this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
186 points (96.0% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There seems to be deep misunderstanding why this is troublesome.
The Government burning any book is bad.
A private citizen should be allowed to burn any book he/she wants.
You can still burn the Quran at home according to the law.
Thats a very thin defence. The point is that private citizens should be allowed to burn their own belongings as a form of protest/expression. That's effectively been banned now.
You're not allowed to be naked in public. Doesn't matter if you want to protest jeans. You can't be naked.
You're not allowed to take a shit on the curb outside of whatever you want to protest either.
You're not allowed to burn flags of forgein nations.
plenty of expressions that can be used to protest are banned. What's so different here? You can still burn as many books as you want in your own backyard. You just can't do it at the town square.
And as a final note. It's a proposition. It hasn't been voted on. How about you save your outrage until they've actually decided on what to do?
Noone is talking about indecent exposure or defecating in public, we're taking about burning your own possession.
I'd also argue a private citizen should be allowed to burn any flag they want. It's the same thing as with books.
Point is. There are plenty of things we can't do.
What purpose does a public book burning serve beyond provoking and insulting?
That's why it's not allowed to burn forgein flags. It's just a means to insult a group of people in public.
Now, I'm not for a ban on book burning, religious or otherwise. If you have the permit go nuts. But the arguments people present are just really really bad.
The point is, you brining up things we can't do outside of the burning symbols discussion is irrelevant. We're not allowed to slap people, therefore we should not be allowed to criticize the government simply does not follow.
We're talking about having the right to burn your OWN possessions. The government should not be in the business of deciding what is offensive or isn't. It's a slippery slope that can't end well.
You can burn your own things in private, just as much as you can be naked in private, jack off to furry porn, do drugs or worship a Hitler statue in private. But you cannot and shouldn't do so in public.
They are not taking away your right to burn your own possession.
They're just telling you, you can't do it in public. You're free to burn whatever book you want in your own backyard. What's so difficult to understand?
And when the religious extremists next come for queer public displays of affection? Are people supposed to only do that in private, too?
It's a book. They can get over it. I won't hurt them if they want to burn LoTR, The Selfish Gene or any other book (or flag) privately or publicly.
Ultimately this is capitulation to threats of violence. It's a rather slippery slope.
If this kind of thing becomes the trend, it will only beget more violence not less. And climate activists using this strategy will be the least of our worries.
I think we're done here. You have nothing but strawman arguments and "it's bad cause I say so".
You choose to look past that it's done with permits from the government. With the sole intention of provoking and inciting. And they have to give those permits due to how the law currently is written. It becomes state sponsored incitement and that's what people get upset about. And that's what they want to avoid.
That is 100% unrelated to them. It has nothing to do with religious people. Unless they make it about them. Same thing can not be said for religious scripture.
Like I said you have nothing but strawman and bad faith arguments.
I mean, you need permits for large protests/assemblies right? What's the intention there? Expression, incitement, a hope that change can be provoked?
Shouldn't the state sponsor protection of expression, within reason?
As long as they aren't starting other fires when burning, I really don't care. I'd rather they use a method that results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions (perhaps an ax and a block of wood?), but it's ultimately a small amount in that regard.
I genuinely wasn't trying to strawman or bad faith anything. I understand why some people really don't like religion. What I do not understand is why people lose their heads over the condition of someone else's copy of a book that believers didn't even author.
It's silly. Those who are offended by this behavior are making it about themselves. They aren't hearing the burners' side. It's the believer's way or the highway, and their way is unreasonable.
Threatening violence over this nonsense is absurd. Now people are gonna burn out of spite. This is going to have the opposite of the intended effect.
It's just a book. And a flag is just cloth. How is this the hot topic when the atmospheric [CO2] is over 420ppm?
They can get over people burning copies of their own books. No one is coming for temples or holy sites or libraries here. No one is talking conversion.
Some people think that book is holy, some think it's trash. I think both groups should be able to express their opinion however they like, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. And if they want to live in a world where people don't want to burn their book, perhaps they should write a better one. Or just get over it. It is just a book after all. It's not like crops burned.
No, I suspect this is really about power. It's a powerful statement, the act of burning something in public. If it weren't powerful, it wouldn't be so...inflammatory. And a certain amount of any structure's power comes from the perception of that power. Allowing this to occur anywhere in the world is an erosion of that power. It says there are those who resist, there are those whose priorities are otherwise, and they have the strength to publicly display their opinions. And they do so without setting fire to a bunch of other stuff. It's a very controlled and specific criticism. I want people to have this power. Doing it privately is meaningless, it may as well have not occurred.
Anyway...do what you will. I think it's fine. You want to restrict it. We're neither of us budging, I agree.
Your lack of understanding is not an argument for or against anything.
They're taking a symbol that is deemed holy and sacred to people. And you claim they're making it about themselves?
You can't call someone ugly and then follow it up with, "it's nothing personal"
You say you're not trying to strawman but continue to do it with every other argument you put forth.
It's silly that I have to say it again. But.. Your lack of understanding is not an argument for or against.
You've stated many times that you cannot understand how someone can get upset, or feel frightened over others publicaly burning their symbols.
So how do you expect to argue or debate anything if you can't even comprehend the issue?
You don't seem to care at all that you're not allowed to burn flags. But this is for some reason the hill you're ready to die on. Totally ignoring all the hills behind you where the same reasoning have been applied to prevent inflammatory forms of expression.
I believe they are buying a copy of a symbol, then burning it. If they're genuinely stealing Qurans and burning them, I don't condone that.
Even if there were a factory where religious texts were systematically copied and then immediately burned onsite, the total number of religious texts in the world would remain the same. The number of adherents would remain the same. Nothing would change but CO2 levels.
Is a book burning really a personal attack? Did they write it? Did they personally know the author? Was an original burned or was it property that was purchased?
I think people should be able to express their opinion that an ideology is ugly. Without fear of repercussions, especially from those who can't control their emotions.
How is the burning of a book a personal attack? It's criticism of an ideology. If someone wants to take it personally, that's their problem. Saying a book is garbage is not the same as saying a person is.
Does burning a book delete its fans? Couldn't they just, I don't know, print more? Why wouldn't they just laugh while printing more?! And hell, sell it to the burners. Turn a profit off their opinions. Why would you threaten violence and prove their point?
I do not understand why someone would be moved to violence by the destruction of a copy of a symbol that wasn't theirs. I absolutely understand anger and fear in reaction to libraries, museums, or historical sites' destruction. I absolutely understand being upset and frightened by organisms burning. But not symbols, no. That seems a breath away from insanity to me.
That isn't what this is though. The symbol endures, that's kind of the point of symbols. It's destruction of a book, yes, but it's the burner's copy. They're not marching through the city, taking Qurans from people's homes, and burning them. That fool paid for the thing he burned. And the shopkeeper already ordered another one. Again, they could profit from this, and all the while seeming cooler and funnier. That would be the real power move. Not threats of violence.
We are still talking about Quran burnings right? Copies of paper and the imaginary friends of adults? Free speech v religious protection? Walking the secular line without leaving room for racist skinheads who abuse liberties like these for their own agenda?
I think if people want to hold on so tightly to and refuse to update an old inflammatory book, they should get used to a certain number being destroyed each year by readers who thought it was as good as ash.
This goes for all ideologies. They are not immune to criticism, however inflammatory it may be. I don't think public spaces should be policed to restrict expression of criticism of ideologies, so long as there aren't threats of violence toward people. There can be strong criticism of an ideology without hate, threats, and violence. I think book desecration qualifies as acceptable criticism. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't jail someone for it either (provided it's their copy).
Now if someone starts waving a flag of hate, then we have a problem. That is promotion of an ideology of hate not criticism of one. Ideologies that call for violence, deserve criticism and resistance. The criticism and resistance deserve protection, not medieval ideologies.
It may be illegal for some but not for all. I believe people should be allowed to do this (provided they do it safely). Because it isn't a big deal. It's not an expression calling for violence. I interpet it as, "I think this flag (or book) is dangerous trash." I may or may not agree with their opinion, but that doesn't matter. I believe they have a right to express it, as I have a right to express mine.
Damn dude. You write a whole essay without actually answering or responding to anything.
Debating with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. It's just gonna shit on the board and say it won.
Your final response to the flag burning is so telling you don't have a clue what you're on about. We're talking Specifically about Denmark. That's what the article was about. You start talking about what is and isn't allowed elsewhere is irrelevant.
If you truly don't see how any of those things are related, you're the pigeon. How did you put it, I think we're done here? Have fun losing more freedoms to other violent extremists in the future.
you know in most places it is illegal to start any fire in public? You are not allowed to start a campfire on a public plaza or barbeque in most parks already. Why should there be a specific exception for burning things to incite hatred and violence against people?
All of that is fine. Limit where you can burn something, limit the toxicity of the item burned, but do not limit burning things based on "offense".
You need to see the difference between limiting something because it's dangerous vs causing offense. That is a dangerous road no democratic government should go down.
Inciting violence in public by burning symbols of a minority group is a threat to democracy and should be prohibited. Take it from a German, we have experience with escalating hatred and because of that we also have proper laws against hate speech now.
Burning a religious book is a form of hate speech and serves only to incite hate.
Listen to what you are saying.
I for one refuse to cower to those threatening violence in return for burning a piece of paper. Any person that threatens violence in retaliation to a symbolic action is not to be treated with tolerance or respect, because they themselves are not giving any.
How tolerant are those same people towards atheists or other religions?
The core of all of this is simply that, you taking offense, whatever that means, should not be enforced by the state in the form of punishing me. It is a slippery slope that can't end well.
Take whatever offense you want, ban it in your private house or business, just keep the government out of deciding what is "offensive" and what is a matter of protest.
I for one find a lot of the text inside the Bible / Qur'an idiotic / offensive, but I'd never advocate for the government to step in and ban the books.
The significant difference is that public nakedness (which isn't specifically illegal in most European countries) and shitting on the curb have concrete consequences for others. The laws are there to protect others from unwanted sexual attention (exhibitionism) and literal disease (shit on the street).
The limit for the freedoms of one person should be the safety and freedom of others. Burning books does not infringe on other's safety or freedom.
Finally: it's stupidly easy to circumvent this. The same provocative assholes that are burning Qurans now, will just shift to other forms of desecration or other ways of offending Muslims. If the goal is to prevent protests that provoke authoritarian or extremistic regimes, you're just going to have to make that the law, because laws like this will just make people protest in another, equally provoking way.
There is a thing called "incitement against ethic group"
Grabing a microphone and preaching in public that Muslims are subhuman camel-piss drinkers. Would not be legal, despite it not infringing on someones immediate safety or freedom. It's incitement against ethnic groups.
As opposed to preaching that "Islam is a bad religion that promotes gender inequality", which is fair criticism.
One is incitement, the other criticism.
The framework is already there. The proposition would probably put that the burning of religious scripture in public falls under that category. (I don't actually know if that is the case, but it's a fair assumption)
Obviously you can desecrate and provoke in other ways. And I'm sure people will find other ways. And there will be new debates and court cases to decide if it's incitement against ethnic groups or not.
I'm personally not 100% sure where I stand if it should be legally OK to burn books in public or not. There are many things we are allowed to do in private, that we are not allowed to do in public. Maybe book burnings outside of embassies is one of those things. Just like we don't burn flags outside of embassies.
Incitement is illegal, yes, because it indirectly infringes on others safety and freedom. By encouraging violence against a group of people, that group is put in danger.
Luckily, there is a justice system that can apply nuance to each case, so that people can be convicted of inciting violence even though the do not explicitly threaten anyone. A "thinly veiled threat" or implications can be enough.
My opinion is that we have robust laws in place to prevent threats, incitement of violence, etc. adding blasphemy laws restricts freedom of expression without adding any protection of value.
They're not adding blasphemy laws. How are you not keeping up?
You just can't do it as a form of protest, which should be protected under free speech
Hate speech is not protected speech and people advocating for hate speech as "freeze peaches" usually want to abolish the actual freedom of speech
Is it "hate speech" when people are protesting against an oppressive, evil ideology? Would it still be hate speech if someone burned a Bible?
it depends on the form of protest and yes burning the bible in public is hate speech and not a constructive criticism of christianity or the churches, were i'd be happy to join in as there is a lot to criticise. But that criticism can and should be voiced without burning bibles.
Should criticism be able to be voiced without burning literature? Yes. Do I think climate activists should be able to be heard without disrupting people's commutes by blocking traffic? Yes.
Unfortunately, sometimes activists are ignored without an unusual act of protest, and protests should not be considered hate speech unless they're directly calling for violence towards a group. I don't think burning a book falls under that category.
With all that being said, the government should not be responsible for deciding what a person can or cannot do unless they're actively hurting another person.
Climate protests have a specific goal in changing policies and economic practicises.
Burning a Quran has no specific target. It targets muslims as a group entirely. And there is also no goal, no transformation, nothing better to strife for, in it. It is just hate of islam and muslim people. The only target could be to abolish the religion as a whole and ban people from practicising it. that is nothing but persecution. And you cannot argue that the people behind it would want anything less, as they are attacking the key symbol of that religion. Or as a methaphor, you don't slap someone on the wrist by stabbing their heart.
I would argue that their target are Muslim extremists, not just your average Muslim. Why can't the two groups be differentiated?
ItΒ΄s the people who burn the Quran publicly who are not to differentiating though, because burning the Quran publicly as a provocation is an offense to all Muslims, not just the few extremists. If it would really be about targeting fundamentalists they would burn the symbols of those instead of the universal symbol of all Muslims.
If they want to target muslim extremists they could burn a Daesh flag. But they burn the Quran because they don't want to target the extremists. They want to target all muslims, which is why they choose the symbol of all muslims.
In the same wake you wouldn't burn an EU flag to criticise the hungarian government. It would of course be understood as an attack on the EU and all EU countries, because you know, you could just take a Fidesz flag. (Arbitrary example, the same would work for any country, political party or figure)
So, a citizen should be allowed to set the books on fire inside a public library?
A private citizen will still be allowed and protected to burn any book he or she wishes, in private.
Like you can be gay in muslim country, just in private.
Love how you're trying to compare starting a fire in a public space, with being a homosexual.
You are allowed to shit on the floor in your own house. You are not allowed to shit on a public road.
Are you going to cry about the government taking away your right to defecate too?
Do you really not understand the difference?