Protesters angered by the planned burning of a copy of the Quran stormed the Swedish Embassy in Baghdad early Thursday, breaking into the compound and lighting a small fire.
Protesters angered by the planned burning of a copy of the Quran stormed the Swedish Embassy in Baghdad early Thursday, breaking into the compound and lighting a small fire.
I would say it is worse than simply in bad taste. It is reminiscent of Nazis burning books of Jewish authors in the Third Reich.
Burning the Quran is an act of hate towards certain ethnic groups, not a contribution towards political discourse or an expression of a constructive opinion.
lol the religious burn way more books than the non-religous, but if someone burns their favorite book then it’s an act of hate
Religious book burners are also hate spreaders.
Harry Potter fans don’t storm an embassy if you light up the chamber of secrets.
The world is not a school yard, so why argue at that level?
I’m not going out and burning any books because I think it’s unnecessary and I have no desire to, but I also feel like there are only 2 fair and even somewhat reasonable positions to take on this:
A - No one is allowed to burn any books for any reason.
B- Anyone is allowed to burn any books for any reason.
Anything else is preferential treatment for religion legally, and there are secular books that hold just as much meaning to people on a personal level as religous texts. I think A would be a violation of people’s rights, so I support B.
What about
C - Sane people -no matter if it´s legal or not- don´t burn books that are holy symbols of a world religion because that’s a sacrilege
Who cares if it’s a sacrilege? Excommunicate them from the religion then, that’s your recourse. Sleep soundly knowing they’re going to your version of Hell or whatever. Religious ideaology should not affect law or public policy.
Please stop talking to me in a way that implies I would be religious, or even sympathizing with religious fanatics. I have been an atheist my whole life, just as the rest of my family. The way you talk makes it sound like if I would be religious and that is offensive to me. I´m not in any way siding with the idiots who attacked the embassy, this is much more complex than choosing sides. I naturally condemn all aggressive and all violent actions on both sides. However -I was trying to make a point about sacrilege- so back on topic:
Think about it. Every civilized country has laws against offending people, so obviously there is a global consensus that the law should aim to protect people from being offended. You probably agree that what is considered offensive depends on the cultural background of an individual and is different from country to country. Now consider that to followers of a religion a desecration of the symbols of their religion** is the worst possible offense that is thinkable**. Why do you argue that certain (religious) people should be excluded from the protection by law against being offended - just because they were born into a different culture than you were and thus believe other things than you?
Burning sacred books of a foreign religion is a sign of intolerance and a poster-like act of aggression, offense and provocation that aims to cause an outrage in the targeted religious community. This fact can not be ignored when assessing events of this kind. It also does not excuse violent behavior by the offended community in my opinion but that is another topic.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that you personally are religious or that you are advocating for people storming the embassy by taking your position. I shouldn’t have used “your” in my hypothetical.
I personally do not believe there should be laws specifically against “offending” someone, and I don’t think not having that law makes a country uncivilized. I absolutely believe there should be harsher punishments for actual crimes motivated by prejudices, but what qualifies as “offensive” is incredibly subjective and open to exploitation. If a Nazi found Mein Kampf to be genuinely just as sacred to them as a religious text, would you agree that burning it should be illegal as to not offend them?
National socialism is objectively evil and is also not a religion so the example seems pretty far fetched to me. I could not care less about the feelings of nazis but Mein Kampf is important historical source material so it should definitely not be burned but instead preserved. I also think the impact of that book is generally overstated. Germans who voted for Hitler back then did not do so because of Mein Kampf but for several reasons including they felt the treaty of Versailles was unfair, that the new democratic system had failed them and because of the global economic crisis/inflation.
A civilized society does not necessarily require laws against offense in my opinion. Laws against incitement on the other hand are generally needed to keep things peaceful in most societies if you ask me.
It is just a book. If the book burning triggers a group maybe the problem is not the book burning maybe the problem is the group