This does sound like appeasement. If I buy a book, be it a copy of the Koran, 50 Shades of Gray, or anything else then it’s my property and I should be able to do with it as I wish. If someone else gets offended, that shouldn’t be my problem.
We shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant.
deleted by creator
But didn’t this recent influx of burnings start when an Iranian refugee burned the quaran in protest against the government he fled from? This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with skin color.
I somewhat agree, but there should probably be instances where it’s not allowed, similar to hate speech. I’m not sure how Danish law deals with hate speech, but I’d bet speech isn’t allowed all the time. If the goal is to induce violence or anger, that should maybe be prevented in some instances.
Who decides, what’s “similar to hate speech”? When I burn my property? That’s a slippery slope there. Respect is important, but when the intolerant demand respect with threats, that’s blackmail.
The court or the people writting the law of course. I’m not just saying anyone’s opinion is important.
deleted by creator
What do you think of “no burning any books” That way it’s not about catering to a religion, and if you burn a book in your home who’s really gonna stop you
Why dictate what someone can and can’t do with their own property?
I get this argument, I really do, but it’s very much the same thing as “free speech absolutism” that the right uses to justify doing whatever they want.
Yes free speech is important, but certain things should not be protected.
Yes doing what you want with your property is important, but some things should not be protected.
If you’re using either right to call for violence, escalate violence or intentionally goad people into violence, you should not be protected imo.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification, that’s not a persuasive argument to me.
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is appeasement and it won’t stop just by creating one law.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification
I would think the argument speaks for itself, but i forget what kind of people im arguing with so ill give you the full justification.
Violence is bad :. advocating for violence is bad and inciting violence is bad :. speech that intentionally does either should not be protected.
is that better?
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet?
Is there any reason to other than to offend muslims? Does that offence have any value to anyone? If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended and gay people dont exist and hold hands for the sole purpose of offending muslims.
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
Violence is bad
Burning a book you bought isn’t violence.
advocating for violence is bad
Same.
speech that intentionally does either should not be protected
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
Who gets to decide that? You? You’re advocating for going down a very dangerous path here. Any wannabe authoritarian starts by silencing dissent because protests “have no value”, “there’s no good reason”, or “the majority are against it”.
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
No, you’re just not thinking of the implications of this law, you’re pro-appeasement.
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
This would be protected under free speech. Speech doesn’t only include things spoken when we use these terms. I don’t know if you’re being purposefully obtuse or actually ignorant of this information, but I’m providing it either way so there isn’t an excuse.
Most of the time speech is protected, which includes many things like protests and things like that, not just speech. Sometimes it is not. For example, it’s questionable that the speech Trump gave before the January 6th riots are considered protected speech or are not protected because they were calls to violent action.
Who gets to decide that? You?
What don’t you get about this. The court gets to decide, and their decision is based on how the law is written. We’re not just saying random people getting offended get to decide. None of this is a weird process that hasn’t been done before.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Not totally, no. There are plenty of things you can’t do with your property. For the US: If you live near other people’s property, you can burn your house down. If there’s a residence you can’t legally fire a firearm within a certain distance of it (though this often isn’t obeyed, especially in rural areas where literally no one else is around). You can put up a cross and burn it because it’d be hate speach (most likely at least, but it’d be up to the court to decide. If you’re not from the US, this is what the KKK did.) There are tons of rules you have to follow that restrict what you can do with your property.
Because they are using it to incite violence and hate. I’m big on the fuck all religions bandwagon but burning a religious text in front of said religious group is just being a dick.
We tell people they can’t do stuff with their property all the time, if it’s affecting their surroundings negatively as is clearly the case.
It’s also always the same book that gets burned, there’s clearly a heavy undercurrent of xenophobia. You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.
Why can’t religious people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums over everything they don’t like?
Because politicians and ideologues that use religion as their tool want them to stay childlike
I partly agree but this is about personal responsibility. If someone is trying to provoke you, your reaction is entirely your decision. Someone burning your holy book didn’t “make” you retaliate. You made this decision yourself and should own the consequences.
It reminds me of the rationale for requiring women in some countries to cover their faces, lest the sight of an uncovered female face “makes” the men rape the woman.
Why can’t free speech absolutists just grow up instead of throwing irate tamper tantrums on forums over being asked to show a modicum of respect to other people?
I’m by no means a free speech absolutist, but I have to side with them on this one.
I will show a modicum of respect the day they show they’re taking ANY measure to actually try and stop violence, and stop sending and carrying out threats. And I believe it’s of utmost importance that we don’t change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.
they
Who? Be precise, please. The kind of Muslims who react to the burnings by announcing that they’re going to gift free Qurans? Those kinds of muslims?
And I believe it’s of utmost importance that we don’t change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.
Over here we do have laws against revilement of religion – not blasphemy, not disagreeing, but revilement. They were introduced after the 30 year war to make sure both Catholics and Lutherans would cool it down.
You don’t make people less irate by stoking the flames. Stop believing in such nonsense. What you have to do is take away the fuel.
I find the idea of the government using violence to force me to show respect to ideas I abhor disgusting.
“modicum of respect” such as not spitting someone in the face. As such actually more in the sense of “don’t egregiously insult”.
Why can’t trans people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
Why can’t women just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
Why can’t jews/muslims/insert group of your choice grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
See how fucking stupid you sound?
Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it. Period.
What are you on about? Religion is a mental illness forced on children through abuse. No one is born with it. It’s not a choice. Why should these violent maniacs dictate policy for normal people?
You’re the one sounding like a deranged maniac now
Wow dude, wow. You are the one that actually belongs in a mental asylum.
Seek help, seriously.
Please name some instances when a trans person or woman has thrown a violent tantrum and ended up killing more than ten people. These issues are far from being equal or even comparable.
Not mentioning something that was done in a certain school by a trans person because they didn’t like what they said about them
That’s not the point of my comment is it?
You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.
Can you expand on this assumption for me?
Yes, burning a Koran in front of Muslims is a dick move but it shouldn’t be against the law in a secular Western country.
There would be a justified outcry if a Torah was burned in front of a synagogue. The instigators would quickly be villefied and called Nazis. At the minimum, no one would be actively defending it.
It shouldn’t have to be against the law, but people are abusing to the point of starting riots. It’s disturbing the peace. I lump this in with following people and screaming racial slurs constantly at the top of your lungs. Freedom of speech only goes so far, I’m okay with banning clear hate speech and similar actions.
It makes no difference to me if someone is burning a Torah, Koran, Bible, or any other religious text, as long as it’s their property they can do whatever they want with it.
I think we’re placing too much emphasis on the person being provocative and acting like a dick and not nearly enough on the people who resort to violence over these provocations.
What about burning crosses on someone’s lawn, or flying Nazi flags? Lmao, they could just not burn the damn book. Usually, people being dicks don’t have a army of people coming to their defence.
Obviously you don’t care, you aren’t the one being personally attacked so you can just overlook it. But if this happened in a vaccum, you wouldn’t be defending the Nazi burning a Torah infront of a synagogue yet here we are.
Look, I hate the policies in the middle east as well, but I’m able to differentiate between individuals and governments. This is Muslim hate and nothing else.
“Allowing women to drive is starting riots, it’s disturbing the peace, we must outlaw it”
Burning an item be it a flag or a book is a quintessential form of free speech. It’s a clear way of expressing discontent towards an idea.
Controversial speech is the most important kind of free speech. If we only allowed speech we agreed with society wouldn’t advance and grow.
Ideas like ‘Women should get to vote’ once were controversial and that expression might have been met in an incendiary manner by it’s opponents, none the less that speech was important to protect.
If you only support free speech for ideals you agree with you don’t support free speech at all.
But not all speech is protected speech. The same should be true here. Like as an extreme example, should the KKK be allowed to burn a cross outside a black person’s house?
On that black man’s lawn? No. On their own? Knock themselves out.
Like I said if you draw the line at the ends of your own beliefs you don’t believe in free speech. I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk’s) conclusion on that matter.
Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don’t have merit.
I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk’s) conclusion on that matter.
Then I would say you are incredibly incredibly incredibly naive, to the point where I don’t think you’ve actually put any thought into it, or a purposefully and wilfully ignorant of all the very blatant and obvious examples where the opposite has happened. Including the very example I gave of thr KKK, as well as antisemitism in the 20th century leading to nazism and concentration camps. Or how about how we’ve gone from nobody caring about trans people to them having their rights denied across several states. Or how about vaccines going from routine healthcare to a massive hot topic because people pushed it as an agenda.
Do you actually have faith in the general public? Or is the whole “Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don’t have merit.” Just the canned response you’ve been given to justify this fetishism version of free speech?
What if thwy burn a tablet with the quran in it?
Welcome to the modern world. Where a country can destabilize another country by burning some stupid ass books.
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?
Do you think that wasn’t possible before? That’s pretty naive. Burn a Bible in medieval Europe and tell me what happens.
Local anger then forgotten. No one would ever hear about it outside the few people who lived nearby
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One upside to the crazy rednecks in the US is that a bill like this would likely see a large uptick in Quran burnings.
Are the Danish generally supportive of something like this? I would be pretty upset about a harmless form of protest being banned because some people in another country were mad about it.
I mean the Danish are the ones burning the books in front of foreign embassies. I think their opinions are mixed.
The burning is being done by a couple of idiots who wants attention. It isn’t something that happens on a regular basis, making the bill even more absurd.
Whaaaa… Did you not perform your daily Bible Burning today? You should get your citizenship removed immediately!
I imagine the burning is mostly done by immigrants. I really doubt the Danish have reason to pick any one embassy, and most of them won’t have a reason to think about the Koran.
Afaik this was all started by an Iraqi immigrant
I read he was a refugee. Small distinction, but it means he was escaping some sort of persecution which is why he was giving that status instead of immigrant. I would imagine he has strong feelings regarding based on his experience.
Danish chiming in, and while I can’t speak for all my countrymen we discussed the topic at work yesterday.
Everyone I talked to had the same mixed feelings.
No, we shouldn’t cater to the religious groups who wants to limit free speech because they get offended over someone burning their copy of a religious book.
No, anyone shouldn’t burn religious books in public to incite hate and publicly display their (stupid ass) racism.
A quote from a Danish rapper, made some years ago, is currently trending
If we want to show people of the Middle East how great “freedom of expression” is, maybe we shouldn’t use it to mock people who don’t have it.
So, conclusion is we are torn…
Common conclusion was that everyone should be allowed to burn anything that is legal to burn on their own property. When you take that action into the public, it’s okay that it’s regulated…If it’s okay that that regulation only applies to religious books… don’t know.
If this law passes, it will only galvanize more and more restriction. Never seen an extremist who took a finger and then didn’t ask for the whole arm.
I hear what you are saying, but I’m from Denmark… these types of law suggestions usually come when there’s a focus on something, not when there’s a fear of something.
The government proved during the Mohammad-drawings that they will not bend over when they are outnumbered, so I’m not too concerned that these new laws are based on fear, rather than common sense… if suddenly the Middle East should focus on circumcision of girls is not allowed in Denmark, I don’t think that would be something we suddenly would allow (and here’s to me hoping that we’ll soon save all the boy penises out there!)
Yeah this is basically my thought and the thoughts of people I talk to as well. Both sides of the argument have merit and both are kinda shit, but ultimately, if you want your freedom of expression to be left alone don’t purposely push the boundaries of it and use it to be a dickhead.
I wouldn’t say generally, no.
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.
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?
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.
It isn’t a slippery slope when you are on it, it is just a slope at that point.
Sweden and Denmark love the Saudi money.
Sweden I can get, they need Turkeys approval for NATO membership. Denmark I don’t get.
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!
Fucking assholes and idiots.
In this case everyone involved, the ‘victims’ included.
There aren’t any “victims” here.
Maybe the trees, but those are already dead.
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%
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.
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!
Private sector backlash != state backlash
So they really fell for the boycott
Kamelåså!
