Tolerance is not a moral requirement but a social contract.
By social contract I mean it’s an agreement that I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me.
Islamic groups literally want some sections of western society dead (queer community etc) and other sections subjugated (women). They violate the contract and we shouldn’t be accepting of that.
tldr: We shouldn’t pander to people who think a book burning means someone should die.
Not all Muslims are like that though. Most are very level headed and tolerant of others and their religions too. If all Muslims were how you described, with how many there are in the world there would be literal chaos every day.
Level headed people shouldn’t be out of their mind because some nutjob burns a book. Pretty sure people who are like you write aren’t keen on getting blasphemy laws back.
You described the fanatical extremists that are not the majority of that religion. I also don’t know what you’re trying to get at with that last part. I just think people are too quick to lump everyone in one bag that doesn’t fully represent them just because it does for a few of them.
There are absolute heinous people who could be demographically similar to me as well I imagine, I don’t want to be lumped in with them. Just like how a lot of Muslims around the world will think that too.
Banning the burning or “desecration” of a specific genre of books because it rallies the feelings of highly religious people is pandering to the views of the religious extremists. That is my point.
People who are level headed about their religion won’t demand that a state forbids to burn a book. And they won’t get worked up by it to the point they think this is something that should be handled on a state level.
I have more of an issue that the people burning are doing it themselves to try and incite something. I couldn’t care less to be honest that it’s about religious stuff or of a specific religion. It goes both ways, just don’t be pricks towards other people and none of that eye for an eye shit either.
Doesn’t really matter what the motivation is. Burning a book does not justify violence in response. You can have pure wonderful motivations or fuck awful ones neither would change what was done.
I don’t disagree
Sure, but I have received a few messages from Muslims–and only Muslims–threatening to overtake Western civilization so that I’ll be put in my place. I don’t know of any other group that does that.
Right, but you didn’t receive an email from every Muslim in the entire world. And I could think of a few Christian nutjobs that go crazy, like how a lot are against gay people and send them to camps to stop them from being gay.
My overall point doesn’t require that every single Muslim do that. If a small fraction of them are making these threats, it hints at an underlying belief system and related attitudes of an agenda against the West.
What does the Quran say they are supposed to do to apostates?
There is literal chaos every day.
Completely agree. I’ve lived in Malaysia and they’re pretty chilled there. Some places though Islam gets pretty full on. Check out Islamabad or Tehran sometime - yikes. Nothing like seeing a march of people chanting, ‘Death to the west!’ and flaying themselves bloody while doing it to realise Islam ramps up.
Protesting against those who impede on your right to self-determination and your right to trade freely with the rest of the world is completely understandable. Especially when the entity enforcing the sanctions and making threatening statements conversely makes so much noise about “liberal” values - the right to free trade, democracy etc.
Geeze yeah the Iranians I saw certainly weren’t protesting. They just wanted war and blood. It’s hard to explain the real face of Islam unless you see it first hand - check it out sometime!
It’s spooky to see how Islam changes Iranians - they’re usually the kindest, most open minded and welcoming people. The Islamists though…wow
The west is the party that wants war and blood. The Iranians just want to defend themselves. Your hypocrisy is through the roof.
You look at Palestine and then say “oh those Hamas guys, they just hate the west for no reason aside from Islam. It has nothing to do with them being oppressed.”
Western liberals are not shouting death to Iran at every rally nor are they conducting escalatory actions that are not proportional. There is a distinctive difference. Sanctions are ramped up and down in direct response to rhetoric and violent actions by proxies around the middle east. You are apparently blind to these.
The west actively boycots Iran and prevents it from engaging in trade. They have bombed an Iranian general at an airport without being in war.
Iran is the party here that unironically is defending itself. The west is the agressor.
There’s no need to shout death to anyone when your policies cause death. Or when your military spending is greater than everyone else’s combined. Or when you have a legacy of causing death en masse, on a whim.
Bad and basic take.
You’re welcome to elaborate? I feel I speak not from prejudice but from experience having lived and travelled widely in the Muslim world.
Say you have a bunch of Nazi grizzly bears living outside and around your village.
They don’t do fuck all to the people of your village. In fact, some are actually coming through the village sometimes, but they don’t hurt anyone. They’re just Nazi fucks. But they enjoy your village and they sometimes fertilize your parks.
Then someone says, these fucking grizzly bears are Nazis, goddammit, imma burn piles of “Mein Kampf” as a protest!
So they do, and all the grizzly bears get provoked, enter the village, and start attacking all the people.
Now, there’s a whole bunch of people on both sides of this theoretical situation who will say this is black and white and in their favor – how dare they burn our holy book! How dare they say we can’t burn whatever we like in our own village!
But it’s not black and white. It’s gray af. It’s freaking
#777.If you don’t provoke them, there’s no problem in the village. Sometimes it’s enough knowing you have the right to do something, and too much to actually do it, because actually doing it creates a whole fucking heap of problems to your fellow villager, whereas not doing it would spare them these problems.
With great power comes great responsibility. Same thing with great freedoms. We have a bunch of freedoms. Let’s not be stupid with them, lest they be taken away.
Word salad
I knew a lot of people can’t comprehend this situation fully, but I will keep saying it until at least someone with some IQ gets it.
IQ tests are pseudoscience
Intelligence, then.
Accurate and good take.
Nah.
Well argued
Same.
¯\_ಠ_ಠ_/¯
2 years imprisonment for burning any religious text? That’s insane
There was an AMA on reddit some time ago with a guy who had been convicted for embezzlement. His imprisonment consisted of effectively living in the prison but otherwise being allowed to leave during the day, go to work, etc. That’s probably the kind of imprisonment you can expect. I’m not saying that’s not bad. I’m just saying, it’s not as bad as you might think. I tried googling it but I can’t find it.
Personally, I disagree with the decision but do understand it. The government just doesn’t want more conflict between people, and it doesn’t care how it gets it. It makes sense ‘mechanically’, but I think it’s a significant blow to freedom of expression. It also adds to the list of reasons why people will vote more right wing in the future, which sucks.
Yep. The answer to the paradox of tolerance is absolutely NOT to capitulate to the intolerant.
Pissing on religious text would still be an option lmao
Edit: nvm I read the article, how lame lol
Damn, there goes using bible paper for joints (aka holy smokes)
That’s really a sad moment in history. Sure, it’s really in bad taste if ones does it, but it’s your property and it’s just paper at the end of day.
They might as well start drawing the prophet Muhammad, it’s probably cheaper too.
I am making this clear. This is a drawing of Mohammed, the founder of Islam in the 7th century.
a-little-too-well-regarded, pathologically lying pedophile.
“Hey bro, you like virgins?”
Based
deleted by creator
stupid misleading headline! The bill covers not only the quran but the public burning of all books with importance for religious groups.
The law criminalizes the “inappropriate treatment of writings with significant importance for a recognized religious community.”
Great, it’s still a stupid and insane law. Prohibit ALL public burnings of books? Ok I think it’s stupid, but whatever. But only protect those with religious significance? This is just an awful precedence.
Religions don’t deserve respect, because they don’t respect others. Nevermind the fact that they are essentially fables and folklore told by adults.
Prohibit ALL public burnings of books? Ok I think it’s stupid, but whatever.
I’m OK with prohibited public burnings for the purpose of fire safety, I guess. Beyond that, I don’t think I’d want to limit free speech in this manner.
Exactly it’s dumb, but restricting it just to religious texts is even dumber.
deleted by creator
This feels weird to me. Book bans I’m wholly against. But also throwing people in jail for burning paper seems strange as well. Like, I’m queer as hell and used to be religious. But if you want to wrap a Bible in a rainbow flag and burn it, then whatever. Waste of resources. But throwing people in prison over something some fraction of any population believes in (without violence, racism or hatespeech) seems excessive and favors religion.
Violence, hatespeech, racism, banning books, obviously all bets are off. I just wish everyone could dial back everything about 10 notches.
As a German any burning of books feels weird to me. Especially when done by racists to show how much they hate minorities
Bingo. This law is about stopping people from deliberately antagonizing other (generally marginalized) people. It’s not that complicated.
Appeasement for skydaddy followers is definitely going to workout
According to the law, you can’t wrap a Bible in a rainbow flag and burn it either. ‘The law criminalizes the “inappropriate treatment of writings with significant importance for a recognized religious community.”’
Over on YouTube, thunderfoot did a fun thought experiment. He filled a hard disk full of copies of the Quran and then proceeded to zero over all of them. Is destroying thousands of digital copies of the Quran equivalent to burning them?
I don’t understand the replies here - this bill was drafted in response to multiple events where ethno-nationalists burned the Qur’an in front of audiences with the implicit intent to incite violence against Denmark’s Muslim minority population. If you read the article, the bill bans the only the public burning of any religious book, not just the Qur’an. This bill would not “limit freedom of speech,” it would limit a form of hate speech and arguably stochastic terrorism being employed by the far right in Denmark. I do not see a problem with this bill.
I agree. It’s for the security of their democracy. Funny thing a Muslim was allowed to burn a Torah and a Holy Bible and those same people were upset. Tit for tat, now it’s against the law.
Infringing rights to protect rights makes as much sense as fucking for virginity
Hate speech is a form of speech. It is a vile form but it is a form. Ideas that are noble and gentle don’t need to be protected, ideas that are offensive do.
First western nation to fall due to demands from terrorist. Ask and they shall receive I guess.
This will be the first text in some insane dominos memes in the future.
Meme government.
Western nations give into terrorist demands going back to the French revolution. Some of those demands were for the freedom of speech that is being trampled on here or other rights and protections we hold dear. For recent examples look at the troubles or even that guy who shot shinzo abe and got the moonies out of Japan.
The focus shouldn’t just be on the means for political change, though the means can be criticized, but the political change itself. Banning book burnings in this case is an afront to free speech and should not be implemented.
Oh yeah totally. If we can’t burn religious text for the express purpose of passing people off, then the whole society is doomed snd were one slippery slope away from all the nordjnc countries having sharia law. I doubt the country will survive until Christmas honestly.
Its almost as bad as Germany banning nazi salutes.
Slippery slope fallacy
Yeah no shit sherlok, that’s point.
Brilliant argument
Sorry don’t have time to explain sarcasm to you. I know yanks struggle with the concept.
Sardonic I believe, not sarcastic. The trick is which way you are exaggerating. Exaggerating true vs exaggerating false.
Please provide a citation that nationality and grasp of sarcasm are intertwined. As you made the claim.
I am very sorry that the leaders of Denmark are willing to give up their right of freedom of speech of their population for so little. I wonder what rights they will give up next as part of their appeasement.
Very terminally online American comment.
You can personally attack me but that won’t make them not cowards.
And you can whine on lemmy about a countries policy that has nothing to do with you, but it’s not going to change anything.
Wasn’t aware that you can’t have an opinion based on your nationality
Oh you can have an opinion, just no one is required to take you seriously
Don’t see where I said otherwise. You have an opinion that I have no right to insult skydaddy and I have an opinion that both of us do. One of us has an opinion that freedom to speak your views is important and the other one does not.
Would you also consider chants such as “death to all Jews/gays/black people” or actions such as burning trans flag as freedom of speech and do you believe it should be tolerated?
No. This isn’t 20 questions and it is not on me to go through every situation. Sorry you don’t give a shit about your right to speak your mind go find some shaman and hand yourself over to them.
Sorry, but then I do not understand your logic. To me it seems like you are saying that people should be able to burn Quran (because freedom of speech) but at the same time you believe that burning a trans flag* should not be tolerated. Where is the difference? I am not saying that your opinion is incorrect, I am just unsure what your stand is because suddenly when your logic is applied to a different situation, you refuse to respond
Also, if you believe that ad hominem will make your argument look stronger, then you are clearly wrong.
*Just to make sure: I support all LGBTI rights, I just used them as a comparison.
My logic is I don’t want to waste time dealing with literally every single example out there in the borderline between freedom of expression ends and active harassment begins. I am not a judge, I am not an elected official, I am not a lawyer, and I am definitely not an expert on free speech law in Denmark.
Generally yes you should be legally allowed to express any vile opinion you have and do it in a vile way. That doesn’t mean you get to go in front of someone’s house at 3 am screaming racial slurs at them while waving around a knife. The people of Denmark are giving up freedom for security and it is security from shamans. That makes me sad.
That’s valid. Thanks for clarification.
As distasteful as it is, this falls squarely within the paradox of tolerance. There is no reason to burn the quran other than to stick it to “those” people. It’s trolling, it’s intolerant, it does not promote social peace, it does not even promote any kind of dialogue on religious bigotry, it’s just an act of hatred, a fuck you. And the sovereign Danish parliament decided that in their country, the value of this particular fuck you is not worth the disturbance to the peace. They have decided to not tolerate this particular kind of intolerance. Disagree with them all you like, but I see a rationale and it’s far from pointless. “Free speech absolutism” might be an American foundational value but that simply is not the case in the rest of the world. And a democracy, like Denmark, may legitimately decide to resolve the paradox in this way at this point in their history, and they are perfectly free to reverse this down the line. They chose to limit one freedom, that frankly is mostly used in a petulant, childish and intolerant way, in the interest of peace. Good on them.
Then they should ban burning the bible and vedic texts too…
Read the article, they did:
Burning, tearing, or defiling religious texts in public could land people with a fine or up to two years behind bars. Destroying a holy text on video and disseminating the footage online could also put offenders in jail.
I personally believe that no discrimination against people based on religion, race, color of skin is appropriate. So I believe that any islamophobic symbol is incorrect.
However, same rule applies to the other side. No islamic minorities should show symbols which could be disrespectful towards different people.
I don’t see how someone burning a copy of a book that they paid for themselves is discrimination. It is criticism and protest, but not discriminatory. It isn’t denying anyone else’s access to the words in the book. It’s just making a political statement.
Ideas should always be allowed to be criticized. Inanimate objects shouldn’t be given human rights.
So the general issue why burning such a copy should be considered incorrect is the fact that Quran, apart from being just another book, is a symbol of Islamic religion. Hence why it appears offensive to Muslims. Same logic applies to other symbols. Do you think it’s absolutely okay to come to a square and burn LGBTI or BLM flags. If you were a gay and saw someone else burning a rainbow flag, would you feel safe at such place?
I will always support someone’s right to burn an inanimate object that they own themselves. I would think that person is an asshole, but would not feel threatened by it in anyway. I am what those BLM flag burners would consider a POC.
You’re bing purposefully obtuse. This does not stop criticism of Islam or the Quaran, or making political statements about Islam.
It is banning an act that has been very specifically used with the intent of inciting hatred.
You are BEING cowardly.
Oh no, some neckbeard American called me a coward. However will I cope 🤣
Personal attack last refuge of someone without an argument
Yeah I totally agree. You would have to have no actual argument to resort to calling someone a coward for not being a freeze peach fetishist.
I accurately described cowardly actions as cowardly.
You don’t understand because you’re not Islamic.
I am an aethist who was raised in an Islamic family, so I think I understand better than most.
As you admit, youre not Islamic
As you lied you are not an atheist
Why do you even bother discussing things with people if you’re just going to make up what you think they believe?
I would not necessarily say it’s because people don’t understand Muslims. I myself have nothing in common with Muslims, as well.
More likely the case is that there are 2 approaches to free speech. First one advocates for absolute free speech whilst the second is more aligned with “my liberty ends where yours begins” phrase.
I agree with you that we can contrast absolute free speech with a view that considers the effects we have on others. I’m all for the latter approach while I find the former infantile. I do still believe that not being islamic is an issue here. I don’t tell Christians how to feel about their faith because I am not one. I expect others to extend the same consideration to Muslims.
I personally believe that no discrimination against people based on religion, race, color of skin is appropriate
One of these things is not like the other ones. People choose their religion, or at very least the indoctrinated choose to stay in it. People don’t choose their race or color.
It is absolutely legitimate to discriminate against people because of absurd ideas they hold. If an adult told me they literally believed in Santa Claus, or that the skull God needs skulls for the skull throne, I might think less of them.
Eh, I get what they are trying to go for, but this kind of appeasement won’t fix a group that doesn’t believe in the democracy they live in. What, will they also ban drawing Mohammed since it also upsets muslims and thus incites violence?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Danish parliament on Thursday approved legislation that would effectively prohibit Quran burnings in the northern European country.
Burning, tearing, or defiling religious texts in public could land people up to one or two years behind bars or a fine.
Destroying a holy text on video and then disseminating the footage online could also put offenders in jail.
The Danish Justice Ministry has said the law aims to combat the “systematic mockery” which raises terror threat levels in Denmark.
“History will judge us harshly for this, and with good reason,” Inger Stojberg of the right-wing anti-immigration Denmark Democrats party said in response to the bill’s passage.
The bill, backed by Denmark’s center-right coalition government, was originally introduced in August and then amended due to freedom of speech concerns.
The original article contains 338 words, the summary contains 128 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good. There’s no good reason to burn books. Free speech doesn’t require absolutism, it requires that we are capable of expressing our ideas. Yelling the N word doesn’t express an idea, it’s just offense. Ditto book burning. People who are absolutists are pretty much always being assholes.
Burning other people’s books is of course bad. Burning your own books? Idk man, you bought it.
If I build my own cross and burn it in front of your house, that’s cool then? I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you imply
Like I said in the other comment, the ban isn’t on instigating, it’s on burning a book. Also idgaf about the cross
Look up stochastic terrorism.
Look up appeasement
Yeah, since you would be in the street and probably get hit by a vehicle. That would be hilarious. Please do this. Please setup a cross right in the street in front of my house to make your point and get struck by a truck.
Way to completely miss the point
I got your point, such as it is, and it was so clearly bad that mocking it seemed appropriate. There is a difference between targetted harassment of an individual who is a member of the general public and attacking skydaddy. One is a crime with a victim you can identify and the other (like all blasphemy) is a victimless crime. If Allah were real, and not just a plagiarism run through the mind of a warlord genocidal pedophile, it could not be harmed. It could not be afraid. It could not even be resisted. A human can’t harm a god, a human can easily hurt a human.
Your entire attempt at comparison was not even worthy of this comment as it was so wrong. If you compared a sneeze to a supernova it would have been closer to comparing fictional Allah to a human. Blasphemy can never ever ever be a crime with a victim.
Now go burn a cross in front of my house, but please make sure to wait a bit as there is still some daylight. I want it to be nice and dark.
The argument I was making was pretty much the kind of reasoning that the Danes are using in their law making. I don’t know why you bother even discussing these issues when you are incapable or unwilling of even think about their reasons. Enjoy fighting strawmen.
Congrats on repeating at repeating a bad comparison. Truly the greatest achievement of all time
Silly argument at the level of “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you”. It’s not about how you choose to dispose your personal property, it’s about regulating a particular political act.
The ban isn’t on inciting violence, it’s on burning a book.
Burning the quran is functionally incitement to violence.
As a free speech advocate I will claim your post is an incitement to violence and therefore you should be arrested.
Cool, you have every right to do so, but a court woukd likely find that a reasonable person would not consider that comment to be inciting violence.
I wasn’t aware that Chamberlain was a judge
Sure. Call back when this is regularly a source of widespread social disturbance.
Infidels should be praised
Why, is there some reason you associate Islam with violence? I can go ahead and burn a Bible, a Torah, a Mormon Bible, a copy of the Pali Canon and the most danger I am in is getting a strongly worded letter. Is Islam in some particular way different?
People keep arguing from first principles as if politics is an abstract question to be solved by correct application of moral reasoning.
I am not talking about Islam in general. I am not interested in that discussion. I am not talking about abstract ideas. I do not care for top down idealism, I care for bottom up pragmatism.
In empirical practice, in our times and in these societies that we live in, this act has consistently increased the level of animosity, has incited violence, and is specifically being used to do those things on purpose. A democratic society can decide to put reasonable limits to it to protect peace and order. The fact that it remains a democratic society means that it retains its right to undo these limits at an appropriate time if it judges them to be hurtful or useless.
Trust democracy.
Is Islam in some particular way different?
Blasphemy and racism are two very different things.
Blasphemy is a human right.
Besides, there are already laws against hate speech.
Different issue. I’m not debating categories of speech. I’m saying that speech that expresses no ideas but that is significantly hateful to a group of people shouldn’t be protected. There are trade offs here: offensive speech that expresses political ideas (beyond “we hate you”) is worthwhile and should be balanced against offense it may cause. I know this isn’t a nice simple black and white answer but I think the real world isn’t nice a simple. There are shades of grey. Other countries might weigh the tradeoffs differently and that’s fine. Doesn’t make this decision wrong, just that the tradeoffs are weighed differently to your intuitions
That’s a nice word salad to say you support blasphemy laws.
I don’t.
What rules does your skydaddy support?
I’m an atheist and you appear incapable of listening.
So you unambiguously said you support a blasphemy law, but somehow you don’t support blasphemy laws? Wake up.
Wtf are you talking about? Show me where I “unambiguously said [I] support a blasphemy law”
I am sorry you are overally sensitive to your skydaddy being insulted
I’m an atheist.
Blasphemy the Holy Ghost then deny the existence of Allah and prove it please. As an atheist you should have zero problems committing the unforgivable sins of the Abrahamic faiths.
Oh FFS I’m not jumping through tour stupid hoops. Clearly not capable of a good faith discussion
Everyone check out the totally real not fake atheist here!
I knew it btw, I knew that anyone advocating cowardly appeasement would have to be afraid of a skydaddy and was so lacking in courage they would even lie.about their beliefs. When the going gets slightly tough we know who hides. Maybe pray harder next time and the zombie-jew will save you ;)
Book burnings are bad when they are used to prevent the free sharing of information or ideas. It is a form of censorship. Burning the Quran is not censorship, because this is not an attempt to ban the Quran or prevent anyone from reading it. Its an entirely symbolic gesture. Its comparable to burning the American flag, which I’m guessing you’re not so against.
Its an entirely symbolic gesture.
And what does it symbolise?..
That religion is dogshit and appeasement is cowardly.
Appease these nuts 🤣
Burning religious texts isn’t far off burning crosses. It’s stochastic terrorism
Citation needed
It’s an assertion. Obviously
Citation still needed.
Look up the word assertion
Look up the word appeasement
I absolutely agree.
I don’t disagree but I feel like they should just ban publicly burning books for reasons other than waste disposal. I think it’s weird to make an exception for one particular religious book
They didn’t. It’s for all religious texts
Burning religious texts makes skydaddy sad?
You seem determined to be a dick and not bother to understand what people are saying. I don’t see the point, but you do you
Good. The burning were done specifically to incite hatred and create social turmoil, for the explicit purpose of turning Muslims and non Muslims against each other. Much like free speech does not cover threat or calls to violence, stopping these burnings stops these bad actors while leaving your right to free /speech/ unaffected, so if you want to criticise islam and Muslims, you can still say whatever you want about them, so any claims about free speech are kinda moot.
Very cowardly terminally online comment
Lmao, good to know I got under your skin
Not true but why do you enjoy causing pain to others?
