Any surprise this is coming from a "church" that made the tyrant and mass murder bloody Czar Nicholas II a saint?

The Russian Orthodox Church on Sunday called for members of the Pussy Riot punk band to repent, on the eve of an appeal court hearing they hope will quash their two-year jail sentences for performing an anti-Kremlin song in Moscow's main cathedral.

Pussy Riot should tell the Russian Orthodox Church to @!$%# off instead

Actually I'm so sick of 'musicians' acting this way, I don't know if that's what you also meant Ross. It's so cliche and almost from the rock musician handbook. And they always attack the same things. Why don't they really be brave and attack something more dangerous, or politically correct?

10 days for trespassing. 720 additional days for offending the sensibilities of the pious. Coming soon to a town near you (courtesy of the religious right fanatics).

I do not buy your story about the guy being arrested and charged with "several felonies" for holding up the sign you describe. Unless you can provide some link to a reputable news source to back this up I am calling BS on this one.

As for the member of Pussy Riot, they did break the law in what they did. If they are unwilling to acknowledge that and apologize for their actions then I say leave them in jail to serve out their sentence. I agree that the two year sentence does seem a little harsh, maybe a six months or a year would have been more appropriate, but they do deserve some punishment for their actions. Part of the equation for leniency needs to be an acknowledgement of the wrongdoing and contrition, they have exhibited neither. They should be free to protest, but to come in and basically trespass in the church and use the church in the manner they did would be a crime even here in the US. All they need to do to be released is to apologize for their actions. They apparently lack the maturity to do that so keep them in jail so maybe they will learn a lesson.

To say they didn't damage the church is actually a misunderstanding of Russian Orthodox theology. Women are not allowed at the alter. Their presence there could have caused the whole Church to be reconsecrated if any blood had been spilled. ANY blood, including menstrual. If they had protested outside, I would have supported their right to free speech. But, this wasn't free speech, this was trespassing and public disorderly conduct. Anyone should be able to voice their opinion, but I would not support a Neo-Nazi storming a Synagogue to express his displeasure at Israel. This was a sacred space owned by a Church, not by the Government. Private property owners, even religious organizations have the right to restrict speech within their establishments. If you want to protest the Kremlin/ROC connections, do so outside on the public street or outside of a government building. Two years is ridiculous, in the US, they would have received small fines and maybe 30-90 days depending on where it happened and if they resisted arrest when the police were called. But, Free Speech does have its limits, you cannot yell fire in a crowded place, libel and slander and you don't have permission to invade other people's privately owned property to perform protest music.

But, Free Speech does have its limits, you cannot yell fire in a crowded place, libel and slander and you don't have permission to invade other people's privately owned property to perform protest music.

This isn't even the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded place, and secondly, most people here agree that storming a church to protest is of poor taste. What people here are voicing is that 2 years in prison for the act is absurd, and sets very dangerous precedents.

The Superstitious supporting the Authoritarians; how very... unusual... like only, forever? It's all about social control, be it political or religious.

"The church sincerely wishes for the repentance of those who desecrated a holy place, certainly it would benefit their souls," Legoida said in a speech.

What makes one place holier than the next? Jesus would be walking in the slums, amongst the poor. I am sure where His foot lands to be holy. Time for some church bound clergy to do a walk-about. Political/religious bullying on the part of Russian 'officials'.

To say they didn't damage the church is actually a misunderstanding of Russian Orthodox theology. Women are not allowed at the alter. Their presence there could have caused the whole Church to be reconsecrated if any blood had been spilled. ANY blood, including menstrual.

Wow. As a man, I am offended if such rules exist. How backwards and medieval, if so. From the menstrual blood of a woman life is renewed and born. I am sure God would not be offended by the blood He created.

They did not interupt a church service. The church was empty when they sang their little song.

They were charged and convicted of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred. What is the proof that they hated religion? I sympathize with them that the head of the church can make political statements, but other people in the church can not.

Well, actually, they can. I am quite sure, and I am quite sure that you will agree with me, that if these girls had changed only one thing about what they did, that they would not have been charged with a crime. If instead of denouncing Putin, if they sang, "We love Vladimir Putin, great ruler of Russia", they would not have been arrested. They were arrested and charged, and convicted as part of the crackdown on dissent. Russia, the Land of No Dissent.

All they need to do to be released is to apologize for their actions.

???

you don't have permission to invade other people's privately owned property to perform protest music.

Churches in Russia are open for anyone to come in. They were not charged with trespassing. There is nothing illegal about going into a church.

Which is precisely why Thomas Jefferson separated government from religion. He did not want us to be oppressed. Sadly the GOP seems to have forgotten why we fought so hard for independence in the first place.

And you're falling for this rock band's ploy to get attention and be famous? With the same old attacks on the same institutions. How cliche.

This is nothing new for christianity. Look up "Donation of Constantine" for another example of a church taking the moral low road for secular power. I can't say the "abandoned the moral high ground" because they never had it in the first place.

Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple for improperly using his Father's house. He would have thrown these girls out for blaspheming in his Father's house also.

So atheistic regimes of Stalin, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, China, and North Korea and their millions of murders and atrocities they committed are less tyrannic? Just how selective is your understanding of history?

There has never been an atheist regime. Stalin and PolPot lived as gods themselves. They believed in communism. Atheism is not a religion. Never was a religion, never will be. No gatherings of followers, no holy books, no gods, no not eating things because of atheism.

Separation of church and state wasn't to keep religion out of government, it was to keep government out of religion. Remember the Church of England?

Stalin originally was a seminary student.

Hitler was (at least a professed) proud Catholic.

North Korea has achieved the perfection of a religious state. They already had 2 living god-rulers and when their current leader dies they'll probably have 3.

Finally, how weak is your god that he stands by while his proud servants in Germany, and those you claim to be his opponents in Russia, kill millions of his people.

If he's not going to stop that, what is the use of praying to him at all. Oh wait, I forgot. Making sure you find your keys is more important to god than millions of innocent lives, which is why he answered your prayer and not theirs.

The idea that the church involved in government is OK, but different than government involved in church is just ridiculous word play that in fact distorts concept. Separation means completely apart, to be separate. However, church rules can not conflict in such a way as to violate government law. Government law however does not make church law nor can government choose a set of religious laws as somehow being superior or favored. The reality is that the principle of separation of church and state is about keeping religion out of government. If you believe otherwise you are wrong and don't understand what Jefferson and the other founders were trying to implement.

And the fact is that government supersedesreligion. Religion must first abide by government laws. This is why things like Sharia law can not exist in the US. You may not have a religious law that promotes or conducts murder as a part of its ceremonies. You can not have a church that celebrates by shooting up heroin. You can not have a church that promotes, allows and conducts polygamy. The fact is that government is indeed involved in religion and always has been since we were nation. But this is the extent of the relationship between the two.

When religions try to influence government or play an active role within it, that is where the separation of church and state line is crossed. The fact is that government has never abused the designed relationship, but religion has and repeatedly tries to push the limits. Religion needs no influence on government. If a religion has rules stricter than government laws, that is fine as long as it is voluntarily accepted by its members. The trouble is that religion often tries to enforce its rules on the general public. You are allowed to believe anything you want, but when beliefs become actions, those actions must stay within the confines of government laws. Religions can choose to revoke membership id someone violates church law, but churches may not invoke any civil punishment.

Those who like to say that we are a Christian nation are absolutely wrong and are pushing the limits of the Constitution. It is dangerous to even suggest such a thing. It is also dangerous, if not illegal for churches to become involved in politics. Any church that does should have its religious status revoked. We have allowed religions to push the legal limits for far too long. Likewise we have government laws that allow churches to have a non-profit religious status. Arguably, that concept approaches being Unconstitutional. The idea of a tax exempt status for some types of organizations may be OK and some churches may indeed qualify, but it shouldn't be automatic. In this regard, churches should be treated as any other civic group and should have to fall within the regulations.

If a church should be treated like any other civic group, then they really should be treated like any other civic group. The rhetorical You would have no trouble with a teacher's union speaking out in a political season about topics that they care about, even proudly endorsing candidates who have made promises to that particular union, and so forth, so why should you be up in arms when the religious speaks up about topics that they care about? Yet you, not the rhetorical you, say loudly here that religion should have no influence on government.

Now I certainly believe that one specific church should not have overreaching sway over any other, but that religion, ergo the religious, should not have anything to do with the political sphere? That's a pretty extreme bias.

As for whoever else it was that said that Stalin was "once" a seminary student, does that somehow give him a free pass for not being atheistic? Sure, he worshiped himself, and others gladly joined in, but they proudly proclaimed they were atheists, and trying to squirm round that they were not is a straw-man fallacy that will just twist in the wind.

Kintwitt,

I would agree that they should be treated like any civic organization, but the fact is there are special rules for churches. The IRS sees them differently. Similar yes, but different. The IRS even says that it give churches "favored" treatment.

Unions for example, have far more reporting requirements than churches or religious organizations. Unions can not hide anything in their funding or its uses. Other type of NPOs also have different requirements. Unions and other NPOs do not enjoy "favored" status with the IRS specifically citing the Constitution for justification. They are not the same and are not treated the same. I would be fine if they were, but they are not. Frankly, I have a problem with any organization being classified as an NPO for tax purposes. The Catholic Church has abused this favored status financially for many years and the Mormon Church is actually one of the largest corporations in the country, disguised as a church NPO. Small churches have also historically taken advantage of the same principles and many "ministers" have used this status to fund their very comfortable lifestyles. Alone, these aren't evading a large amount of taxes, but collectively it is huge. These small churches are also notoriously guilty of abusing their special NPO status. The federal government has been extremely cautious about even investigating these small time scammers running their own church with just 100 members. The reason is they fear backlash from the religious community who also have plenty to hide.

I could go on citing endless examples of religion abusing their special privilege. It wasn't always like that, but it continues to get worse and worse. The fact is too that churches did not originally enjoy these special privileges and most of the founding fathers would be appalled by the situation today. In fact the special status as it exists today is a much more modern invention. But even still, churches are different and treated differently.

Here's just a very small expert from the IRS regarding churches:

Automatic Exemption for Churches

Churches and religious organizations, like many other

charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from

federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and

are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.

To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an

organization must meet the following requirements

(covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

The organization must be organized and operated

exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other

charitable purposes,

Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any

private individual or shareholder,

No substantial part of its activity may be attempting

to influence legislation.

The organization may not intervene in political

campaigns, and

the organization’s purposes and activities may not

be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section

501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and

are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of

tax-exempt status from the IRS.

Russia is NO democracy! And you would probly do more good if you paid more attention to the bad behavior being rewarded in this country. Certainly democracy does NOT involve Republicans deliberately creating a debt crisis which is now a clear and present danger to the United States!

Why do you republicans hate American values like freedom of speech so much? You can always move to Russia or Somalia or Afghanistan if you don't want to have to deal with those troublesome freedoms.

Tom, obviously I'm talking about Us when I say I'm embarrassed about the face of democracy that We're putting forth, and that We're shoving down everyone's throats! And why do you two think so much in terms of republicans, democrats, etc? I know it's an election year but can't people just have opinions? A punk band that calls themselves this name and acts the way they are, are deliberately trying to get people mad, and if you're not thinking clear enough to see that...Also, I find it kind of refreshing for a Russian govt to defend the church when for so many decades the USSR didn't even allow religion under the communist regime, and as you said, is not a democracy. Maybe these ugly 'girls' are a throwback to that communism.

proppa

if the "pussy riot" dissagrees with soviet policy or they refuse to accept the soviet way then they should go pussy riot somewhere else. perhaps iran.

So you support totalitarianism, proppa? AND are stuck in the past ("Soviets?!")

I agree Proppa. And Utha, the old communist Soviet Union was totalitarianism, and they forbid religion. All allegiance was to be given to the state. That they're actually letting the church in and defend it is less total. But God forbid we should stop "artists" from doing anything they want and treating other people as badly as they can.