What is your opinion?

[LuisDantas]

One major hurdle - or maybe it is ultimately an aid - in making this sort of choice comes from considering what distinguishes complaints from religious grounds from arbitrary complaints.

Ultimately, it is a political decision. Many people want to believe that "all" belief systems should be respected... but that just can't be done. There is a multitude of beliefs and it is not possible to reconcile even the two most widespread of them. For good or worse, that is the world we live in.

So we have to either choose sides or choose no side.

The first option amounts to religious repression under the guide of religious protection, because it means favoring officially acknowledged creeds at the expense of those other creeds, beliefs and religions that for whichever reason have not achieved political recognition as worth of protection. That amounts to giving the State or even the governments the power to decide what deserves consideration as "proper" religion and what does not. It should not go unnoticed that historically Islam itself would not have been allowed to take form under such a system.

The second choice is laicism, which is really the optimal choice for any government or community. Religious, quasi-religious and pseudoreligious claims can freely be made, but choosing to lend them prestige is a matter for citizens to decide individually, not for government representatives to impose. Laws and other rules can and shall be made and used both to protect and put boundaries on expression of both religious practice and protests, but only on grounds of actual discernible harm and need.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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

Both are highly aggressive acts, with the sole purpose to offend and provoke rage.

 

[YmirGF]

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

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.

So you don't think it is ok to burn the Quran, because that is to disrespect the Muslims.

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.)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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.

You may think so, but merely because you underestimate someone’s attachment to something (in this case a text). If you cannot think of anything of sufficient importance to you for you to be able to imagine your reaction to your perpetrators’ crushing of it, you are blessed in that you either are deeply detached from worldliness or in that you have no perpetrators on your case. Whichever; you ought to be grateful and humbly remember that not all share that fortune.

 

[syo]

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

One be free to do it.

 

[Nimos]

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.

What I mean is, that countries are very fast at not allowing religious books to be burned, but when it comes to teachings from these it is a completely different story. You can't legally marry a 9-year-old in Denmark for instance and all politicians would condemn it. Yet no issues protecting the Quran from where this idea arises.

If we do not respect or allow some Muslim's interpretation of the rules found in the Quran because we find them disgusting, then why would we protect the Quran or any religious books for that matter? Not to be confused with respecting people's beliefs. The potential law against burning religious books is purely politically motivated because the Danish government has an agenda with it. The same Danish politician in the video, said this some years ago when he was prime minister of Denmark during the Muhammed drawings:

"I don't have any Muhammad cartoons on my phone myself, but I'm glad that we live in a country where it's acceptable to have them.
And that's actually the only comment I have on the matter because I don't engage in art criticism. Museums must figure that out for themselves.
For the sake of clarity, the Prime Minister emphasizes that he believes it's important for us to have freedom of speech." 2017

But now that he has a new agenda (probably Sweden and NATO) then he is willing to make it illegal to burn holy books, so screw freedom of speech.

Goddammit, I hate politicians

 

[LuisDantas]

Politicians can certainly be frustrating, but in situations such as this they are very much necessary. Someone has to make decisions.

 

[Nimos]

Both are highly aggressive acts, with the sole purpose to offend and provoke rage.

But is there anything wrong with that if you have a valid reason? (Assuming these people have and don't just want attention)

Shouldn't people be allowed to express their dissatisfaction about something, even if that offends someone else's beliefs? Isn't it a valid way to raise awareness of something?

Let's say against one government, which can also be a theocracy, like in Iran and we saw how that went when they tried that? To me, that is why there should not be any restrictions on people's freedom of speech. The government is hired by the people to serve their interests, not the other way around.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it in doubt that they do want attention? Of course they do. From where I stand they sure appear to drawing attention to themselves and expressing their belief that the Qur'an is an unworthy book.

It is not futile. If nothing else, it brings attention to how entirely out of proportion the reaction is.

 

[Nimos]

Politicians can certainly be frustrating, but in situations such as this they are very much necessary. Someone has to make decisions.

But I don't think one should go on compromise with freedom. People constantly do stuff to **** each other off, that is part of life, whether that is fans of one football team having a go at another team or political counterparts, if everyone should be as pissed off as some religious groups do, we would all be better off living as they do in China or other countries where you get suppressed for stating your opinion.

 

[Nimos]

Is it in doubt that they do want attention? Of course they do. From where I stand they sure appear to drawing attention to themselves and expressing their belief that the Qur'an is an unworthy book.

It is not futile. If nothing else, it brings attention to how entirely out of proportion the reaction is.

I'm almost 100% certain that these people burning the Quran have absolutely no clue what it is about, they do it because they want attention and to stir up things and the Quran is where they can get this attention, had the burned the bible I don't think any one would care in Denmark except calling them idiots as we already do. There is basically no religious conflict in Denmark in general, people really don't care about it here. So the burning of the Quran is pretty much only to **** off the Muslim countries, the Muslims here know these idiots very well already as it is not the first time they have done it. I don't think they like it, but I also think that they are fully aware of what these morons are trying to do and that they are simply not worth spending a whole lot of energy on.

 

[LuisDantas]

But I don't think one should go on compromise with freedom. People constantly do stuff to **** each other off, that is part of life, whether that is fans of one football team having a go at another team or political counterparts, if everyone should be as pissed off as some religious groups do, we would all be better off living as they do in China or other countries where you get suppressed for stating your opinion.

It is not entirely baseless to frame this sort of situation (and many others quite unrelated) as a conflict between two kinds of freedom.

The freedom to expect a certain degree of reverence towards a creed and its requirements and the freedom to have behavior that does not conform to those expectations.

I don't think that I am entirely mistaken in assuming that many Muslims - and definitely many people and organizations that purport to speak in Islam's name - consider the freedom to express and demand according to Muslim expectations paramount. Or at least they will say as much to the general public.

A related example, which connects to the Charles Hebdo situation, is the forbiddance of depicting Muhammad visually. Even the movie "The Message" which is strongly sympathetic to Islam forbids itself from actually showing his face.

Is Islam entitled to demand non-Muslims to behave in ways that are consistent with Islamic expectations?

I don't think so.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm almost 100% certain that these people burning the Quran have absolutely no clue what it is about, they do it because they want attention and to stir up things and the Quran is where they can get this attention, had the burned the bible I don't think any one would care in Denmark except calling them idiots as we already do. There is basically no religious conflict in Denmark in general, people really don't care about it here. So the burning of the Quran is pretty much only to **** off the Muslim countries, the Muslims here know these idiots very well already as it is not the first time they have done it. I don't think they like it, but I also think that they are fully aware of what these morons are trying to do and that they are simply not worth spending a whole lot of energy on.

I will take that bet. I think they know full well what they are protesting against, and how the Qur'an encourages or even requires the subject of their protests.


There are very, very few traits of the political right that I have come to respect. Sad as it is, the suspicion of Muslim groups has become one of them.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's paper and glue; if your faith can't withstand this I'm concerned. Burning books is also a much more symbolic way of doing something, rather than burning people or other such activities. I see no reason to burn any book, but it's relatively mild as far as things could have gone. Banning it is too far.

I rather think the opposite. I can understand why someone would think banning the burning of books would be putting limits on the freedom of expression, but just as well the act of burning the books is a danger to freedom of expression, even more so in fact. Writing is an expression in itself, and books are a part of history.

 

[Heyo]

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.

You are talking about the Muslims, aren't you? People (toddlers) who react with a violent tantrum whenever a person on the other side of the world burns a Koran or draws a caricature?

 

[Heyo]

Both are highly aggressive acts, with the sole purpose to offend and provoke rage.

That seems to be the interpretation that many here have. I offer an alternative interpretation: it is not a sign of protest but a demonstration of the liberties we have in western style democracies. It says "look at me, I have the freedom to do this" as much as it says "I don't like the oppression that results from this book".
I don't know what the real motivation is, just offering this as food for thought.

 

[sayak83]

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):

It depends. If the country also allows for people to publicly burn its own national flag, constitution books etc. then it should be allowed.

 

[Rival]

You may think so, but merely because you underestimate someone’s attachment to something (in this case a text). If you cannot think of anything of sufficient importance to you for you to be able to imagine your reaction to your perpetrators’ crushing of it, you are blessed in that you either are deeply detached from worldliness or in that you have no perpetrators on your case. Whichever; you ought to be grateful and humbly remember that not all share that fortune.

If it belongs to me I'd be mad someone destroyed my property. If someone burns something that doesn't belong to me, so what? I can't think of anything (that's not physically mine that's either irreplaceable or just a lot of money) that someone could burn that would anger me. If they burned my national flag I'd be concerned they hate my nation, but the flag is not the nation. Let them burn British flags all they like. I love my Mediaeval books, but if someone burned a copy of 'Das Mittelalter' infront of my house I'd just be confused, tbh.

 

[Nimos]

It depends. If the country also allows for people to publicly burn its own national flag, constitution books etc. then it should be allowed.

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.

 

[mangalavara]

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)?

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.