What is your opinion?

[Madmogwai]

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

I can’t speak for them, but they also defy basic biology.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm wondering where people stand on this?

Free speech. Burn whatever book you want as long as it's your property. People like me are killed in Islamic societies, so burn all the Qur'ans you want, imo. They need to learn to be more respectful of others before crying over their book being burnt.

 

[ChristineM]

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

You are entitled to think what you want, figures from the bible tell me a story

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

Yahweh killed a bunch of people in the OT and in the NT. He was smiting all throughout and ordering the Jews to wipe out their neighbors (and steal their land, in the case of the Canaanites). He cut out the genocide in the NT but he was still smiting people. Lol.

 

[Echogem222]

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)?

Things to consider: 1st, what does burning the holy book of a religion do which is positive? If nothing positive is gained, but it instead causes believers of said religion to commit acts of destruction, I don't see why anyone would be able to make the case that it's fine to do it.

2nd, if they're doing it to make a point, that many Islam believers need to put their ego in check despite knowing the risks, then yes, I think it's a reasonable thing to do.

I happen to believe in a religion that has the equivalent of a holy book in it, and if someone burned said book a reasonable distance away from me (so not in my face), and it wasn't mine, or belonged to someone else, then I wouldn't care. I mean, why would I? It's just a book. Yes, books are meant for reading, but I've heard of people doing far more dumber things than not use a book for the way it's intended to be used. For example, I heard about someone using a brand-new Nintendo Switch that would have worked just fine as a frisbee (Yes, a frisbee). Now, someone could pretty reasonably argue that shouldn't be done, because it's a huge waste of money (but not make it illegal, just convince the person doing that to stop).

 

[Nimos]

Things to consider: 1st, what does burning the holy book of a religion do which is positive? If nothing positive is gained, but it instead causes believers of said religion to commit acts of destruction, I don't see why anyone would be able to make the case that it's fine to do it.

I don't agree with that.
Because it quickly becomes this special pleading to religions which is an issue in my opinion, even if that is not the intention of those burning them.

If the only argument for why you should not burn these is to prevent a group of people from going nuts, then there is no valid argument to be made. Should we ban the burning of Harry Potter books, if I threaten to go on a killing rampage if someone does it? We can't make laws based on how "threatening" people are.

And even if we ignore that, then one would still have to make an argument as to why it is ok to burn one book over another? Why is it okay to burn Harry Potter but not a religious text? And couldn't we extend this to other things as well, like not saying anything negative about a specific football team etc?

This is ultimately a question about freedom of speech, even if those people burning the Quran are idiots.

But I can tell you that the law that they want to implement is such a mess and undefined that even our judges have no clue how to judge it, because, in theory, it could be any object that someone thinks is of religious importance. And given that the atheists (I assume) under the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster want to have it recognized as a religion, that would mean that they could argue that a sieve is of religious importance to them and therefore also be protected.

It is a true political message law

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

The book burner is a nimrod. Just a less dangerous one than the idiot who took a gun to the consul.
My country (Australia) was originally a prison island where various nimrod's were sent, and we all turned out awesome. So we just need to find an island to send all these people to. I'm thinking Baffin. Being Canadian would automatically make them more polite, if I understand how such things work correctly.

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

Short of fire safety laws, I think you should be free to do it. However, I think anyone that does it is a goose. To put it mildly. Or an agitator.

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)?

This is kinda why I don't want it to be illegal. Also, from a non-religious point of view, I dislike enforced 'patriotism', and tend to think much the same about flag burning.
I don't want to explicitly ban it, I just hold people who do it in a generally very low standing.

 

[Echogem222]

I don't agree with that.
Because it quickly becomes this special pleading to religions which is an issue in my opinion, even if that is not the intention of those burning them.

If the only argument for why you should not burn these is to prevent a group of people from going nuts, then there is no valid argument to be made. Should we ban the burning of Harry Potter books, if I threaten to go on a killing rampage if someone does it? We can't make laws based on how "threatening" people are.

And even if we ignore that, then one would still have to make an argument as to why it is ok to burn one book over another? Why is it okay to burn Harry Potter but not a religious text? And couldn't we extend this to other things as well, like not saying anything negative about a specific football team etc?

This is ultimately a question about freedom of speech, even if those people burning the Quran are idiots.

But I can tell you that the law that they want to implement is such a mess and undefined that even our judges have no clue how to judge it, because, in theory, it could be any object that someone thinks is of religious importance. And given that the atheists (I assume) under the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster want to have it recognized as a religion, that would mean that they could argue that a sieve is of religious importance to them and therefore also be protected.

It is a true political message law

Fine, you do you, if you get killed for it, or severely injured, don't blame me for not warning you. (By the way, the law is an attempt at protecting people, yet what you're doing is to say, "No, the law shouldn't be to protect people, it's to protect freedom of speech, not safety." Like really? I don't get what your end goal is.)

 

[Heyo]

Fine, you do you, if you get killed for it, or severely injured, don't blame me for not warning you. (By the way, the law is an attempt at protecting people, yet what you're doing is to say, "No, the law shouldn't be to protect people, it's to protect freedom of speech, not safety." Like really? I don't get what your end goal is.)

What's next? Mandatory burkhas for all women because it protects them from getting raped?

 

[Echogem222]

What's next? Mandatory burkhas for all women because it protects them from getting raped?

No, that isn't the same at all. People can live out their lives just fine without burning holy books in provoking ways to people of other religions. Clearly you didn't read my original reply (or just skim read it).

 

[Nimos]

Fine, you do you, if you get killed for it, or severely injured, don't blame me for not warning you. (By the way, the law is an attempt at protecting people, yet what you're doing is to say, "No, the law shouldn't be to protect people, it's to protect freedom of speech, not safety." Like really? I don't get what your end goal is.)

Laws are made to protect people, but it is also about securing rights, such as freedom of speech, security is more than just protecting. So it is a balance where you can move the weight from one side to the other depending on what type of society you want.

I have no end goal, it is just a discussion about what should we allow and what we shouldn't.

 

[Nimos]

No, that isn't the same at all. People can live out their lives just fine without burning holy books in provoking ways to people of other religions. Clearly you didn't read my original reply (or just skim read it).

But @Heyo does have a point because not all women wearing burkhas have bad lives, so if the rest would just fall in line and do as they are told and not complain then they could have good lives as well. Obviously, this is not a good argument, but the point remains the same, should people be freely allowed to express their views or not? Should anything be above questioning or scrutiny?

I don't think these people should burn the Quran and are well aware that they do it because they get attention. But as mentioned earlier by some others, for instance, the Muslims and most countries, in fact, don't respect that for some people the cow is holy. So why is it that the burning of the Quran should be respected or made illegal, but not these other religious objects or animals?

 

[Echogem222]

But @Heyo does have a point because not all women wearing burkhas have bad lives, so if the rest would just fall in line and do as they are told and not complain then they could have good lives as well. Obviously, this is not a good argument, but the point remains the same, should people be freely allowed to express their views or not? Should anything be above questioning or scrutiny?

I don't think these people should burn the Quran and are well aware that they do it because they get attention. But as mentioned earlier by some others, for instance, the Muslims and most countries, in fact, don't respect that for some people the cow is holy. So why is it that the burning of the Quran should be respected or made illegal, but not these other religious objects or animals?

No, that is not my argument, people don't have to give up anything to not specifically go out of their way to provoke a group of religious people by burning their "holy book" as a public display. Let me ask you this, if someone in broad daylight put a large picture of your house so you would take notice of it on social media, and then burned said picture with fire, would you then think to yourself, 'Well, people can do what they want, this clearly isn't trying to provoke me, or a threat of any kind. I'm sure it's fine.' To religious people, their holy book is kind of like a representation of their right to believe in their religion without fear of persecution. So, if someone burns it in public like that, it implies that direct violence may follow. Kind of like during a time when two countries have tense relations, and one side decides to burn the other country's flag (just what do you think that implies? Freedom for a person to do whatever they want which should be protected?). Yes, I do agree that it's an overreaction to use violence before violence has been used against you, but still, the government should intervene to try to keep things from escalating.

 

[Echogem222]

Laws are made to protect people, but it is also about securing rights, such as freedom of speech, security is more than just protecting. So it is a balance where you can move the weight from one side to the other depending on what type of society you want.

I have no end goal, it is just a discussion about what should we allow and what we shouldn't.

If you have no end goal, then what you're doing amounts to trolling.

 

[Nimos]

No, that is not my argument, people don't have to give up anything to not specifically go out of their way to provoke a group of religious people by burning their "holy book" as a public display. Let me ask you this, if someone in broad daylight put a large picture of your house so you would take notice of it on social media, and then burned said picture with fire, would you then think to yourself, 'Well, people can do what they want, this clearly isn't trying to provoke me, or a threat of any kind. I'm sure it's fine.' To religious people, their holy book is kind of like a representation of their right to believe in their religion without fear of persecution. So, if someone burns it in public like that, it implies that direct violence may follow. Kind of like during a time when two countries have tense relations, and one side decides to burn the other country's flag (just what do you think that implies? Freedom for a person to do whatever they want which should be protected?). Yes, I do agree that it's an overreaction to use violence before violence has been used against you, but still, the government should intervene to try to keep things from escalating.

We have to put it into the right perspective. If someone was burning a picture of my house with the clear intention of threatening me, I would call the police. If they had an issue with the house itself, let's say it was constructed in front of theirs and blocked their view and that was what they were complaining about, then I think they should be allowed.

The burning of the Quran is not a threat to any individual or group of people.

And you still haven't addressed the issue with the cow? Should other countries stop eating them because they are holy to some people?

Look at it from the perspective of an atheist, I don't believe in any of these things, so why should I be "forced" to follow these rules, whether that is not being allowed to do certain things or that certain types of meat can't be served, which is already the case, as they don't serve pork in childcare institutes here anymore, not sure why they serve beef though?

 

[Nimos]

If you have no end goal, then what you're doing amounts to trolling.

The end goal is the discussions and hear the different arguments. I don't have an answer or solution to this issue, because it is much more complicated than just the burning of the Quran.

 

[Heyo]

No, that isn't the same at all.

It is a law to accommodate the people who use violence or threaten to use it and excuse themselves with "being provoked".

People can live out their lives just fine without burning holy books in provoking ways to people of other religions. Clearly you didn't read my original reply (or just skim read it).

People who burn holy books are making stupid stunts. People who react to that with violence are not responsible? They couldn't have reacted in another way? The later are the criminals who should face the (existing) law. That is the way to protect people and freedom.

 

[Echogem222]

The end goal is the discussions and hear the different arguments. I don't have an answer or solution to this issue, because it is much more complicated than just the burning of the Quran.

And yet you keep debating with me. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep debating with you.

 

[Nimos]

And yet you keep debating with me. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep debating with you.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you?

So if I had a solution you would be fine, but simply being interested in others' opinions is not or how am I supposed to understand that?