What is your opinion?

[Hockeycowboy]

Grief, religious books are only books!

Better to burn or destroy books, than people!

If a person wants revenge for the burning of a Koran, then burn a Bible.

The book-burner should have been ignored. Some just want to incite trouble, to get 15 minutes of fame. Seems he got his wish.

I believe if someone innocent is killed over this, the book-burner should bear some of the responsibility.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But what or who determines that context and how? The NT has been used by some Christians to back up their antisemitism, so should we allow Jews to burn it, or do we respect the Christians to whom it's holy? I believe these arguments are fruitless. If you want to burn a book burn it. I'm going to presume it is your own property.

Motive is an important aspect in any action.

 

[ChristineM]

Grief, religious books are only books!

Better to burn or destroy books, than people!

If a person wants revenge for the burning of a Koran, then burn a Bible.

The book-burner should have been ignored. Some just want to incite trouble, to get 15 minutes of fame. Seems he got his wish.

I believe if someone innocent is killed over this, the book-burner should bear some of the responsibility.

Much as i loath the idea of burning books, the book burner lives in a country where such an act is legal.

Yes take tit for tat revenge if incensed enough, burn a book precious to the book burner but killing for such an act is terrorism and should be treated as terrorism

Je suis Charlie

 

[Hockeycowboy]

They talk about freedom of speech, but it is not easy for me to understand what it is that they believe themselves to be “saying” by kicking around, stamping on and setting fire to things of deep symbolic value to others in their community.

Are they wanting to tell us that they are big babies, with the legal right to throw tantrums before an audience? Because that’s one thing - and, perhaps it’s good that they show their true degree of understanding and maturity [toddler-level] in public. That way, we know the level of responsibility they can handle and needn’t risk mistaking them for sensible adults.

I cannot help wondering though, if they’re not instead inciting violence towards minorities in their society…
As in hate-“speech”.
Which there are laws against.
Even in Scandi.

If their purposeful actions lead to the death of others, then they should be tried for manslaughter.

 

[Rival]

Here’s my question to you: why would I take something (anything) of great value to you, go up to the front of your house and set that thing on fire? What is it that I am expressing -that I am “free to express”- by doing that? And how is doing it not an act of aggression towards you and your person?

I'd say it's pathetic and ought be ignored.

 

[Father Heathen]

If it's an inanimate object that's your own property, then you should be permitted to burn it, be it a holy book, a flag, or whatever.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have come to think that rights of blasphemy actually trump religious rights, and should always.

Besides, I don't think that there are any grounds to claim religious privilege here in the first place. For one thing, the Qur'an is hardly a marvelous expression of widespread tolerance.

From a pragmatic standpoint, there is also the matter of precedent. Qur'an burning is akin to flag-burning - a form of protest and, surely, a call for attention towards a situation. It isn't really possible to contain it without promoting political repression. Not worth it.

 

[Nimos]

You touch on an interesting point. Are all ideas worthy of consideration and respect? I say, "Nope, not by a long shot." To borrow an old expression, we should keep an open mind with ideas that come across our path, but not so open that our brain rolls out.

But how do you make the distinction between which are considered worthy of respect and which are not?

So you don't think it is ok to burn the Quran, because that is to disrespect the Muslims. But is it ok when some Islamic countries allow people to marry 9-year-old girls, should we also allow that, because that is how they interpret their texts?

Where is the fine line here? Why is it that religious beliefs ought to have any more respect that something else? such as a political opinion?

I'm not trying to particularly point out Islam, it's more of a general view of things. Because it is religious we should respect it and purely due to that, but why only then certain aspects of the religions, why not all of it, like marrying young girls?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Much as i loath the idea of burning books, the book burner lives in a country where such an act is legal.

Yes take tit for tat revenge if incensed enough, burn a book precious to the book burner but killing for such an act is terrorism and should be treated as terrorism

Je suis Charlie

Yes, I agree.

Just because a deed is legal, doesn’t mean it should be acted upon.

Yeah, if you’re cold, burn a book to stay warm.
But if, by performing any act, your intention is to harm someone, even if it’s emotional harm, then that motive should make it illegal.

And if a death results, then the instigator (or instigators) should bear the consequences.

 

[Nimos]

Whatever was of great value to you -if I knew what that was- I would not in your presence kick at it, stamp on it and set fire to it, no.

Humbly,
Hermit

I don't disagree with you, I don't think these people should burn the Quran, I find it very wrong, due to the reason they do it. But it doesn't change the overall question, why should religious beliefs be more respected than anything other belief? Why should it get special treatment?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I'd say it's pathetic and ought be ignored.

Agreed, but that does not answer my question: What is it that I am “free to express” by doing that? What is being expressed?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

so should we allow Jews to burn it

I’d bring the popcorn

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see the burning of holy books as an attention-seeking behavior intended to provoke and stir up trouble. However, if the law bans it, what about other acts that may offend other groups of people? Should Islamists also be banned from stepping on rainbow flags? Should non-Hindus be banned from slaughtering and eating cows?

I also think that banning the book burnings solely due to the violent reactions could set a markedly harmful precedent, where a message would be sent to any extremists who wanted their will to be imposed on others that being violent enough would lead to a ban on the action that offended them.

It's a tough question, to be sure, especially when something as consequential as Sweden's NATO bid was ostensibly hanging in the balance because it didn't ban or restrict such a book burning, but I haven't been able to come up with any scenario where banning it would not open a can of worms or at least set a dangerous and inconsistent precedent.

As for the countries condemning the burning, the majority of them persecute religious minorities and LGBT people in addition to freely allowing demonizing rhetoric against other religions. Their condemnation is as self-serving as it is hypocritical.

 

[Rival]

Agreed, but that does not answer my question: What is it that I am “free to express” by doing that? What is being expressed?

That you dislike this religion or ideology or may have been hurt by it in some way. For whatever reason really. If someone chooses to react violently because you burned his holy book that sounds like a him problem.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I don't disagree with you, I don't think these people should burn the Quran, I find it very wrong, due to the reason they do it. But it doesn't change the overall question, why should religious beliefs be more respected than anything other belief? Why should it get special treatment?

Sorry, I didn’t read your question quite like that.

In my own view, they are not more important than other things of symbolic value. They are just as important as other things of symbolic value; and no less than so.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Nimos]

I see the burning of holy books as an attention-seeking behavior intended to provoke and stir up trouble. However, if the law bans it, what about other acts that may offend other groups of people? Should Islamists also be banned from stepping on rainbow flags? Should non-Hindus be banned from slaughtering and eating cows?

I also think that banning the book burnings solely due to the violent reactions could set a markedly harmful precedent, where a message would be sent to any extremists who wanted their will to be imposed on others that being violent enough would lead to a ban on the action that offended them.

It's a tough question, to be sure, especially when something as consequential as Sweden's NATO bid was ostensibly hanging in the balance because it didn't ban or restrict such a book burning, but I haven't been able to come up with any scenario where banning it would not open a can of worms or at least set a dangerous and inconsistent precedent.

As for the countries condemning the burning, the majority of them persecute religious minorities and LGBT people in addition to freely allowing demonizing rhetoric against other religions. Their condemnation is as self-serving as it is hypocritical.

Agree, I think people's views should be respected, but nothing is holy. If these people want to burn it, so be it. They are stupid for doing it and we can call them that, but I don't think we should ever bow down to religious demands or any demands that do not come with a burden of proof of why it makes sense to uphold set demands.

 

[Nimos]

Sorry, I didn’t read your question quite like that.

In my own view, they are not more important than other things of symbolic value. They are just as important as other things of symbolic value; and no less than so.

Humbly,
Hermit

So if I understood you correctly. There is no different between burning the Quran and a flag for that matter?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I’m of the “everyone sucks here” opinion. Sure, it’s a book and they should grow up, but it tends to be different when it is something loved by others.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

should we also allow that

We are not in charge in that country, though.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Agree, I think people's views should be respected, but nothing is holy. If these people want to burn it, so be it. They are stupid for doing it and we can call them that, but I don't think we should ever bow down to religious demands or any demands that do not come with a burden of proof of why it makes sense to uphold set demands.

I'm thinking of the situation in a highly diverse and populous country like India, where banning public desecration of a holy book could indeed prevent internal strife. If you asked me whether India would be wrong to ban such expressions, I would find it quite difficult to give a definitive answer, especially because any law dealing with these expressions would have to deal with practical considerations and not just idealistic goals.

As I said, it's a tough question, and it is made even tougher by the fact that most of the countries demanding that such book burnings be banned allow hateful, demonizing rhetoric that suits the socially acceptable beliefs within their respective societies.

If insulting or denigrating other religions, especially non-Abrahamic ones, got banned by international law tomorrow, many of the very same imams calling for a ban on this book burning would be up for prosecution. More countries need to look in the mirror before pointing the finger and making testy demands.