What is your opinion?

[danieldemol]

No doubt

I’m not “shifting” anything, the perpetrators are guilty…I’m adding blame to those who wanted to provoke.

You are also assuming they wanted to provoke violence as opposed to simply voicing their concern over a book which itself provokes violence by demonisation of the non-believer in my opinion.

Without the provocation, there would have been no resulting crime.
But both are guilty… the provocateurs to a lesser degree, though.

I think that depends on their intent.

Yes you said it, it’s impractical.

Only due to the prevalence of religious hypocrisy. It doesn't make sense to unequally apply the law in my view. If we are going to go after people for provocation let's take down the big fish who are religious offenders and not swallow a camel whilst straining at a gnat so to speak in my opinion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is a political show going on here, nothing more really, but still, it ****es off a lot of people that do not think any rules should apply when it comes to freedom of speech.

My response to those people would be to point out that there are already rules that apply to freedom of speech. Even in the European countries where these book burnings are taking place, displaying Nazi symbols in public or giving a lecture promoting neo-Nazi rhetoric would land them in hot water due to hate speech laws.

I'm against blasphemy laws, but I think the idea of "unlimited free speech" is fundamentally harmful, unrealistic, and often inconsistent even when people try to apply it on a scale smaller than an entire country (e.g., the whole "free speech absolutism" Twitter fiasco and the inconsistency whereby Musk's critics have gotten banned despite the claims of "absolute free speech").

 

[Nimos]

Sorry, it was not very well formed. But, no, I ask, why the whole country is blamed for actions of a few people?

Because we allow it.

Again this is a highly political issue and goes far beyond just burning the Quran, whether the action of these people are stupid or not, doesn't change the overall debate, about whether a country should comply or reduce freedom of speech due to the demands of others.

Because that is essentially what this is about, whether we as a society/country, in this case, Denmark and Sweden, should allow some Islamic countries to pressure or influence how we do things through threats and political pressure. And apparently, it seems that the Danish and Swedish governments have the backbone of an earthworm so it apparently seems to work for them.

 

[Nimos]

My response to those people would be to point out that there are already rules that apply to freedom of speech. Even in the European countries where these book burnings are taking place, displaying Nazi symbols in public or giving a lecture promoting neo-Nazi rhetoric would land them in hot water due to hate speech laws.

I'm against blasphemy laws, but I think the idea of "unlimited free speech" is fundamentally harmful, unrealistic, and often inconsistent even when people try to apply it on a scale smaller than an entire country (e.g., the whole "free speech absolutism" Twitter fiasco and the inconsistency whereby Musk's critics have gotten banned despite the claims of "absolute free speech").

As of my post to @1213 #143, this goes beyond this. One could even extend it to non-religious things. For instance, there was a case in Denmark not long ago, when some Chinese delegation came to visit and some people decided to wear cloth in the colours of the Tibet flag and demonstrate with their flag to show their support. But the police (government) decided that they shouldn't **** off the Chinese so they had them removed, that is completely against Danish law as far as I know.

And we have countless examples of this both when it comes to countries and firms that do not comply with Chinese ideas, that they will risk paying for it. So this might not be a direct threat but the idea is exactly the same, you either do as we (China) say or you will pay for it. And the tactic seems to work.

And this is not to point out Islamic countries or China, because it goes both ways. The US and EU also pressure other countries, both politically and through economic means.

But just as those countries in many cases won't comply either, neither should we, especially when it is about the freedom of speech.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As of my post to @1213 #143, this goes beyond this. One could even extend it to non-religious things. For instance, there was a case in Denmark not long ago, when some Chinese delegation came to visit and some people decided to wear cloth in the colours of the Tibet flag and demonstrate with their flag to show their support. But the police (government) decided that they shouldn't **** off the Chinese so they had them removed, that is completely against Danish law as far as I know.

And we have countless examples of this both when it comes to countries and firms that do not comply with Chinese ideas, that they will risk paying for it. So this might not be a direct threat but the idea is exactly the same, you either do as we (China) say or you will pay for it. And the tactic seems to work.

And this is not to point out Islamic countries or China, because it goes both ways. The US and EU also pressure other countries, both politically and through economic means.

But just as those countries in many cases won't comply either, neither should we, especially when it is about the freedom of speech.

On a theoretical level, I can see the point of the argument in favor of not complying, but the situation seems to me much more complicated on a practical level. When a country, such as China or the US, is a major trading partner that can cause severe damage to another country's economy by reducing their economic cooperation or investments, the question then becomes one involving economic survival and not just freedom of speech.

It's not an ideal situation by any means, but that's the way the world works. The more economic power a country has, the more it can impose its will on other countries without firing a single bullet. I don't envy decision makers who have to choose between limiting freedom of expression for practical considerations and upholding their country's laws while risking severe economic consequences if they don't prevent protests during diplomatic visits (or if they don't prevent other legal expressions of belief and conscience).

 

[Nimos]

On a theoretical level, I can see the point of the argument in favor of not complying, but the situation seems to me much more complicated on a practical level. When a country, such as China or the US, is a major trading partner that can cause severe damage to another country's economy by reducing their economic cooperation or investments, the question then becomes one involving economic survival and not just freedom of speech.

It's not an ideal situation by any means, but that's the way the world works. The more economic power a country has, the more it can impose its will on other countries without firing a single bullet. I don't envy decision makers who have to choose between limiting freedom of expression for practical considerations and upholding their country's laws while risking severe economic consequences if they don't prevent protests during diplomatic visits (or preventing other legal expressions of belief and conscience).

I completely agree, it is the reality, unfortunately. The big bully the small

But at some point, we must stand up for the values or the type of society we want to live in. I don't want to live in a country where your freedom is severely limited, I can only imagine the horror it must be for a lot of Chinese people that do not agree with how things are done and are forced to live in isolation or fear of their government. With all these new tools (AI) and technology being developed, it will only become easier and easier for them to monitor and control people.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If we are going to go after people for provocation let's take down the big fish who are religious offenders and not swallow a camel whilst straining at a gnat so to speak in my opinion.

That’s going to happen soon enough, I believe.

According to the Bible, with its depiction of the destruction of the Harlot Babylon the great.

 

[danieldemol]

That’s going to happen soon enough, I believe.

According to the Bible, with its depiction of the destruction of the Harlot Babylon the great.

The authors and promulgators of the Bible with its provocation of non-believers are amongst the bigger offenders in my view.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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 ?)

It is accurate. There are significant differences between the Islamic cultures of, say, Indonesia and Turkey, for example, or Iran and Saudi Arabia. (That second example is pretty obvious given the animosity between the two countries.) There are many sects and traditions, some so divergent from the rest that they're deemed "heretical" by most of the others.

 

[1213]

Because we allow it.

Again this is a highly political issue and goes far beyond just burning the Quran, whether the action of these people are stupid or not, doesn't change the overall debate, about whether a country should comply or reduce freedom of speech due to the demands of others.

Because that is essentially what this is about, whether we as a society/country, in this case, Denmark and Sweden, should allow some Islamic countries to pressure or influence how we do things through threats and political pressure. And apparently, it seems that the Danish and Swedish governments have the backbone of an earthworm so it apparently seems to work for them.

I agree on this with you. We allow freedom. And freedom means it is possible people do also stupid things. Interesting thing is, that same freedom allows Muslims to be Muslims in western countries. If Muslim countries are against the freedom, maybe they should remain in their own countries then.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

People constantly do stuff to **** each other off, that is part of life,

But it seems like only one side is being told to grow up. Should Muslims attack and kill for a book? No. Should people antagonize for the sake of antagonizing? No.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

One time, a student of mine said to me, 'I like cows, they are tasty' with a demonic grin on his face.

People like that are jerks. Yes, I eat beef, but if that bothers you, I like other meat and vegan meat too. I consider the consideration of your needs important.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But allowing one to be burnt is a slippery slope. Why can't they destroy a Quran in other ways if they are so angry at it? Stomp on it.

Yeah. Personally I do “not see” any good reason for this type of public display. The pollution problem alone….

 

[mangalavara]

People like that are jerks. Yes, I eat beef, but if that bothers you, I like other meat and vegan meat too. I consider the consideration of your needs important.

To be fair, the student was unaware that I am a Hindu.

I appreciate your kindness. If we ever dine at the same table, I would insist that you order whatever you want.

 

[Muffled]

This is true, problem is when they take the huff people get killed.

I believe they ae only following in the footsteps of Iblis (satan) whose desire is to steal, kill and destroy.

 

[Muffled]

Yeah. Personally I do “not see” any good reason for this type of public display. The pollution problem alone….

I believe I just read that ashes are helpful in making soap. If someone burned my Bible I would just go and buy another one.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe they ae only following in the footsteps of Iblis (satan) whose desire is to steal, kill and destroy.

I think not.

And those 10 were at gods command.

Personally i think this Satan character gets a bad rap

 

[Madmogwai]

Instead of resorting to legal measures, promoting dialogue and understanding between different religious groups is a more constructive approach. Encouraging education, tolerance, and respect for diverse beliefs can help foster a society where freedom of speech and religious freedom can coexist peacefully.

In conclusion, while burning holy books may be seen as deeply offensive and disrespectful, it is generally not advisable to make it illegal. Upholding the principles of freedom of speech and expression while simultaneously discouraging hate speech and violence is crucial in maintaining a just and democratic society. Promoting dialogue and understanding should be prioritized as a means to address conflicts arising from religious differences.

 

[Muffled]

I think not.

View attachment 80477

And those 10 were at gods command.

Personally i think this Satan character gets a bad rap

I believe that is an account but not motive. God does not seek to kill or destroy.

 

[Muffled]

Instead of resorting to legal measures, promoting dialogue and understanding between different religious groups is a more constructive approach. Encouraging education, tolerance, and respect for diverse beliefs can help foster a society where freedom of speech and religious freedom can coexist peacefully.

In conclusion, while burning holy books may be seen as deeply offensive and disrespectful, it is generally not advisable to make it illegal. Upholding the principles of freedom of speech and expression while simultaneously discouraging hate speech and violence is crucial in maintaining a just and democratic society. Promoting dialogue and understanding should be prioritized as a means to address conflicts arising from religious differences.

Try telling that to the LBGQT community that is trying to get the reference to them as sinners classified as hate speech.