What is your opinion?

[exchemist]

Sadly, I have a 67 year old brain and quite of range of experience to judge and compare. The trick is to judge wisely without being too judgmental. Admittedly, that is a delicate balancing act. I know how to outline this! Muahahahaha. I do not respect much of what Donald Trump has to say. I do not think some of his ideas are worthy of any kind of praise. That does not mean I am a fan of his counterpart. I'm not.

In a very real sense, judging the merits of an idea is a bit of a crap shoot in everyday experience. We do not have a built in Search button and have to make decisions on the fly. In theory, life will inform us when we are on the mark or way off base. It's not an exact science.

I didn't say that, now, did I. Those who remember me from before will remember that I am no fan of Islam, though I am respectful of individual Muslims. Burning a Qur'an is simply not like burning ANY other book -- FULL STOP. There is no other written text on the planet that would provoke more outrage (or even similar outrage) than the burning of Islam's "Holy" book. PERIOD. People are doing this in Denmark and Sweden? LOL. Grow a set and try doing this at noon on a street in downtown Cairo, Dubai, Tehran, Kabul etc The reaction would be swift and I'm guessing, brutal.

In short, I'm against burning the Qur'an simply because burning books isn't useful. (You're always going to miss a few, after all.)


I am not here to solve the world's problems. That is well beyond my pay-grade. What do you mean by, "we also allow that". We do not allow them to do anything as we have no say in how they run their lives.


Religion has an emotional underside that political thought normally does not. I try not to drive over other people's feeling but, sadly, sometimes I just can't help myself. It can be a rather lot of fun though. In my view, it's not the religion, per se, it's other people's feelings and that is what I do try to consider.


You must try to understand. I do not respect Islam. I do not respect Marxism. I'll stop there lest I get the Admins in a tizzy.
To be fair, the marrying of underage children in Islam is one that is not without controversy, especially in the modern era. The supporters of the older traditional views on the topic are giving way to slightly more liberal interpretations. Contrary to popular belief, Islam is not a monolithic culture and has a vibrant love of scholarly discussion, very rich argumentation and endless writings on every topic imaginable. (Is that accurate @Debater Slayer ?)

I have a lot of respect for the genius that created the Qur'an and the Hadith(s) but I do not necessarily respect the ideas themselves. There are many ideas and Muslim practices I think any thinking person would go along with and agree are good practices. There are other ideas that simply bounce off "western sensitivites" especially in the area of sex and sexuality.

I've been studying Islam since Sept.12, 2001, so I am still only scratching the surface of Islamic thought but I have discovered that it is much more complex than it seemed at first.

In regards to the OP:

I am queezy about implimenting a ban on the burning of books. Jail is not the answer to this type of emotional reasoning problem. Otoh, I'm also leery of appeasing Muslims as that is a no win scenario. I hope this makes sense.

Yes this makes sense - though it does not really offer a solution. It seems to me the real point here is that burning the Koran is almost a deliberately provocative act, designed to stir up muslims and thereby make increase anti-muslim prejudice in the country concerned (though in the Sweden case there may be Russian input to try to keep Sweden out of NATO).

Accordingly, public order provisions would normally be the way to go, I think, on the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" principle, rather than tinkering around with any special legal protection for certain books. From what I read in today's FT, the problem Denmark and Sweden have is that their courts have already repeatedly thrown out attempts to use public order prosecutions for burning the Koran. So in those countries, that avenue appears to have been closed off.

 

[Rival]

If someone went to Mecca and tried destroying the Kaaba I could understand.

You can print more Qurans.

I doubt these Qurans were even Arabic. What happened to 'the only true Quran is Arabic, everything else is an interpretation'?

 

[Nimos]

As a Hindu who reverently holds Mother Cow in highest regard, every time that I hear about some Muslims demanding that blasphemers in non-Islamic countries be punished for blasphemy against Islam, Muhammad, the Qur'an, etc., I always think something like, 'How about banning the murder of Mother Cow in Islamic countries? Oh, wait.' Many Muslims are religious supremacists; for them, all other religions are wrong and inferior. Hence, they would never consider banning the murder of Mother Cow in Islamic countries even if it's just out of mere respect for adherents of the third largest religion in the world.

As long as I don't live in a country like Nepal, I am reminded everywhere in whatever land it is that it is a land where Mother Cow is freely killed and butchered to satisfy the appetitte of the people. One time, a student of mine said to me, 'I like cows, they are tasty' with a demonic grin on his face. I've never observed a student do the same thing but with the word chicken or pig. Additionally, I have another student who wrote a short essay about why he wanted to visit Australia. In one paragraph, he said they have good cows that give good steak. Does any Muslim know how offensive those moments were to me? Many Muslims might not care, and I don't think too many other people would care.

Just as some Muslims (and others) want blasphemy against Islam banned yet they don't think about banning cow slaughter, there are Westerners who write letters to East Asian governments asking them to ban the consumption of dog meat. Those Westerners want the consumption of dog meat banned in East Asian countries because, from the perspective of those Westerners, dogs are loveable creatures. The same Westerners laugh at Hindus for seeing the Cow as our Mother and worshiping her. Those Westerners really need to get some perspective. So many of them see their dogs (and cats) as their children or family members. If that is normal and acceptable, why is the Hindu view and treatment of cows silly?

If anybody wants blasphemy against Islam banned, please also advocate for banning cow slaughter and all insults against Hinduism.

Very well written with good points, I completely agree.

I would even argue that you have a better cause/argument, as a cow is a living being and it would be better for the environment as well, whereas the other is just a book. But that is the issue I think in a lot of these political cases, that they don't really look at the overall issue, they look at a specific issue or said in another way, those that yell the loudest and threaten the most. I have never heard any complaints from Hindus, Buddhists, or the Jewish community in Denmark about how things are being done here. This also means that there is basically no one that has any intention of annoying these people on purpose, not to be understood as there is something wrong with Muslims because far the majority are very nice and calm, but they are very easily offended, which I think is due to their religious view that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. So when political laws are considered, they don't really take other religions into account but are mainly focused on pleasing Islam. But I would honestly like to see the Jews and Hindus etc, here in Denmark start making similar demands or complaints to put focus on this issue and to expose the politician's incompetence in dealing with this issue.

As an atheist, my experience is obviously slightly different from yours in a sort of opposite way, as we are just expected to accept whatever religious rules are being taken into consideration and I could imagine that it is probably not easy to understand from a believers perspective, because why would atheists care when we don't believe in it anyway? But to us, it is an issue that certain changes in societies are being made due to things that we don't see any valid arguments for. For instance that pork is not allowed to be served in childcare anymore.

And in several places in Copenhagen, besides banning pork, they have also decided to only serve meat that is halal-slaughtered. The reason is that they do not want to treat the children differently based on religion. 2013

To me, that is absolutely nonsense it is not a valid reason to change society. Because as you said, why not ban eating cows as well, why was that not part of the law?
And it's not because I want Muslims to eat pork if they don't want to, but the solution should be one that can handle people's different religious or lack of religious believes. It is simply not viable to just adjust to the religious view that yells or threatens the most.

 

[sayak83]

As far as I know, it is not illegal to burn the Danish flag in Denmark, but you are not allowed to burn other countries' flags. I don't know if there are any rules about the constitution books, but I couldn't imagine that is an issue.

If one is not allowed to burn the flags of other countries then one should not be allowed to burn religious books as well. There are many theocratic nations in the world today and it can be argued that the religious book is part of their national flag or emblem itself. I feel there is an inconsistency here. Either one has the right to publicly destroy a symbol however revered, or they do not.

 

[mangalavara]

But that is the issue I think in a lot of these political cases, that they don't really look at the overall issue, they look at a specific issue or said in another way, those that yell the loudest and threaten the most.

This is very well said. I will likely use the phrase ‘yell the loudest and threaten the most’ in the future.

But I would honestly like to see the Jews and Hindus etc, here in Denmark start making similar demands or complaints to put focus on this issue and to expose the politician's incompetence in dealing with this issue.

While I understand your idea, if I were in Denmark, I would not be inclined to make such demands and requests. This is because I don’t like the thought of myself telling a people to change their way of life for me. It would not be fair for them.

But to us, it is an issue that certain changes in societies are being made due to things that we don't see any valid arguments for.

I feel the same way. Because I understand your perspective and respect Danes living their own way of life and culture, I would never demand a ban on cow slaughter in Denmark.

And in several places in Copenhagen, besides banning pork, they have also decided to only serve meat that is halal-slaughtered. The reason is that they do not want to treat the children differently based on religion. 2013

To me, that is absolutely nonsense it is not a valid reason to change society.

I agree that that was not a valid reason to make such a change. Additionally, this is an example of them not taking everything else into consideration: they probably did not think about Sikh children, if there are any Sikh children there. The 10th guru of the Sikhs ordered that Sikhs do not consume meat from any animal that was slaughtered in the halal manner.

And it's not because I want Muslims to eat pork if they don't want to, but the solution should be one that can handle people's different religious or lack of religious believes. It is simply not viable to just adjust to the religious view that yells or threatens the most.

I am entirely with you on this. In a civilization with religious freedom, even if there is an official church, the laws, culture, and way of life should not be changed just to appease a religious community that yells the loudest and threatens the most. Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. should simply do the best they can without demanding changes. (That’s part of how I live in Korea.) However, certain accommodations such as getting Shabbat and religious holidays off from work would be generous and very kind on the part of employers.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't have a real solution to this, given that I do believe in the rights and freedoms for people to express themselves in this manner but I can also see why so many Muslims get incensed by such actions. Which mainly just seem foolish to me, given we know what has happened before as to such things. But I think a greater danger is in letting freedoms be eroded or dictated by any particular belief system, especially religious ones. Where Islam does tend to be one of the more controlling religions - as to regular prayer, dress codes, blasphemy, punishments, and apostasy, for example - and as to such seemingly being more like design features of Islam so as to spread the doctrine, keep members, and to infiltrate all aspects of one's life so as to achieve this. Basically, I don't believe any beliefs have a right to demand respect, especially religious ones, and Islam is so often at odds with the freedoms and rights we might expect in Western countries.

Even though perhaps Muslims should be concentrating on the more obvious bad press they receive from having countries like Afghanistan targeting one half of the population negatively, with a few others like Iran being similar, many Muslims will ignore this so as to express their outrage over some book burning. As I'm sure many have pointed out, how fragile are your beliefs if such can be dented or as to feeling abused by the simple act of burning paper. This doesn't sound like a robust belief system but more like a fragile one - even as to such trying to control people in so many ways, as mentioned. Trying too hard?

 

[Nimos]

If one is not allowed to burn the flags of other countries then one should not be allowed to burn religious books as well. There are many theocratic nations in the world today and it can be argued that the religious book is part of their national flag or emblem itself. I feel there is an inconsistency here. Either one has the right to publicly destroy a symbol however revered, or they do not.

Can only speak for myself, but personally, I couldn't care less if people burn symbols, such as flags or religious books to make a statement. I can also understand that some people might not like it, but to me, these "nationalistic" symbols have little value. The message and solutions are what is important.

 

[Nimos]

While I understand your idea, if I were in Denmark, I would not be inclined to make such demands and requests. This is because I don’t like the thought of myself telling a people to change their way of life for me. It would not be fair for them.

My guess is that they feel the same, given that they don't do it either But then again, I don't think Denmark does anything that is offending them or that is not somehow justified in why it is being done. Like for instance eating cows, I think the Hindus fully understand that the majority of Danes are not Hindus, but we don't rub it in their faces either and that it is part of what it means to live in a country where freedom is considered extremely important, people have to go on compromises and respect that not everyone agrees with their way of living.

I agree that that was not a valid reason to make such a change. Additionally, this is an example of them not taking everything else into consideration: they probably did not think about Sikh children, if there are any Sikh children there. The 10th guru of the Sikhs ordered that Sikhs do not consume meat from any animal that was slaughtered in the halal manner.

I don't really blame the Muslims for this at least not fully, I do think they are not very tolerant of others' views. But most of all, I think it is a failure of the politicians and the fight for freedom, if things in the world are ever going to change for the better, we have to fight these battles, even if that pisses off certain groups. And honestly, if they really don't like it here, they can always travel back, I know that sounds a bit racist, but I don't think it is, I wouldn't travel to India and start complaining about how they do things if I really didn't like it, then would travel back, to me, that is simply being respectful of another country's culture.

I am entirely with you on this. In a civilization with religious freedom, even if there is an official church, the laws, culture, and way of life should not be changed just to appease a religious community that yells the loudest and threatens the most. Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. should simply do the best they can without demanding changes. (That’s part of how I live in Korea.) However, certain accommodations such as getting Shabbat and religious holidays off from work would be generous and very kind on the part of employers.

We have an official church (Christian), but Christians in Denmark are extremely casual in general, it's nothing like for instance in the US or other very religious countries. But I think it is a requirement that the price of freedom is compromising and not trying to demand others to behave in certain ways. People are free to not do the things they don't like.

 

[1213]

Should it be illegal to burn holy books like the Quran or should one be free to do it?

Burning books sounds too naziesque, but I don't think there should be any law forbidding it, if person owns the book. I think it would be enough, if governments would not have right to go against freedom of speech.

However, even though I think people should have the right to burn own stuff, I think it is not reasonable, nor good to do it like that. It would be better to point out that Quran says people should believe Jesus. And then ask, why Muslims don't do that.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, Surat An-Nisa' [4:171] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

 

[Nimos]

Burning books sounds too naziesque, but I don't think there should be any law forbidding it, if person owns the book. I think it would be enough, if governments would not have right to go against freedom of speech.

However, even though I think people should have the right to burn own stuff, I think it is not reasonable, nor good to do it like that. It would be better to point out that Quran says people should believe Jesus. And then ask, why Muslims don't do that.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, Surat An-Nisa' [4:171] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

Agree, as I have said earlier, I don't think these morons should burn it. And the only reason they do it is because they know it will **** off the Islamic world. They don't do it with any other religious symbols because they know that it won't give them the effect they are after. Muslims in Denmark in general are not an issue at all, sure there are some gangs that sell drugs, but so do the Hells Angels so they are not worse in that regard. And the people that burn these books are like 3 people I think and at least one of them that is well known, is considered a complete idiot, which uses the excuse that he wants to protect Danish values or something like that. If it was an actual issue then fair enough, but it really isn't.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Should it be illegal to burn holy books like the Quran or should one be free to do it?

If you think it should be illegal, would also think that it would be a valid claim for Hindus to demand that no one eats cows (General speaking, know there are different rules)?

They should ban burning of holy books in public because it serves no purpose and just hurts many people. 'Free speech' should be restricted to speech in public and not include actions- you should be able to say anything you want about other religions in public.

But you should be allowed to do what you want in private (like eating beef).

 

[Rival]

Burning books sounds too naziesque, but I don't think there should be any law forbidding it, if person owns the book. I think it would be enough, if governments would not have right to go against freedom of speech.

However, even though I think people should have the right to burn own stuff, I think it is not reasonable, nor good to do it like that. It would be better to point out that Quran says people should believe Jesus. And then ask, why Muslims don't do that.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, Surat An-Nisa' [4:171] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

Muslims do believe Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[Nimos]

They should ban burning of holy books in public because it serves no purpose and just hurts many people. 'Free speech' should be restricted to speech in public and not include actions- you should be able to say anything you want about other religions in public.

But you should be allowed to do what you want in private (like eating beef).

Yes and no, I think the issue goes beyond that, because if the issue is to prevent people from getting hurt or upset, then we should also demand that Islam treat homosexuals and atheists as equals because a lot of people are being hurt as a result of their view on these, looking at it from a greater scale.
I'm against this "religion" getting special treatment, that they are not allowed to be hurt, but it is no issue for them to do it against others. There has to be some sort of common rules that apply to all of this then. Because I fail to see how someone getting hurt due to their religious view, is any different from how someone getting hurt due to their sexuality must feel.

That a book or some other symbol is involved should be irrelevant I think, it is not an excuse for why someone or a group should get special treatment.

 

[exchemist]

Muslims do believe Jesus was the Messiah.

That's interesting. I've never heard that before. I thought the conventional view was they considered 'Issa to be a prophet and that was that.

Can you elaborate a bit?

 

[Muffled]

As many are probably aware there are some political problems going on due to some guy burning the Quran in Denmark and Sweden, which have pissed off a lot of Muslims.

Just a quick sum up.
Many Muslim-majority countries have expressed outrage. Last week protesters set fire to Sweden's embassy in Iraq after learning police in Stockholm had given permission for more book burning.

The Danish government want to try to find ways to make it illegal to do something like that. Today a Turkish man attacked the Swedish consul with a pistol. The guy that burns the book is an idiot that just wants attention, that is basically his whole purpose.

I'm wondering where people stand on this?

Should it be illegal to burn holy books like the Quran or should one be free to do it?

If you think it should be illegal, would also think that it would be a valid claim for Hindus to demand that no one eats cows (General speaking, know there are different rules)?

If you want more info (Haven't watched it, but I think it sums it up):

I believe if a person owns a book then he should be able to do as he wishes with it. I handed out Bibles as part of my jail ministry and was told some inmates used the pages for toilet paper. I hope they read it first.

 

[viole]

As many are probably aware there are some political problems going on due to some guy burning the Quran in Denmark and Sweden, which have pissed off a lot of Muslims.

Just a quick sum up.
Many Muslim-majority countries have expressed outrage. Last week protesters set fire to Sweden's embassy in Iraq after learning police in Stockholm had given permission for more book burning.

The Danish government want to try to find ways to make it illegal to do something like that. Today a Turkish man attacked the Swedish consul with a pistol. The guy that burns the book is an idiot that just wants attention, that is basically his whole purpose.

I'm wondering where people stand on this?

Should it be illegal to burn holy books like the Quran or should one be free to do it?

If you think it should be illegal, would also think that it would be a valid claim for Hindus to demand that no one eats cows (General speaking, know there are different rules)?

If you want more info (Haven't watched it, but I think it sums it up):

I am Swede and I fully support the right to burn the Quran, or any other so-called Holy Book, even though I am not really into burning books.
It is freedom of speech. Religious sensitivity, or my opinion about burning dead wood, is far less important than that.

What is mind boggling is that there are people thinking they need to safeguard God's honor, as if He were their mother. I wonder why. Allah could easily incinerate those people in return, if He wanted to. So, what is the problem, apart from the only logical conclusion that Muslims do not believe in Almighty Allah, either?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Muffled]

I'm surprised the authorities have not gone at this from a hate-speech angle. It's hard to put a happy face on any book burning.

I believe the hate speech thing is unnecessarily repressive.

 

[PureX]

I think Muslims are going to have to learn to roll with the times. There are now 8 billion of us on one planet, and a given percentage of those people are going to be deliberately annoying idiots. Better they burn a few books than mosques or Muslims. You accept the book burning and we will take your side if they try anything more.

 

[Muffled]

I am Swede and I fully support the right to burn of the Quran, or any other so-called Holy Book, even though I am not really into burning books.
It is freedom of speech. Religious sensitivity is far less important than that.

Ciao

- viole

I believe it is not wise to anger people who tend to explode so easily. Can't imagine being friends with someone I would have to pussyfoot around.

 

[viole]

I believe it is not wise to anger people who tend to explode so easily. Can't imagine being friends with someone I would have to pussyfoot around.

Why not? If you think that, then they own you, already. Congratulations.

Ciao

- viole