The USA protects burning and stomping our own flag, as it should in my opinion. Free expression of dissent against a symbol and what it represents to that person.
Same should hold true for other things. Same with art too, “Piss Christ” made a lot of Christians very angry, but it was protected as artistic expression.
If you feel that the only way your message can be received and understood with its full intended impact is to disrespect a sacred/beloved symbol, you should be allowed to do it.
Stomp a flag, piss on a cross, burn a Koran, spit on a relic. If you own the property, and you aren’t tresspassing or directly intimidating somebody, go for it 100%
I read that as “Korean burning” and I was like wow that really got out of hands
Korean barbecue is delicious, I don’t understand why anyone would want to stop it
Are you Hannibal Lecter?
So they really fell for the boycott
I think that’s reasonable, given the circumstances.
Just because we have freedoms doesn’t mean everyone does. So when we burn one of their books, without the context of that same freedom that we have, they don’t really necessarily understand what we’re trying to say. Just that we hate their sacred book.
We’re really trying to say more than that though, we don’t hate the book, we hate the actions some people do in its name. I don’t think that always gets communicated though, since they don’t necessarily follow our news.
Yeah great idea to let literally insane people force policy on us through threats and violence. It’s only reasonable.
Nah, Islamism (not Islam) promotes an extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them. And guess what? Islamism is thriving in Muslim countries
This. The very essence of our free, liberal western democracies is threatened when we bow to religious demands. That’s completely misguided tolerance and a defeatist attitude towards extremism.
If a religion is not compatible with an open and pluralist society then it’s not the society that has to change, it’s the religious dipshits who have to cope with it or honestly go and fuck themselves somewhere else.
extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them.
It’s a method of control.
Cults and totalitarian leaders rely on creating an “us vs them” mentality where they paint the outside world as evil people who “hate” the cult members and want to harm them. So they will stay in the cult.
A bunch of westerners desecrating their region’s sacred texts is exactly what Islamicist leaders like to see because it visually corroborates the worldview they are trying to instill in their people.
Can you elaborate on this distinction?
Islamism is a political movement, Islam is a religion
Ah, got it. Yeah, theocracies suck. I think undermining them without infuriating them would be a more intelligent strategy though.
Good luck. Undermining their authority infuriates them all by itself.
I don’t care how they feel, I just care how useful it is to them. They can use some things more than others. Burning their favorite things is something they can use for sure.
Making all their women want to wear bikinis and their teenagers want to watch movies and play video games is harder for them to make use of. And probably more effective in the long run. Soft power, basically.
That’s like making a fire that doesn’t burn. And no, it’s closer to fascism than to a theocracy
Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.
And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.
Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.
Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.
And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?
I mean, if we step back and observe the situation, we can see the best strategy is to threaten violence.
Why? Because one side wanted to impose their sensibilities on the other, threatened them with violent retribution, and then got what they wanted. It WORKS.
And now that it is a proven strategy, there is no reason to bother exploring other alternatives. Threatening violence is EASY. It’s the lowest and simplest rhetoric available. Also, there are always nutjobs in the wings who will independently act on violent rhetoric if you just keep pumping it. You don’t even have to plan or direct the actual violence, it’ll just happen organically.
So yeah, based on the results of this, I think any reasonable person would conclude violence and threats of violence are a simple and effective way to achieve political goals in Denmark.
There la a Southpark episode coming To this exact conclusion. Violence works. It’s a sad truth
Twas an episode explaining how Muhamed got the power to not be made fun of
Reasonable, and extremely simple person, maybe. I see what you’re saying though. Similar to the “don’t negotiate with terrorists” thing.
I hate their scared book.
If I don’t like a student’s work, would I be allowed to burn a copy of it in front of their peers? Nope, it would probably get me fired as it would be seen as personal animosity towards a student.
How about the work of another academic? Sketchy ground - I’d have to genuinely hate them to consider their work as worth nothing more than smoke. Then again, I should probably burn a copy of the original anti-vax “paper” to make a point to students about bad studies and how scholars feel about such authors. I suspect my inbox would be filled with anti-vax hate by the end of the day if it reached social media.
Overall, I’d argue that book burning shouldn’t be banned, but also that it isn’t effective. All it does is hand corrupt theocracies the cry of “see, those heathen book burners hate you all - you should purge them in holy fire”. It doesn’t drive change towards a more progressive government, and merely ensures that the rule of dictatorship finds its way to our shores.
It is a protest that defeats itself.
Private sector backlash != state backlash
Burning someone’s work would most often just make you seem deranged. But don’t muddy the waters here, the key point is it must be legal. And if someone wants to make it illegal, that’s the rare good reason to actually do it.
On that we agree!
Sweden and Denmark love the Saudi money.
Laws shouldn’t be written to appease any religion.
They absolutely shouldn’t but laws occasionally have to be written to prevent racism.
But religion is not a race…
…apart from when it is.
And when is a religion a race?
I respect every persons right to their own believes or lack thereof. I don’t care what color any persons skin is or where you come from in this world.
I respect every person’s right to not be persecuted for characteristics that are outside their control.
People absolutely should be persectued, at least socially, for holding certain beliefs and advocating for certain ideas.
Kamelåså!
I suspect that you could burn Korans all winter and suffer no ill effects as long as you didn’t go out of your way to tell people you are doing it.
So what we’re really talking about is being deliberately provocative to a particular immigrant population.
I don’t like religion, any religion but I think that you can’t police what goes on between people’s ears.
Also, I don’t like racists pretending it’s about the religion when it’s about the skin colour.
deleted by creator
Come again, boss?
I can’t believe people are arguing for burning books here like medieval morons. Torah, Quran, Bible, Encyclopedia, doesn’t matter. If it incites violence and civil unrest, it should be controlled and people should be discouraged from it. This is no different than literally any other law. Wtf?
So if I cause enough of a problem I can bend the will of the government.
I’m going to create a religion that gets offended that you exist, and we’ll riot until that’s illegal then?
Do you really think those 2 positions are equivalent?
Like the difference between somebody being racist and somebody being offended by an action designed to offend them? Also plenty of religions don’t like certain groups and protest about them but we don’t give in because the world is not black and white like that. Conceding that maybe allowing people to burn religious texts of the biggest religions in the world for the sole purpose of offending those people is not a productive thing to allow in a modern society does not mean we must then concede every demand any religious body makes.
If there’s a group of people with a legitimate concern, a government should hear you out and make an assessment.
You as a single person can choose to do whatever you want within reason and what’s permitted by law.
You can continue to misconstrue this further however you like, but burning books is barbaric. We’re past that point as civilized society. But feel free to continue to argue for it behind the veneer of “freedom” or whatever else you can come up with.
burning books is barbaric
Yeah should be punished by stoning or something…
Context and words must be hard for you. Sorry to heat that. Would you like a tissue or a shoulder to cry on?
Burning individual instances of a book for artistic or political purposes, or just because you want to, is not barbaric.
Burning all copies of a book to remove it from circulation and prevent the spread of those ideas is barbaric.
Loud concerts are actual form of artistic expression yet there are laws in some cities that prevent loud music past 9/10pm.
Why? Because it bothers people and interferes with their lives. This is no different.
Also, I find it amusing that you think burning a book is an “artistic expression”. What’s next? Taking a shit is an artistic expression?
People do that too.
Loud concerts are about proximity. I’d definitely say no burning a Bible in front of a church. But if you can be easily ignored by the offended party, then you shouldn’t be stopped.
“The government should control all of our actions to prevent civil unrest, it’s for the greater good!”
“The government should allow me to shoot people in the face, because otherwise it’s stepping on my personal freedoms”
Stop trying to justify xenophobia and/or dislike for religion.
Don’t be absurd. In what way are you impairing anyone else’s rights by destroying your own property?
This isn’t about personal property. It’s about curbing and stopping acts that cause civil unrest.
Stop trying to guise this as some personal property/rights infringement non-sense.
The fact that people are arguing for it here just shows that some of these folks here don’t really believe in equal rights and a just society. If you’re religious and/or Muslim, and a law introduced to protect your sentiments, then it is “unfair”.
If what one person does with their own property, causing physical harm to no-one, incites others to civil unrest, the problem lies with the others.
Can people stop trying to reduce the real world to absurd black and white positions??
Like you could use this smooth brained argument to the extreme to protest literally any law ever.
Good, any law should be able to be scrutinized and protested by the citizens the law affects.
The violence is already there, this just somehow compels it to show it.
Some people believe that women should be under the supervision of a man at all times. Not doing so might incite civil unrest. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at no appeasements because unless people have it their they will keep complaining. Teaching them that outrage gets results is a moral hazard.
People can chose to believe whatever they want. It’s the actions and the consequences that matter in a society. If burning a book becomes an act of inciting violence, then it should be reviewed, discussed and a law should come out of it as a consequence which discourages such an act. That’s how civilized societies should work which deem equality as a fundamental right for everyone.
Your hypothetical scenario is just that and we can spend days going back and forth. We are talking about a real problem here.
Ok so in your views the consequences of appeasement are hypothetical. And we should continuously consider what needs to be changed and empower those who commit violence to effect more changes to suit their beliefs.
In reality the consequences can be more severe than whatever you sought to prevent
I assume they will also ban burning of all religious books to be fair?
Yeah the proposal is for all religious texts
I’m still not really sure if it’s a good idea to ban the burnings, since it’s apparently how you are supposed to dispose of Qurans in the first place
https://www.npr.org/2012/02/24/147321213/how-to-properly-dispose-of-sacred-texts
Context very much matters I think. People respectfully disposing of a religious text don’t tend to do it in front of foreign embassies while frothing at the mouth; they aren’t simultaneously taking a ritual shit on said text. Exception being Buddhists as destroying Buddhist stuff is part of the whole acceptance of impermanence thing but even then there’s ways to do it wrong. Frothing at the mouth being one of them.
Blasphemy laws for the modern day.
Let’s step back and see what this teaches people:
If you threaten violence, and are known to actually commit violence over something stupid, governments will bend to your will.
Is this REALLY the message we want to send? Instead of pandering to these religious clowns, come down hard on anyone who threatens violence - zero tolerance for this shit. Either enter the 21st century and turn your back on ass-backwards caveman thinking, or go back to the the shithole countries that you came from where murdering people over a stupid book is allowed.
Welcome to the modern world. Where a country can destabilize another country by burning some stupid ass books.
Do you think that wasn’t possible before? That’s pretty naive. Burn a Bible in medieval Europe and tell me what happens.
Ugabooga the shamans daughter in caveman times, you get kill. Tell me what happens.
Most countries have already moved out of the medieval age yaknow.
Technologically yes.
Many people still base their morality on mythology from the Iron Age. Blood libel conspiracies still exist.
We didn’t evolve into a better human when we ended the medieval period. We’re still the same apes prone to the same fallacies and environmental pressures.
You just want to feel like you’re intrinsically above this behavior, which is a naive way to view human thought and morality. Given the right circumstances you could easily turn out just like them.
Local anger then forgotten. No one would ever hear about it outside the few people who lived nearby
Local anger? What a weird way of saying public lynching
Because there was no social media at the time though it would certainly spread slower. And I doubt it would be forgotten given how long the “blood libel” conspiracy has been kicking around and causing massacres throughout history.
Early Crusades beg to differ. Everyone would hear a really distorted version of this “persecution” and then go on a huge march and kill some unrelated people about 5 years later.
Unless you did it in front of someone with authority or capacity to spread the word around, not much.
It’s not like we had global media during the plague.
Emphasis on medieval though. Muslims can drive lambos, they can also arrive in this millennium on other topics.
Got to say the 21st century is shaping up to be disappointing. One would have hoped the garbage that was religion would have finally died off already.
Let me guess, you were a r/atheism member
Let me guess, you were indoctrinated when you were a child
Couldn’t be more far off
I always love how coy the theists are. Can’t just fucking say what they believe, have to try to make people guess. Maybe they are taking the idea from their skydaddy who also likes to hide.
TF are you on?
Difference between me and you. If I want to know something I learn it, if you want to you guess it.
Oh can you learn the why and not just the how?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
COPENHAGEN, Aug 25 (Reuters) - The Danish government said on Friday it was proposing legislation that would make it illegal to burn copies of the Koran in public places, part of the Nordic country’s effort to de-escalate tensions with Muslim countries.
Denmark and Sweden have seen a string of protests in public in recent weeks where copies of the Koran have been burned or otherwise damaged, prompting outrage in Muslim nations which have demanded the Nordic governments put a stop to the burnings.
The government rejected protests by some Danish opposition parties that said banning Koran burnings would infringe on free speech.
“I fundamentally believe there are more civilised ways to express one’s views than burning things,” Hummelgaard said.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen had in July said the government would seek to “find a legal tool” that would enable authorities to prevent the burning of copies of the Koran in front of other countries’ embassies in Denmark.
Neighbouring Sweden has also said it is examining ways to legally limit Koran desecrations to reduce tensions after recent threats that led the country’s security officials to raise the terrorist threat level.
The original article contains 270 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 29%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It isn’t a slippery slope when you are on it, it is just a slope at that point.
