If I can’t burn your holy book without terrorism there’s a problem.
Why would you want to burn their holy book?
I’m against burning books but if someone wants to, let them.
Because I support free speech. That means protecting speech I disagree with. If we only defend the speech we like, we no longer have a democracy.
Burning books isn’t promoting free speech. It’s literally the opposite. It’s sending the message that we don’t accept your ideas. That’s why the Nazis did it.
Of course it’s free speech. Burning the American flag is free speech. Shitting on a picture of Donald Trump is free speech. Burning Bibles is free speech. All of these happen frequently.
Sure, you’re allowed to do it because you have free speech. But don’t say that you’re promoting the freedom of speech because you’re doing it. Book burning is an act that stifles the ideas of whoever wrote that book.
More on topic, the two groups in question are both extremist groups that are opposed to the existence of the other. This isn’t about speech, this is about inciting violence.
Against violence committed to those not following Islam
Book burning is an act that stifles the ideas of whoever wrote that book.
The Koran really doesn’t have any ideas that need help. Humans have historically been pretty good at turning little girls into chattle and torturing people for gold. Are you really worried that there could be a day where those ideas are stifled?
In this context, I was mainly referring to book burning in general; not specifically the Koran. In my mind, they are done only as a tool for hatred. But, fair point, I haven’t read it and if that’s what it depicts then I don’t think I’m missing out on anything.
There’s a difference between burning one instance of one book as a protest and blacklisting hundreds of books and erasing all mentions of them and forcing everyone to not read them. One is declaring your dislike for something without affecting anyone, the other is erasing history. What you just did is a false equivalence.
No, I mean what is the MOTIVE for the people doing the book burning? What do they hope to achieve in burning it?
The recent example in Sweden was of an Iraq refugee who was protesting his treatment by Muslims in Iraq. He claims his right to free speech was suppressed in Iraq because of Islam.
So it’s the same reason everyone protests: to raise awareness of an issue. A more polarising figure, Rasmus Paludan, has also burned qurans. He did so to raise awareness of the growing violence in Muslim communities in Sweden. They proved him right.
Right. Because burning a fundamentalist’s most holy book is the best way to promote a reasonable debate on the subject. It wasn’t to goad the extremists at all? Because that’s really what it looks like to me. It’s like me raising the issue of fights outside pubs by punching someone’s girlfriend outside a pub.
It’s clear you don’t believe it’s a good way to use his free speech, but that’s the beauty of free speech: he doesn’t have to ask your permission first.
I don’t think extremist-baiting is anything more than pointless self-aggrandizing. It’s been obvious to the whole world that extremism is bad, ever since extremists flew planes into buildings in 2001. There is no point to make. We know. Stop pointlessly winding them up and boosting their cause. Do you think the extremists are personally hurt by it? No. They love it when someone does something like this. It shows they are right by proving how terrible the infidels are. They gain followers and the cycle of hatred churns on. Thanks for using your free speech to make the world a little bit shittier for everyone.
Why would anyone want a book about pedophilia and war?
Lolita is quite good, as is All Quiet on the Western Front. There are so many amazing books out there about awful things. And yet every religious text is just absolutely dreadful, horribly poorly written, incoherent plot and structure, no character development, and don’t even get me started about the dialogue. And I’m really not kidding just make a point, they just straight up fucking suck. Idk how anyone can possibly read that shit. They should be burned for being horrible books, let alone the religious connotation.
Very well aware. Before I lost my faith I was planning on making Bible studies my career. There is so little well written or good about that book. Even in the original languages. The very few parts well done are only done well in context. The Sermon on the Mount isn’t one of the best speeches of all time, it is just so much better than anything else in that book that if you read it cover to cover it is jaw dropping.
Imagine living in a world where you fear for your citizens because someone could kill them as a revenge for some burnt books.
How about stop letting certain groups have special treatment?
There is zero justification for going into some raging fit if someone burns a book. Yet all these left leaning European countries have tried to turn a blind eye or downplay every time one of these groups have assaulted or threatened someone.
Assimilate to a modern, 1st world culture, or go back to the stone age bullshit where you came from. You left whatever hellhole you came from because those countries are backwards-thinking conservative theocracies. Don’t you dare come to these western countries and try to impose your backwards thinking onto the native folks already there. You Assimilate to their culture, they aren’t going to walk on eggshells to appease your archaic religious nonsense. Fuck religion.
Yet all these left leaning European countries have tried to turn a blind eye or downplay every time one of these groups have assaulted or threatened someone.
Which countries do you mean? And could you explain how they ignored people assaulting other people?
I fail to see why this is a thing, or why you mention it’s somehow a “left” thing.
The reason it’s more significant now is that Turkey is using the book burning as an excuse to withhold approving NATO membership. After that it became news, before that it wasn’t news. Meaning, no need to make up stuff about you making up things about “left leaning”.
There has been a massive influx of Muslims into Europe over the last decade or so due to troubles in the Middle East. The Left has naively been welcoming them en masse not realizing that so many of these people have zero interest in assimilating into these new countries and instead want to bring with them the extremist conservative values they had back home. This has been happening all across Europe from Germany to the UK to France to Sweden. These people have been known to try pushing their ass backwards views on locals and the locals not really being able to do anything about it.
Fuck Turkey they are the worst the NATO member and fight with the rest of them
Islamaphobia doesn’t exist. A phobia is an irrational fear. It is perfectly rational to be afraid of people who’s faith instructs them to kill the non-believers.
It IS islamophobia if you think all or most Muslims are like that. Do you think DJ Khaled or Dave Chappelle wants to kill you?
And that’s NOT what Islam says.
sahih hadeeth say who ever disrespects quran/mohammad/allah kill him.
No it does not. That’s a hateful myth spread by bigots who try and take things out of context. The sahih Hadith AND the Quran actually talk in great length about how to ignore trolls and ignorant people who bash you and your religion, and to “repel evil with Good.” The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself signed the charter of Medina that guaranteed religious freedom.
Stay back on topic. I’m a practicing Muslim, and there’s 2 billion Muslims out there. If my religion told me to kill people why is it so rare then?
thank you.
Removed by mod
Learn to control your emotions
At some point we will just have to burn all the religious text and be done with it.
I wonder why they are so afraid of the religion of peace?
Muslims allowing islam to be known as ‘the religion of peace’ is one of the biggest doublespeaky manipulations around. They’re technically correct, because they’re referring to this line from the quran: “There will be peace on earth when there is no more al-fitnah”. Al-fitnah means ‘disbelief’ so what they’re saying is, there WILL be peace on earth, once we’ve converted everyone to our religion (forcibly or otherwise).
I’m a bookworm, read voraciously, and as a sad lonely young teen who struggled to understand religious people, decided to read all the books. Hindu vedas; Christian old / new testament; Buddhist dhamapada; quran, and the hadith. Islam is an awful religion when taken literally, and the few islamic sects who are genuinely peaceful (eg ahmadi, sufi) are not even considered ‘real muslims’ by the more popular interpretations (eg sunni / shia / salafi).
Don’t rely on out-of-context quotes from dodgy rightwingers, don’t rely on out-of-context explanations from muslims seeking to proselytise and make excuses, EVERYONE should read it for themselves so you’re debating on solid ground with facts on your side. My absolute favourite line from these particular religious texts is when Mohammed says he wants another wife to his (iirc final wife) Aisha. Aisha says something like, you’ve already had the maximum number of wives; Mo falls into a trance then says, don’t worry, I just spoke to god and he says it’s fine. She replies “Oh, how your god rushes to fulfil your desires”. Even she knew it was a crock of shit.
It’s not the religion they’re worried about, it’s the adherents. And if you’re wondering why that is, there’s two towers in New York that used to be there and aren’t anymore.
Gotcha the ideas are perfect, it is the people who are wrong. Odd how often that is claimed
What? In what way did I claim that?
It’s not the religion they’re worried about, it’s the adherents.
Yes. The religion is abstract. It’s the people that are the problem. Are you worried about Mein Kampf or are you worried about Neo-Nazis?
Yeah and it’s not the gun I’m worried about, it’s the bullets
Same thing man, same thing. Control them both.
Neither guns nor bullets are abstractions. Very poor analogy.
Fuck religion. you can pray to your sky God however you want but you don’t get to decide for others what they can or can’t do on their time
Religious texts are just about the only books I support burning, especially if the intent is to piss off the morons that think the books are true.
How can I make a donation to buy more korans and kerosene for them?
I hope their counter-terror operations are successful and end with a deficit of bullets.
They go and cry about muslim being intolerant yet they go and burn their sacred book which is considered the holiest thing for them.
Am I the only one seeing the problem here?
Genuinely unsure if satirical or not…
I honestly don’t understand why you’re being downvoted. Book burning is probably one of the worst steps you can take towards being intolerant without directly harming people. There had to be so many more options that could’ve been taken that would’ve de-escalated the situation in a way that didn’t involve destruction.
I think it’s the fact that true tolerance would allow the burning of any book. Not all copies, not banning it from circulation, but the burning of an individual symbol as a means of expressing an idea is perfectly fine in most Americans’ view. I share that view, I understand the nuance of the situation at hand, I’m aware the quaran is a holy book and that it sends a strong message.
But so does burning the American flag, as a symbol, to show that America’s ideals and values are dead or do not apply for the people doing the burning. American flag burning was done with the intent to express that the symbol of freedom and equality that it was pushed as was not at all representative of the America those people were experiencing. America has a problem with nationalism, so much so they tossed “under god” in a “non-mandatory” (socially reinforced) pledge of allegiance you say every day before school starts all the way until you graduate. You can imagine burning the flag pissed those nationalists off too, but their vitriol and frustration is useless and unwarranted.
If you say the culture of Islam, or the culture of the people who see that book as their most holy symbol and use it to justify violence, is unwelcome in your nation, as an individual, that’s completely fine to me. I don’t love the blanket statement, but I do love that you can express it without fear of retaliation from your government and with the knowledge that you are as safe expressing that belief as you are expressing one more widely agreed upon.
If I disagree with you, I should debate you, i should seek to educate you, or be louder than you with my actions and words. That’s not the way of every place in the world, but it is the way of any civilized people. Any who condone violence in response, even provoked violence, are closer to animals than their fellow man.
I want to agree with you but I can’t. The world can’t run by true tolerance; at least not in this day and age. There are too many beliefs, cultures, and ideas that are being eroded away by people that spout hatred. Why? Just because they can? Just because they have the right?
If anything, the closest we can be is intolerant of the intolerant. The people that burned the books were an “anti-Islam activist group”. This sounds exactly like other hate groups like the proud boys, westboro baptist Church, the KKK, the EFF, Islamic extremists… These aren’t people that are celebrating their free speech. They are people that are practicing legal hostility as a tool to oppress others. I’d say hate speech is a good line to draw when allowing people to have public demonstrations.
You don’t believe in freedom of speech.
Is it freedom of speech to deliberately provoke an entire religion just because it is your “right”?
It is my freedom to call you all kind of horrible names and slurs, does it mean I have to do it?
Is it freedom of speech to deliberately provoke an entire religion just because it is your “right”?
Yes. That is literally the entire premise: the right to say offensive things. The reason this is important is that everything we say is offensive to someone. If we operated under the principle that we may never offend anyone else, we would all have to be silent, all the time. Free speech is the basis for science and democracy, where saying things which offend people is a requirement. We must always be free to challenge the beliefs and values of others, or we’re no better than theocratic dictatorships.
How about we instead respect each other’s beliefs and live happy?
Respecting each other can do great stuff and it won’t prevent your from doing science.
Yes to the first and no to the second.
That’s a pretty broad statement.
You can’t go into an airport and shout “bomb” or use a bullhorn in a residential area at 3 AM without someone calling the cops on you and being detained. You can verbally harass someone to the point of being abusive or lie about someone to defame them but you can face repercussions for it. There’s a lot of lines that intersect with freedom of speech. Just because I’m drawing one at hate speech doesn’t mean I’m against freedom of speech.
Just because there is nuanced on the topic doesn’t mean that you were nuanced.
Burning the American flag is a different ordeal. When you invade their country in the name of “freedom” don’t expect love and rose.
Imagine the reverse, Iraq invading the US over fake claims of “chemical weapons” and imposing their political regime and destroying your whole way of life, imposing the Shariah Law (just like the US imposed their view of freedom). Would you still hold the same views? I think not.
