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.
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.
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.
This would be protected under free speech.
I'm unfamiliar with Danish law so I was trying not to get into the specifics. Can you cite the relevant legislation?
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.
It absolutely does if you consider my entirely reasonable point that passing this law will not be the end of the matter. There will always be further demands. To not consider this is naive.
As to your last point. There are laws in place to protect other people's property which prohibit what you can do with yours. That's obvious.
Maybe I don't burn the book. Maybe I rip pages out of it or otherwise deface it. Should those actions also be illegal?
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.
Why? I don't have any delusions and I don't perform ritualistic genital mutilation on infants. Please explain yourself.
Nah. I’m good. But go see a therapist please.
Many psychology professionals agree with me on this issue though.
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?
If you feel your comment did not adequately convey your intentions, you can always clarify the intended meaning.
It did and it was the last few lines of my comment.
“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.”
The rest of the responses to my comment have been a combination of bad faith arguments and deflections, which is why it’s not worth responding especially when people have their minds made up.
If a group of people aren’t going to stop harassing another set of people just because they belong to a certain religion, it’s incumbent on a government to step in and pass legislation that prevents/discourages it. I’m not sure why this is confusing to literally any sane minded individual.
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.
What about burning crosses on someone’s lawn
That would be their property, not yours.
No one is upset about people burning a Koran in their backyard firepit. The example is very similar to what is happening.
What about burning a cross on your own front lawn where your Black neighbours have a clear view of it through their own front windows?
You should stop trying to misrepresent my position, it doesn't help you at all.
If an asshole is trying to get a rise by burning things the worst thing to do is to give them what they want. Where I live we have an old guy who regularly flies the confederate flag. He's a sick old fuck who only wants attention, or better yet, a chance to shoot someone if they try and take the flag down. What can be done?
The only solution that makes sense is to ignore the loser and not give him the attention he so badly needs.
"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?
I never suggested that those changes would be instant. You point out concentration camps, racism, & antisemitism as counterpoints. But they are more widely accepted to be wrong today then they've been historically in no small part due to their opponents speaking out against them.
I'd counter do you faith in yourself to make the right conclusion when presented all the information? Have you never changed your stance? If you have what makes you better than the general public?
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.
Emphasis on medieval though. Muslims can drive lambos, they can also arrive in this millennium on other topics.
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.
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
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.
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
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%
So they really fell for the boycott
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.
I don't have the full story on what the hell is going on with the Qur'an, but I personally think it's the right thing to do to stop people from being able to burn holy texts as I not only oppose book burnings in general but it's disrespectful to burn a holy book as it is- to me at least- a sign you do not respect that culture the book comes from.
I'm definitely not religious and really don't care if you are or aren't, but it's also really trashy in my opinion when you specifically do it in front of practicers of that religion or their holy site.
Have you thought about the implications and consequences if we start banning non-violent expressions of opinions because someone else might find it disrespectful?
This feels like a "slippery slope" argument.
I think it's a valid concern in this case.
Just a slope argument at this point. Laws are influenced by precedent, and the introduction of one blasphemy law is precedent to introduce others.
If you say so 🙄
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?
"The government should control all of our actions to prevent civil unrest, it's for the greater good!"
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 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.
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.
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 said what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to pick apart my words in an attempt to forge an argument which has no merit.
I am content with showing to others how well meaning but shortsighted (due to arrogance or incompetence) policies like what you propose are extremely dangerous
Edit : and to be clear I didn’t “pick apart your words” that is a very lazy way to dismiss an argument without confronting it. It’s similar to how you advocate for a policy but dismiss the potential negative effects. it’s delusional.
The violence is already there, this just somehow compels it to show it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 was moving back to my original thesis, which is that offending them doesn't accomplish much. I don't perceive Islam itself to be the problem.
I admit I don't fully understand what you're specifically trying to say though.
Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them
But how does this relate to the book burning ban being a good or bad idea?
Because it's basically giving Islamism concessions. The Qur'an burning is a mild one, but just imagine they do it with more serious issues.
In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.
Oh don't even mention that heretical joke of Christianity that claims to be true but was founded 1700 years after Jesus taught
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.
It's an infinitely copyable book with it's source material thousands of miles away outside of the local country. There is no potential for this to totally wipe out the literature. No one is being harmed by the burning of said literature, therefore it's a peaceful form of protest.
Trying to stop peaceful protest isn't something you can pick and choose, you are either ok with it or you're not. Deciding what is and isn't ok to protest about means you don't actually believe in the freedom of protest.
Yeah great idea to let literally insane people force policy on us through threats and violence. It's only reasonable.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
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.
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.
Burning a book you bought isn't violence.
Same.
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
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".
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.
But a person's right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
No, you're just not thinking of the implications of this law, you're pro-appeasement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm unfamiliar with Danish law so I was trying not to get into the specifics. Can you cite the relevant legislation?
It absolutely does if you consider my entirely reasonable point that passing this law will not be the end of the matter. There will always be further demands. To not consider this is naive.
As to your last point. There are laws in place to protect other people's property which prohibit what you can do with yours. That's obvious.
Maybe I don't burn the book. Maybe I rip pages out of it or otherwise deface it. Should those actions also be illegal?
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.
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?
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.
Why? I don't have any delusions and I don't perform ritualistic genital mutilation on infants. Please explain yourself.
Nah. I’m good. But go see a therapist please.
Many psychology professionals agree with me on this issue though.
What psychology professionals?
That's not even an argument, let alone a persuasive one.
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?
If you feel your comment did not adequately convey your intentions, you can always clarify the intended meaning.
It did and it was the last few lines of my comment.
“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.”
The rest of the responses to my comment have been a combination of bad faith arguments and deflections, which is why it’s not worth responding especially when people have their minds made up.
If a group of people aren’t going to stop harassing another set of people just because they belong to a certain religion, it’s incumbent on a government to step in and pass legislation that prevents/discourages it. I’m not sure why this is confusing to literally any sane minded individual.
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.
That would be their property, not yours.
No one is upset about people burning a Koran in their backyard firepit. The example is very similar to what is happening.
To build on @Jaded's analogy,
What about burning a cross on your own front lawn where your Black neighbours have a clear view of it through their own front windows?
You should stop trying to misrepresent my position, it doesn't help you at all.
If an asshole is trying to get a rise by burning things the worst thing to do is to give them what they want. Where I live we have an old guy who regularly flies the confederate flag. He's a sick old fuck who only wants attention, or better yet, a chance to shoot someone if they try and take the flag down. What can be done?
The only solution that makes sense is to ignore the loser and not give him the attention he so badly needs.
"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.
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?
I never suggested that those changes would be instant. You point out concentration camps, racism, & antisemitism as counterpoints. But they are more widely accepted to be wrong today then they've been historically in no small part due to their opponents speaking out against them.
I'd counter do you faith in yourself to make the right conclusion when presented all the information? Have you never changed your stance? If you have what makes you better than the general public?
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.
Emphasis on medieval though. Muslims can drive lambos, they can also arrive in this millennium on other topics.
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.
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
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.
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
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%
So they really fell for the boycott
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.
I don't have the full story on what the hell is going on with the Qur'an, but I personally think it's the right thing to do to stop people from being able to burn holy texts as I not only oppose book burnings in general but it's disrespectful to burn a holy book as it is- to me at least- a sign you do not respect that culture the book comes from.
I'm definitely not religious and really don't care if you are or aren't, but it's also really trashy in my opinion when you specifically do it in front of practicers of that religion or their holy site.
Have you thought about the implications and consequences if we start banning non-violent expressions of opinions because someone else might find it disrespectful?
This feels like a "slippery slope" argument.
I think it's a valid concern in this case.
Just a slope argument at this point. Laws are influenced by precedent, and the introduction of one blasphemy law is precedent to introduce others.
If you say so 🙄
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?
"The government should control all of our actions to prevent civil unrest, it's for the greater good!"
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 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.
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.
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.
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 said what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to pick apart my words in an attempt to forge an argument which has no merit.
I am content with showing to others how well meaning but shortsighted (due to arrogance or incompetence) policies like what you propose are extremely dangerous
Edit : and to be clear I didn’t “pick apart your words” that is a very lazy way to dismiss an argument without confronting it. It’s similar to how you advocate for a policy but dismiss the potential negative effects. it’s delusional.
The violence is already there, this just somehow compels it to show it.
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.
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.
Can you elaborate on this distinction?
Islamism is a political movement, Islam is a religion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Ah, got it. Yeah, theocracies suck. I think undermining them without infuriating them would be a more intelligent strategy though.
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.
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 was moving back to my original thesis, which is that offending them doesn't accomplish much. I don't perceive Islam itself to be the problem.
I admit I don't fully understand what you're specifically trying to say though.
Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them
But how does this relate to the book burning ban being a good or bad idea?
Because it's basically giving Islamism concessions. The Qur'an burning is a mild one, but just imagine they do it with more serious issues.
In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.
Oh don't even mention that heretical joke of Christianity that claims to be true but was founded 1700 years after Jesus taught
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.
It's an infinitely copyable book with it's source material thousands of miles away outside of the local country. There is no potential for this to totally wipe out the literature. No one is being harmed by the burning of said literature, therefore it's a peaceful form of protest.
Trying to stop peaceful protest isn't something you can pick and choose, you are either ok with it or you're not. Deciding what is and isn't ok to protest about means you don't actually believe in the freedom of protest.
Yeah great idea to let literally insane people force policy on us through threats and violence. It's only reasonable.
I hate their scared book.