.

Security guards stopped the performance at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior within a few minutes. Three of the women were apprehended—Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 23; Yekaterina Samutsevich, 30; and Maria Alyokhina, 24. They declared that they were making a political statement against Mr. Putin and against the Russian Orthodox patriarch, Kirill I, for supporting Mr. Putin in his campaign for a third term as president. The women claimed it was not their intention to offend the believers in the church.

The sentencing judge, Marina Syrova, said: “The girls’ actions were sacrilegious, blasphemous and broke the church’s rules.”

She further defined Hooliganism: “An act of Hooliganism can be understood as being driven by acts of hatred or degradation of any given social or national or religious group. Therefore the charge of Hooliganism can be sustained when a defendant has expressed open disrespect and defiance against the communally expected norms and the tastes of others.”  

On the international political scene, the verdict of this trial is being perceived as a demonstration of lowering tolerance for dissidence, by the Putin regime. Michelle Ringuette, chief of campaigns and programs for Amnesty International USA stated, “The decision to find guilty Maria, Yekaterina and Nadezhda, amid global outrage, shows that the Russian authorities will stop at no end to suppress dissent and stifle civil society.”

What is interesting to me, however, is that the judge’s sentencing statement cited offenses against the church. She quoted witnesses who expressed that they were deeply offended by Pussy Riot’s performance. One witness claimed that the women violated the Cathedral’s dress code. Another said that public prayers were not permitted in the cathedral without the presence of a priest. Another person reported that the performance, “hurt my soul."

I have two observations regarding this occurance:

1) In the USA, disrespect and defiance of communal norms would not be a serious legal issue. There might be other charges in this case, but “Hooliganism” would not be one of them. Americans would understand this to be a First Amendment freedom of speech issue—I like to think of it as the right to be offended. Poor taste is not criminal.

2) The separation of church and state is a uniquely American concept in government. Granted, some religious-minded Americans have been known to question the idea. However, the concept protects both state and church, providing each its own clear mission. In the Russian trial, a judiciary decision of the the state appears to have been influenced by ecclesiastical concerns. This is a perilous road to travel

It is also worth noting that the separation of church and state does not mean the same thing as the separation of religion and politics. “Church” and “State” represent systems. “Religion” and “Politics” represent ideas. Systems can be separated, but ideas cannot.  

Beside the fact that the Pussy Riot case is an interesting current event, I have written about it because it is a story that links church and state, religion and politics. As we approach the final stage of the presidential election process in our own country, I plan to write more on the subject of religion and politics in future Sunday Reflections columns.

The Rev. Dai Morgan is pastor of Living Spirit Ministry-

How do you feel about this issue? Tell us in the comments section below.