I know that this court is useless in the defense of free speech. Reading this particular decision was nonetheless very chilling. Austria is a good example, it also criminalized an accurate description of Islam’s prophet. However, it is not clear to me that this is generalizable to the rest of Western Europe. Britain recently abolished its blasphemy law, and where they do exist, they are generally a dead letter. Germany has distinguished itself rather negatively on the matter of religion of late, wanting to ban the Muhammad video and legalizing practices simply because they are religious, so it may be another example.

Is it inconceivable that a fireman might want to save people and buildings? That he might care about his work?

Or how about a similar protest by atheists in a mosque? Maybe the WEIRD concern would again be “freedom of speech” rather than “respect for differences”.

Nobody gets told to join the local volunteer fire brigade. It seems hard to imagine that anybody would, without at least some form of charity ethic.

The action took place on what (in Catholic terms) would be called the “sanctuary”, an area clearly demarcated so as to exclude the public (railed off, in fact). The performers by no means “stormed the main altar”, which is behind the iconostasis.

What they did was perpetrate a vulgar, irreligious performance in a place of worship which was filmed for the express purpose of disseminating it widely through youtube. It parodied worship of God by their kneeling, prostrating, and making signs of the cross, all the while shouting out a parody of a hymn to the Blessed Virgin. This occurred while the cathedral was open for worship, although no liturgy was in progress.

Three of the women were convicted not of “hooliganism”, but of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” – a somewhat significant detail omitted from the article. All three appealed, and one had her sentence suspended on the grounds that she had been forcibly led away before the stunt had ripened.

Now, it is perverse to say the women “insulted a place of worship”. That was no part of the crime of which they were convicted. What they did was deliberately insult Russian Orthodoxy and scandalize devout Christians. Their defence was that they had done it with a political motive – denouncing the close links between the Russian President and the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church. That is as may be, but seems to be not so much a defence as a plea in mitigation.

A motley group of westerners turned up at the sentencing to voice support for the performers in the name of “freedom of speech and freedom of conscience”. Since the three were not convicted for their opinions, “freedom of conscience” is beside the point; and who will claim that “freedom of speech” is an absolute value?

Neil Addison on his religionlaw blog draws attention to English statutes under which the “Moscow Three” might – had they done in London what they did in Moscow – have been charged with a criminal offence for which, if convicted, they risked up to two years in gaol.

Even WEIRD people when their life is threatened call the police and fire which depend on non-WEIRD values like hierarchy and loyalty.

“Placing less emphasis on” is not the same thing as “rejecting”. Be careful not to dehumanize those with whom you disagree.

No community can survive WEIRDness. Even WEIRD people when their life is threatened call the police and fire which depend on non-WEIRD values like hierarchy and loyalty. Firemen don’t run into a burning building because of their fond feelings for people they don’t know and might conceivably dislike if they knew them. Or even from some ethic of charity to their Fellow Humans. They do so because they were told to and they don’t want to be disgraced in front of their buddies. Perhaps it is possible to make a fire department that depends on charity and not loyalty or reverence but it is not likely nor is it clear why anyone would want to bother.

To put it another way, assuming punishment for hate crimes(for instance) to be a WEIRD invention, someone has to do the punishing.

Disturbing the peace is a crime everywhere in the free world.

A widely-abused concept, too. E.g. the Suffragettes, the 1960′s civil rights movement, etc.

The question is whether it was legitimate or a pretext in this case.

And severe punishment for hate crimes is a WEIRD invention.

In the parlance of wikipedia, [citation needed].