Secularity also includes freedom of religion and in developed democracies freedom of expression does not include hate-speech and inciting violence against minorities.
Publicly burning religious symbols is a pretty expressive form of hate speech against that religion, usually followed by burning people of that religion if allowed to. But what do i know. My ancestors only burned Torahs 90 years ago, and that only escalated into one of the worst genocides in human history.
Yeah, no. I would burn all religion books if possible, doesn’t mean I would burn christians, muslims or whatever. I personally can burn any book I want given that the book is my property. Your ancestors burning books wasn’t what caused the genocide; the book burning and the genocide have a common cause, they don’t cause each other.
Not sure how a burned book is restricting anyones freedom of religion. Compulsory book burnings, that would be another story. Some people have fun believing in sky daddy, some people have fun burning fantasy books - there is no real problem in coexisting, if they tolerate each other.
Because freedom of religion means that you can be religious without persecution. Someone publicly burning the symbols of your religion is aiming at threatening you for your religion.
Imagine you’d be living in a foreign country and your neighbour is greeting you every morning with burning the flag of your country of origin. He’s just having fun burning flags right? Or how about the KKK burning black straw figures? They are jsut having fun right? It is their right. It is your fault for assuming they might want to incite violence against you this way right?
Or maybe we can stop pretending that the burning of a religious book is meant as a threat against the people believing in that religion just as much as burning any book related to a people, to certain ideas etc. aims at threatening them.
Imagine you’d be living in a foreign country and your neighbour is greeting you every morning with burning the flag of your country of origin
I join in, since he has a point and the country of my origin sucks.
Or how about the KKK burning black straw figures?
Is he burning straw muslims?
Or maybe we can stop pretending that the burning of a religious book is meant as a threat against the people believing in that religion just as much as burning any book related to a people, to certain ideas etc. aims at threatening them.
So wat muslim rules do we have to follow to not upset conservative and fundamentalist muslims? Do women have to cloth modest? Do LGBT+ people have to give up on their rights? Introduce some blasphemy laws? Because that are all things, conservative and fundamentalist muslims are upset about. Where do you draw the line?
Freedom of Religion is just the right not to be forced to adhere to a specific religion by the state, it is not some sort of super-constitutional right that lifts every rule of every religion up to constitutional right status.
No but it grants you the constitutional right, to not be persecuted and threatened for your religious beliefs. That is precisely what the burning of religious books intends to do.
It’s the religious side which demands persecution, which threatens people (and sometimes much more).
Seems weird to paint it on the protesters, because they could, all while the religious side is already busy doing so.
freedom of expression does not include hate-speech and inciting violence against minorities.
I wish we could remove the hate speech from scripture or ban the distribution of scripture which contains hate speech (like Torah, Bible and Quran). But I digress.
Publicly burning religious symbols is a pretty expressive form of hate speech against that religion, usually followed by burning people of that religion if allowed to.
I understand how it can be seen this way, and recognize it often was analogue in history. But I disagree to automatically equate the two.
From my point of view, these book burnings exist because other people take offense about them in a very violent way. Some do burn embassies, some kill people. They want us to submit to the rules of their specific religion, although we don’t believe in it. Some feel entitled to rage and anger when others don’t do what they’d find acceptable.
This is childish and encroaching, and a threat to freedom, and sadly also sometimes a threat to life. To please this attitude by succumbing seems wrong to me. Provoke them until they learn that their rights end where our rights begin.
The article does not talk about the motives of the protesters, so we don’t know in this particular case. There are cases where you are right; where book burnings are meant to incite hate and violence. There are cases when the opposite is true; book burnings to resist and protest encroachment and violence.
For context: one of the announced burnings was by an ex-muslim Iraqi. Not everyone born in Islam stay in Islam. Some people move to Europe precisely because of this freedom of ours.
And he is doing himself a great vafor with it, because the Nazis that will beat him up if this continues eont care if he is practicing or not. They see a brown man and violence against them is a-okay again, not just but also because of burning books.
Muslims are free to renounce their religion in Europe. That’s a luxury denied in most Muslim countries. Blasphemy is the way to get this freedom as the history of Christianity shows. Appeasement of religious zealots is not the way. They’re as bad as nazis, they kill people for stupid reasons. Main difference is that they’re actually in power in several countries.
freedom of religion
How has burning one singe copy of a widely available book affected anyone’s ability to follow their religion?
usually followed by burning people of that religion if allowed to
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Is burning people of that religion allowed in Denmark or Sweden?
Because it is burning the book as a symbol. And it is about burning the symbol. Noone would care about him burning it home alone without anyone knowing. But that is not what it is about. It is burned publicly, after announcing ti burn it publicly, to make sure that the threat to the people of that rekigion is heard by everyone.
You think burning jews was allowed in 1930 Germany? It is a clear step of radicalization against a minority to publicly burn symbols associated with them and that of course is a slippery slope. Terrorism against muslims is on the rise in most western countries, and acts like this help to normalize it.
You think burning jews was allowed in 1930 Germany?
Ah, so Denmark and Sweden are 1930s Germany now.
This is either an incredibly bad simile or you’re genuinely implying that they will implement a state operated mass genocide on Muslims within the next decade.
Don’t mistake me for one of those free speech absolutists but criticizing religion is not the same as attacking people.
You cannot have hate speech against a religion, a religion is a non living concept.
You can have hats speech against a religious follower.
Burning a book in protest of a religion is not hate speech.
Except you can protest a religion without burning things.
Burning things publicly is always meant to intimidate the people associated with it.
No it’s not?
Burning a flag of a country for example is done in protest of the country, not the people.
Burning books is likewise done to remove access to knowledge.
