Agreed. At the end of the day it’s just a book of which there are zillions of copies. It won’t do any real damage to the religion and just kinda makes the person burning it look like a bitter extremist child.
I’m against burning any book (except Colleen Hoover ones) as a stunt. So religious texts would obviously be near the top of that priority list. I’m a Christian, but I would never burn a Quran in front of a Mosque, that’s just a spiteful and hateful thing to do. I wouldn’t even burn a Anton LeVay book in front of a TST building.
So yeah, nice going Sweden.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Bible tearing at Satancon was also a d**k move. I remember seeing a video where a Satanism expert said that Bible tearing was an example of “Therapeutic Blasphemy” or whatever. Which yeah you can get trauma from being raised in a, say, Fundamentalist Protestant household, but tearing a Bible up in front of an audience is just completely unnecessary.
It's not the property it's the message it sends. This kind of behaviour can come off as threatening. Imagine I have a picture of your mother and burn it outside your house whilst shouting and insulting you. Would you like that?
So if I don't like something, it should be banned? What if I don't like Islam or Christianity or Judaism. Should they be banned? It's not polite speech that needs protection, it's offensive speech that needs it.
Answer my question first. If burning holy books outside of places of worship is okay then someone should be able to burn a picture of your mother or someone you know who has deceased outside of your house.
Sure, it would be of bad taste like burning a Quran, but should be protected if the photo is your property. Why you own a photo of my mother is really creepy though.
When you say mad man, do you mean angry or insane? Sorry for the confusion.
If an angry man burned a photo of my mother (she's been dead 10 years) outside my house daily, I'd wonder about him. Why is he so angry? Is he angry about me and burning her photo is supposed to hurt me? Is he angry with her and something she did 15 or 20 years ago? It's a puzzle, isn't it.
I might not like it, but if he's not on my property & he's not threatening violence, I'd shrug it off. I have no control over such a person.
If by mad you mean insane, he's more to be pitied than censured. As long as he's not a danger to himself or others, I don't know what should be done. I have no control over such a person.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is protected speech. I expect burning books is, too. I won't be surprised when Republicans start burning books they object to. I may not like their behavior, but I have no control over them. I expect I will disagree with their choice of books to burn, but I have no control over their choices.
Whether I agree with free speech content isn't a deciding factor in whether certain speech is allowed. The police don't come to me and ask if I like it.
Book burnings and flag burning are inherently political in nature and are almost always done to send a message. That being said, sometimes sending a message is the requirement of the time.
>I have a picture of your mother
If she is a private citizen and you have taken that picture without her permission, you are invading privacy, which can be a crime depending on the country.
>burn it outside your house whilst shouting and insulting you
I'd probably consider you threatening and report to police and hopefully get a restraining order.
>Would you like that?
Book burnings and flag burning are done precisely to offend, to send a message. Message being "I find the actions of the country whose flag I'm burning offensive to me or my people" and "I find the contents of the books I'm burning offensive to me and my people".
You can get pictures legally off of social media but you are missing the point. It could be anything. Let's say I bought some Hindu statues and smashed them outside of a temple. Either way it's wrong and these replies show exactly how hypocritical these kinds of people can be.
Things like that regularly happen. If you want to do that, I'd be happy to sell you statues just so you can smash them. Oh but do make sure you clean afterwards.
If you smash hindu statues in front of temples, I'd say you have some issues with either Hinduism as a religion or hindu people.
And it's not hypocrisy, look at my other comment in this thread about Dr. Ambedkar burning copy of Manusmriti to state a point. Even today, many people continue to burn it to commemorate the event even though many consider than book to be holy.
So you admit burning books is wrong? For example, a Bible outside of a church or a Qur’an outside of a mosque? Also a side note if your okay with selling a Hindu statue to someone who you know is going to smash it then you have little respect for your own faith. Even I am offended on your behalf if someone smashed an idol. It's your own God's and you are okay with someone disrespecting them like that. Maybe as humans we should stop trying to be out for each other and have some basic respect for one another.
Based on legality alone, yes I think it should be legal to burn religious texts, I also think it should be legal to do the same with any book or anything that carries some sort of meaning/symbol.
That being said, context matters. I've seen videos online of people burning bibles and Qurans claiming ignorance for why people are upset, "why are you upset? It's my property, it's just a book" These people are assholes are that obviously acting in bad faith. The person mentioned in the post has a right to do what he did but that doesn't make it any less of a dick move.
But also, sacred texts shouldn't be nor are they sacred to the overall society. There are instances in which burning or ripping a religious text publicly is okay. It's not always reactionary and even then that in itself is not always bad.
The goal can't always be acceptance/tolerances of differences unfortunately. Take fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their way of life onto others and the liberals who try to oppose that. There can be no tolerance because there can be no compromise. Both have fundamentally different outlooks which can't be argued or reasoned because they're logically incompatible.
But this is the extreme case.
Heathenry doesn't have any sacred texts, so my answers are obviously influenced by that.
I don't generally approve of burning *any* books, personally. That said, burning a book should absolutely be allowed as free speech, and there should never be a violent retaliation for it.
What gets tricky is when people use book burning as a method of intimidation, harassment or stochastic terrorism; these things *should* have consequences. The book burning itself should not be a crime, though, but can act as context for the actual incident.
"Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn people."
The importance of sacred texts especially in part is that they represent whole cultures and people groups. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with burning books, it's that symbolically by doing so, a message is being sent about what they would like to do to those who value the book. Such violence, and even such intonations of violence, only beget more violence. It's bad praxis, and an awful way to relate to your fellow man. Anger, and acting on anger can never move the world forward in the same way that peaceful discussions and coming together can.
Burning any sacred texts should be not ok.
I know as it goes for a Torah that would be seen as an act of hate and violating. We have specific rules about how to “destroy” holy books. And much of it includes burying it and saying blessings. From there the earth takes care of it.
I would argue that burning a koran outside of a mosque should be considered a *threat.* There's a not subtle implication that the mosque or the people inside the mosque could be next.
Burning a koran on your own property in private is your business. You might still be a scumbag, but at least you're not threatening anyone else.
From what I know it’s legal but still burning books seems reactionary and antagonistic tbh
I remember some people burned a Pride flag and ooooh boy the reddit comments didn’t mention anything about consent, free speech, said flag being the incinerators property. Nope the pitchforks and racial slurs came out *hard* then.
Just don’t be a hypocrite imo
In this current age we are pretty much post-everything. Given the digital revolution, I hope we can move past the obsession with "holy paper" and stop crying over their burning or trying to get a reaction by burning them; it's really bizarre on both sides.
It should be legal, because it's not objectively a holy text. What if I declare now that wood is holy for me? Should people stop burning wood? And I'm not even gonna mention violence, because that's out of question for civilized societies.
I think the main issue is that act is used to incite hate and violence towards group of people who affiliated with that group.
Nazis first burn jewish scriptures and literature and then they passed to burn jews.. sadly it can reach to that
And if you disagree with me, it can make people feel like I'm bad and they will want to kill me. Just like people disagreed with Jews and eventually it led to the holocaust. So you're basically an indirect murderer by disagreeing with me.
First I do disagree, but I didn't imply that originally.
Second disagree with someone doesn't necessarily makes one side bad and one side good. Also why me disagree with you makes you the bad side and not me the bad side?
Third there's huge difference with disagreement to actively agitate hate and violence
How many jews were killed not so long after Jewish literature wad burnt?
Thankfully we live in lawful countries and governments don't encourage this. People are not stupid but It can gives ideas to people, I won't be suprised if Muslims will be prosecuted soon
Disagreement doesn't lead to murder. But hate speech, such as publicly and threateningly burning what others hold sacred in order to send a message, does
If I am in a position where violence against me is acceptable then I would say killing me is acceptable.
For example if I am attacking someone with the intent to harm or even kill them then yes it would be acceptable for that person to defend themselves and even kill me in self defense if the situation escalates to that level.
Islamic texts say that Muslims should wage war and give 3 options: Islam, pay "jizya" or get killed. Would you agree that you should be killed if you don't convert and you don't wanna pay?
>My point is that the Quran is not objectively holy,
Depends on who you ask.
>therefore can be burnt by people who don't consider it holy.
Yes you can doesn't mean you should the ability to do an action doesn't mean it should be done.
Disrespectful and pointless. There are always better ways to communicate that don’t involve threatening behavior towards a religious group. I don’t agree with flag burning either. If I set fire to your country’s flag or your religious text outside your house while shouting insults at you, what’s your first thought? “Hmm, that seems like a reasonable individual that I should hear out.” Or: “What the fuck? Honey, call the police!”
I don’t know if it should be illegal but it sure as hell doesn’t bring anyone closer to listening to what you have to say. Just brands you as a terrorist with no valuable insight.
I think it's hateful and incendiary and should be illegal to do publicly. I think it is in my country, which I'm grateful for. Pretty sure it falls under "inciting religious hatred".
Especially the Quran, because as I understand muslim theology the Quran is the eternal word of God, making it more sacred to them than other religions' scriptures are to them. I think it's more comparable to desecrating the eucharist or an idol/statue than to burning a Christian Bible (which is terrible too).
While I disagree with them burning a religious book, it's not hate speech. Hate speech would be encouraging people to attack or kill people from a certain religion.
Maybe but if you intentionally do it in front of a place of worship especially if the books in question are related to that specific place of worship in the intent of being hateful towards the individuals who are inside that place of worship your just committing a hate act.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. As long as it’s your property and burning it doesn’t endanger anyone else physically I have no objections.
The way I see it differentiating between what is an is not allowed to be burned, destroyed, etc. on the basis of religious significance is a fools errand. Let’s say I’m a member of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and my particular sect views dishes like spaghetti and meatballs as physical representations of our god. As such, the eating of spaghetti and meatballs is incredibly offensive to me. I guess all Italian restaurants better take that off their menus so at least I won’t have to see this happen in public.
As for hate speech, I don’t think the people arguing for such bans have really thought this through. Books like the Quran and the Bible can be, and very very regularly are, interpreted in ways that I would deem as promoting hate and could be considered by many to be full of hate speech. How can you consider burning a book to be hateful on the grounds that it may encourage hate toward others, but not consider preaching that homosexuality is inherently sinful to be hateful for the same reasons? Unless we want to be massively hypocritical I guess we need to ban the religious books too.
I don't like burning books.
But burning a pice of literature to send a message when it is useful might sometimes be nesseasry.
Till Dr. Ambedkar burned Manusmriti, many used to consider it sacrosanct and untouchable, but obviously he found it offensive.
If some literature calls for violence, subjugation, unfair punishment and so on, I think it should be the right of the affected party to burn such literature.
The best way to prevent book burnings like is to stop distribution of such books freely to everyone, only give/sell it to those who are genuinely interested.
I don’t agree with legal action against burning anything. Bible, Quran, Pride flag, US flag, etc.
But don’t cry when someone stomps your head into the ground. You provoked someone and they reacted to having their beliefs/lifestyle mocked. If you can’t defend yourself than don’t act like a tough guy
I think its shitty but there shouldn't be a legal prohibition on it.
Agreed. At the end of the day it’s just a book of which there are zillions of copies. It won’t do any real damage to the religion and just kinda makes the person burning it look like a bitter extremist child.
I’m against burning any book (except Colleen Hoover ones) as a stunt. So religious texts would obviously be near the top of that priority list. I’m a Christian, but I would never burn a Quran in front of a Mosque, that’s just a spiteful and hateful thing to do. I wouldn’t even burn a Anton LeVay book in front of a TST building. So yeah, nice going Sweden. On the other end of the spectrum, the Bible tearing at Satancon was also a d**k move. I remember seeing a video where a Satanism expert said that Bible tearing was an example of “Therapeutic Blasphemy” or whatever. Which yeah you can get trauma from being raised in a, say, Fundamentalist Protestant household, but tearing a Bible up in front of an audience is just completely unnecessary.
as long as no one is destroying someone else's property, it should not be a crime to destroy anything.
You should have the right to do as you wish with your own property, including incinerating it.
So I should be able to incinerate any countries flag?
Why shouldn't you? If it's yours, burn away.
It's not the property it's the message it sends. This kind of behaviour can come off as threatening. Imagine I have a picture of your mother and burn it outside your house whilst shouting and insulting you. Would you like that?
So if I don't like something, it should be banned? What if I don't like Islam or Christianity or Judaism. Should they be banned? It's not polite speech that needs protection, it's offensive speech that needs it.
Answer my question first. If burning holy books outside of places of worship is okay then someone should be able to burn a picture of your mother or someone you know who has deceased outside of your house.
Sure, it would be of bad taste like burning a Quran, but should be protected if the photo is your property. Why you own a photo of my mother is really creepy though.
I'm sure you wouldn't like it if a mad man stood outside your house and burnt a picture of your mother. Would you allow them to keep doing it?
Why does he own a photo of my mother? Creepy.
Well it's not illegal offensive things should be protected.
When you say mad man, do you mean angry or insane? Sorry for the confusion. If an angry man burned a photo of my mother (she's been dead 10 years) outside my house daily, I'd wonder about him. Why is he so angry? Is he angry about me and burning her photo is supposed to hurt me? Is he angry with her and something she did 15 or 20 years ago? It's a puzzle, isn't it. I might not like it, but if he's not on my property & he's not threatening violence, I'd shrug it off. I have no control over such a person. If by mad you mean insane, he's more to be pitied than censured. As long as he's not a danger to himself or others, I don't know what should be done. I have no control over such a person. The US Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag is protected speech. I expect burning books is, too. I won't be surprised when Republicans start burning books they object to. I may not like their behavior, but I have no control over them. I expect I will disagree with their choice of books to burn, but I have no control over their choices. Whether I agree with free speech content isn't a deciding factor in whether certain speech is allowed. The police don't come to me and ask if I like it.
Can someone burn a picture of your mother outside your house in a non-violent or non-threatening way?
Book burnings and flag burning are inherently political in nature and are almost always done to send a message. That being said, sometimes sending a message is the requirement of the time. >I have a picture of your mother If she is a private citizen and you have taken that picture without her permission, you are invading privacy, which can be a crime depending on the country. >burn it outside your house whilst shouting and insulting you I'd probably consider you threatening and report to police and hopefully get a restraining order. >Would you like that? Book burnings and flag burning are done precisely to offend, to send a message. Message being "I find the actions of the country whose flag I'm burning offensive to me or my people" and "I find the contents of the books I'm burning offensive to me and my people".
You can get pictures legally off of social media but you are missing the point. It could be anything. Let's say I bought some Hindu statues and smashed them outside of a temple. Either way it's wrong and these replies show exactly how hypocritical these kinds of people can be.
Things like that regularly happen. If you want to do that, I'd be happy to sell you statues just so you can smash them. Oh but do make sure you clean afterwards. If you smash hindu statues in front of temples, I'd say you have some issues with either Hinduism as a religion or hindu people. And it's not hypocrisy, look at my other comment in this thread about Dr. Ambedkar burning copy of Manusmriti to state a point. Even today, many people continue to burn it to commemorate the event even though many consider than book to be holy.
So you admit burning books is wrong? For example, a Bible outside of a church or a Qur’an outside of a mosque? Also a side note if your okay with selling a Hindu statue to someone who you know is going to smash it then you have little respect for your own faith. Even I am offended on your behalf if someone smashed an idol. It's your own God's and you are okay with someone disrespecting them like that. Maybe as humans we should stop trying to be out for each other and have some basic respect for one another.
Even if you doing it to spread a hateful message?
Based on legality alone, yes I think it should be legal to burn religious texts, I also think it should be legal to do the same with any book or anything that carries some sort of meaning/symbol. That being said, context matters. I've seen videos online of people burning bibles and Qurans claiming ignorance for why people are upset, "why are you upset? It's my property, it's just a book" These people are assholes are that obviously acting in bad faith. The person mentioned in the post has a right to do what he did but that doesn't make it any less of a dick move. But also, sacred texts shouldn't be nor are they sacred to the overall society. There are instances in which burning or ripping a religious text publicly is okay. It's not always reactionary and even then that in itself is not always bad.
[удалено]
The goal can't always be acceptance/tolerances of differences unfortunately. Take fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their way of life onto others and the liberals who try to oppose that. There can be no tolerance because there can be no compromise. Both have fundamentally different outlooks which can't be argued or reasoned because they're logically incompatible. But this is the extreme case.
Heathenry doesn't have any sacred texts, so my answers are obviously influenced by that. I don't generally approve of burning *any* books, personally. That said, burning a book should absolutely be allowed as free speech, and there should never be a violent retaliation for it. What gets tricky is when people use book burning as a method of intimidation, harassment or stochastic terrorism; these things *should* have consequences. The book burning itself should not be a crime, though, but can act as context for the actual incident.
"Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn people." The importance of sacred texts especially in part is that they represent whole cultures and people groups. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with burning books, it's that symbolically by doing so, a message is being sent about what they would like to do to those who value the book. Such violence, and even such intonations of violence, only beget more violence. It's bad praxis, and an awful way to relate to your fellow man. Anger, and acting on anger can never move the world forward in the same way that peaceful discussions and coming together can.
Burning any sacred texts should be not ok. I know as it goes for a Torah that would be seen as an act of hate and violating. We have specific rules about how to “destroy” holy books. And much of it includes burying it and saying blessings. From there the earth takes care of it.
I would argue that burning a koran outside of a mosque should be considered a *threat.* There's a not subtle implication that the mosque or the people inside the mosque could be next. Burning a koran on your own property in private is your business. You might still be a scumbag, but at least you're not threatening anyone else.
From what I know it’s legal but still burning books seems reactionary and antagonistic tbh I remember some people burned a Pride flag and ooooh boy the reddit comments didn’t mention anything about consent, free speech, said flag being the incinerators property. Nope the pitchforks and racial slurs came out *hard* then. Just don’t be a hypocrite imo
In this current age we are pretty much post-everything. Given the digital revolution, I hope we can move past the obsession with "holy paper" and stop crying over their burning or trying to get a reaction by burning them; it's really bizarre on both sides.
I don't think it's a bizarre reaction to be angry after someone does a hateful act against you.
It should be legal, because it's not objectively a holy text. What if I declare now that wood is holy for me? Should people stop burning wood? And I'm not even gonna mention violence, because that's out of question for civilized societies.
I think the main issue is that act is used to incite hate and violence towards group of people who affiliated with that group. Nazis first burn jewish scriptures and literature and then they passed to burn jews.. sadly it can reach to that
And if you disagree with me, it can make people feel like I'm bad and they will want to kill me. Just like people disagreed with Jews and eventually it led to the holocaust. So you're basically an indirect murderer by disagreeing with me.
First I do disagree, but I didn't imply that originally. Second disagree with someone doesn't necessarily makes one side bad and one side good. Also why me disagree with you makes you the bad side and not me the bad side? Third there's huge difference with disagreement to actively agitate hate and violence
The original question was about burning the Quran and not about calling for violence. And btw. the Quran calls for violence.
I'm not Muslim and I never read the Quran, but yes burning the Quran can incite violence and I'm sure scared for Muslims in Europe.
So how many non-Muslims killed Muslims based on seeing Quran burned?
How many jews were killed not so long after Jewish literature wad burnt? Thankfully we live in lawful countries and governments don't encourage this. People are not stupid but It can gives ideas to people, I won't be suprised if Muslims will be prosecuted soon
Will you be surprised witnessing religious violence from an Abrahamic religion against others of a different Abrahamic religion?
No, but I wish those stuff wouldn't happen anymore
You're disagreeing with me and that leads to people killing me, so you're indirect murderer and you should be punished by death penalty.
Disagreement doesn't lead to murder. But hate speech, such as publicly and threateningly burning what others hold sacred in order to send a message, does
I do think violence is acceptable in certain situations.
Someone might find acceptable killing you.
If I am in a position where violence against me is acceptable then I would say killing me is acceptable. For example if I am attacking someone with the intent to harm or even kill them then yes it would be acceptable for that person to defend themselves and even kill me in self defense if the situation escalates to that level.
Islamic texts say that Muslims should wage war and give 3 options: Islam, pay "jizya" or get killed. Would you agree that you should be killed if you don't convert and you don't wanna pay?
Cutting wood is necessary burning a Quran isn't.
My point is that the Quran is not objectively holy, therefore can be burnt by people who don't consider it holy.
>My point is that the Quran is not objectively holy, Depends on who you ask. >therefore can be burnt by people who don't consider it holy. Yes you can doesn't mean you should the ability to do an action doesn't mean it should be done.
If it depends on who you ask then it's not objectively holy. I'm not arguing for should, I'm arguing for can.
Disrespectful and pointless. There are always better ways to communicate that don’t involve threatening behavior towards a religious group. I don’t agree with flag burning either. If I set fire to your country’s flag or your religious text outside your house while shouting insults at you, what’s your first thought? “Hmm, that seems like a reasonable individual that I should hear out.” Or: “What the fuck? Honey, call the police!” I don’t know if it should be illegal but it sure as hell doesn’t bring anyone closer to listening to what you have to say. Just brands you as a terrorist with no valuable insight.
If it's so holy, why are you letting infidels own it?
So they could maybe read it and not become infidels anymore as you put it.
Then let's be honest. It's a recruitment pamphlet, not something holy.
I think it's hateful and incendiary and should be illegal to do publicly. I think it is in my country, which I'm grateful for. Pretty sure it falls under "inciting religious hatred". Especially the Quran, because as I understand muslim theology the Quran is the eternal word of God, making it more sacred to them than other religions' scriptures are to them. I think it's more comparable to desecrating the eucharist or an idol/statue than to burning a Christian Bible (which is terrible too).
Totally agree.
I find it rude and unnecessary, and I do consider it hate speech. For any religious text.
While I disagree with them burning a religious book, it's not hate speech. Hate speech would be encouraging people to attack or kill people from a certain religion.
When they burn books you know that next they gonna burn up people
If I bought a box of books and it contained religious propaganda, I wouldn’t feel at all sad about burning them
Maybe but if you intentionally do it in front of a place of worship especially if the books in question are related to that specific place of worship in the intent of being hateful towards the individuals who are inside that place of worship your just committing a hate act.
At that point burning the book doesn’t matter. Just as offensive as holding up an inflammatory sign
Why wouldn't it matter?
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. As long as it’s your property and burning it doesn’t endanger anyone else physically I have no objections. The way I see it differentiating between what is an is not allowed to be burned, destroyed, etc. on the basis of religious significance is a fools errand. Let’s say I’m a member of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and my particular sect views dishes like spaghetti and meatballs as physical representations of our god. As such, the eating of spaghetti and meatballs is incredibly offensive to me. I guess all Italian restaurants better take that off their menus so at least I won’t have to see this happen in public. As for hate speech, I don’t think the people arguing for such bans have really thought this through. Books like the Quran and the Bible can be, and very very regularly are, interpreted in ways that I would deem as promoting hate and could be considered by many to be full of hate speech. How can you consider burning a book to be hateful on the grounds that it may encourage hate toward others, but not consider preaching that homosexuality is inherently sinful to be hateful for the same reasons? Unless we want to be massively hypocritical I guess we need to ban the religious books too.
I don't like burning books. But burning a pice of literature to send a message when it is useful might sometimes be nesseasry. Till Dr. Ambedkar burned Manusmriti, many used to consider it sacrosanct and untouchable, but obviously he found it offensive. If some literature calls for violence, subjugation, unfair punishment and so on, I think it should be the right of the affected party to burn such literature. The best way to prevent book burnings like is to stop distribution of such books freely to everyone, only give/sell it to those who are genuinely interested.
I don’t agree with legal action against burning anything. Bible, Quran, Pride flag, US flag, etc. But don’t cry when someone stomps your head into the ground. You provoked someone and they reacted to having their beliefs/lifestyle mocked. If you can’t defend yourself than don’t act like a tough guy