Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Deleted]

So, why should they remove those blasphemy laws exactly? Are they hurting anyone? Are they bad? Why are they bad?

It's a question that Danes need to answer and they have every right to enact whatever legislation they want their society to abide by, provided they respect whatever international provision and treaty they've signed into.
I'm also disinclined to claim a moral judgement over legislation (are they good, or bad). Too wishy washy for my tastes.
When removed from their specific culture, society, and ethical casting, most of what's left is consequences. Blasphemy legislation in that sense, is a simple tool by religious institutions to exert power. It may, here and there, protect some individual from harm, but the elephant in the room is the institutions: churches, generally.

If a country, nation, or state, wants to have legislation that lets these institutions have it their way, they very well can. It's still a major deviation from the church/state separation.
This separation is more of a process than anything. Very few countries are entirely detached from it. Many, in fact, retain privileges granted to traditional churches. From letting some taxes flow into churches, to having arrangements with the Vatican to ensure their religion be taught in charter schools.
Western countries are in this path of separation, and have been for a long while. Some simply take it slowly.
Blasphemy legislation is one such thing that most Western citizens expect to be abolished.
Abolishing slavery and later capital punishment were similar expectations in the past.

[Moratori]

Have you seen a religion DO anything? Like, ever?

Plenty of times, such as influencing peoples minds because they believe in it. In my home country abortion is banned because of religion.

[Slant]

The very idea that you should hold beliefs not based on facts should be critiqued and mercilessly mocked.

You don't understand me. You cannot, literally, critique something that is not based in facts. I don't mean it's "truth". I mean religion is so much bullshit that you cannot, logically, refute it. To refute or critique, you need facts. Otherwise your critique is based in just as much bullshit.

Hence me talking about religion vs. religious practise.

So, do you see where I'm coming from now? It's not just not what you thought I was saying, I'm coming completely the other way and going the opposite direction at max speed. :P

[jimboa24]

That is rich coming from a person from a Country that forbids people from holding Political office if they do not believe in a higher power. Maybe you Americans should worry about your own stew before meddling with the affairs of others?

The fuck are you talking about? There's no law that mandates that political office holders be religious to hold office.

[freezion]

Is there a law in Denmark that says I can't call you a jackass? Serious question. Are people in Denmark forbidden by law to insult anyone or anything? If not, why are fantasies protected, but not people?

there's only laws against defamation of people.
not a single one against insulting people (if the discourse if of racist nature and intent, it will be dealt with through racism laws)
if you engage in a conversation with someone and you think he's a dipshit, there's nothing stopping you for calling him that.

doing it onprovoked in a manner of gross conduct to a random stranger on the other hand can be run through harrassment laws.

[Slant]

Plenty of times, such as influencing peoples minds because they believe in it. In my home country abortion is banned because of religion.

But... that is religious practice, not religion. Catholics freak out about abortions while protestants do not, at least not in so many words and with such righteous fury. But both are "Christian" by nature. :P

- - - Updated - - -

The fuck are you talking about? There's no law that mandates that political office holders be religious to hold office.

Well, it's not a law. But we all know there won't be a POTUS that pretends he's the most devout of all Christians (and make no mistake, this only goes for Christians! Muslims not allowed!) in the near future. :P

[Moratori]

But... that is religious practice, not religion. Catholics freak out about abortions while protestants do not, at least not in so many words and with such righteous fury. But both are "Christian" by nature. :P

There is no difference between religious practice and religion, they are one and the same.

[Mad_Murdock]

You know, THOSE are actually cool religions! Unlike Scientology.... have you ever denied anything a religion? You must have, some of your sects don't get recognised... what was the cult with the mass suicide? I forgot its name...

Are you talking about the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas? Or the Heaven's Gate group that wanted to catch a ride on Halley's comet? both were tax-exempt religious groups

There are requirements to achieve said status obviously and some that had that status had it revoked when they failed to maintain the requirements. But if you're willing fill out the required paperwork, you too can be a Tax-exempt\recognized religion

But... that is religious practice, not religion. Catholics freak out about abortions while protestants do not, at least not in so many words and with such righteous fury. But both are "Christian" by nature. :P

Probably depends on the region\country. Protestants are just as vocal and anti-abortion as Catholics. Operation Rescue was founded by a Protestant fella and they walked the line in how they went after Abortion clinics that lead to some fruit loops shooting doctors.

[Allybeboba]

Burning books is not really about free speech.

Or you want to tell me the Nazis just did "free speech" when they burned complete libraries in 1933?

Bam!!!
Godwin's Law in the first available post.

[jimboa24]

if you ever want a law that stops this kind of act, you're what's wrong with european society.

it's that simple. religion deserves no protection from government. it deserves no place in government, and it deserves no

The fuck are you talking about? The right to freely practice and express your religious beliefs or non-beliefs SHOULD be protected both by and from the government. If you think otherwise, then you're no better than the jackbooting thugs of the 1940's that sought to eradicate Judaism from Europe - only difference being that you have an irrational, seething hatred for religion in general.

[freezion]

I'm surprised that Denmark still have a blasphemy law.

Some laws are so obscure and rarely used that they rarely get changed till it's actually used again.
as an example there's still a law in place that technically allows you to shoot a swede with a muzzleloader rifle if they cross the frozen ocean to denmark by foot.

and in england there's technically still a law in place that says you cant wear armor in the parliament.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Why would a man in a de jure Christian nation consider the possibility he'd be charged for blasphemy, when the doctrine of said Christian religion requires that the document burned (the Quran) be false and misleading anyway? I mean, we're talking law here, not religion -- the only religion that a blasphemy law could ever logically apply to in a state that has an official religion, is the official religion. That religion as a matter of doctrine has several different authorities you could point to that would yield the conclusion that the Quran is rubbish, meaningless at best, actively deceptive and harmful at worst. How could defacing it, then, be blasphemy against the state religion of Denmark? Unless, as I pointed out above, we must now treat Islam as being the new official state religion of Denmark.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding any religion they want. Does that mean I can break the law of the country by expressing what I feel? The law was put there for a reason, regardless of whether you think the whole religion idea is bullcrap or not. All I am saying, is respect the country laws. OR if you want them changed, then there are petitions or what not (I don't know how it works with laws in Denmark) etc...

What you said is completely right in that Denmark's official religion is Christian, but I failed to see where the bible ever said anything bad about the Quran. I suppose the blasphemy law was used against this guy as a way to stop people from insulting each other and cause distress and incur unwanted reactions.

What I said earlier about the burning of books in Islam is just a fact of the religion teachings.

I'm pretty sure laws do not determine our morals.

I agree the laws do not determine our morals. However, it does give guidelines to those who have different morals OR no morals at all.

I also agree that some religions have violent reactions to their faith being insulted, and that is why the country put laws (in my opinion) so that not every Jack and Marry go around insulting religions and causing distress among the nation's general safety.

[Tikaru]

The fuck are you talking about? The right to freely practice and express your religious beliefs or non-beliefs SHOULD be protected both by and from the government. If you think otherwise, then you're no better than the jackbooting thugs of the 1940's that sought to eradicate Judaism from Europe - only difference being that you have an irrational, seething hatred for religion in general.

The fuck are YOU talking about? The government shouldn't step in when someone cries that their faith is being mocked, just as the Government doesn't step in if you cry that someone makes fun of you for liking Nickleback.

[Slant]

There is no difference between religious practice and religion, they are one and the same.

Not really. One is based on religion and interpretations, and those you can attack quite well. The other is based on... a story. A figment of someone's imagination. An idea. And you cannot attack ideas, really. You can dislike them, sure. But that's about it. And "I don't like it!" has been the weakest argument in the history of debates as far as I know. :P

[jimboa24]

Well, it's not a law. But we all know there won't be a POTUS that pretends he's the most devout of all Christians (and make no mistake, this only goes for Christians! Muslims not allowed!) in the near future. :P

If you have a problem with that, then go out there and preach your gospel of whatever religion or non-religion you believe in to win hearts and influence minds and convince the majority of Americans that it's ok for the POTUS to be a non-Christian. Or just keep being bitter and shitposting about it on the internet, it's your call.

[Moratori]

Wrong. It's banned in your country because some politicians don't like it, and they want to enforce their opinion on others.

Nope, it's because of religion.

[Slant]

Are you talking about the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas? Or the Heaven's Gate group that wanted to catch a ride on Halley's comet? both were tax-exempt religious groups

There are requirements to achieve said status obviously and some that had that status had it revoked when they failed to maintain the requirements. But if you're willing fill out the required paperwork, you too can be a Tax-exempt\recognized religion

Just so you know, I am literally shaking my head at the monitor right now... it's so weird. :P

[Rooflesstoofless]

I'd agree that such laws have no place in modern society, however, if people can't be civil enough to not go out of their way to destroy and mock texts that some find holy just to cause trouble, perhaps we need those laws, archaic that they be.

No one's religion is hurt by you burning some paper in your backyard.

[jimboa24]

The fuck are YOU talking about? The government shouldn't not step in when someone cries that their faith is being mocked, just as the Government doesn't step in if you cry that someone makes fun of you for liking Nickleback.

And I never said they should. But the poster worded his response in a way suggesting that the government should afford NO legal protection for religious expression (you know, like in the first fucking amendment).

[Moratori]

Not really. One is based on religion and interpretations, and those you can attack quite well. The other is based on... a story. A figment of someone's imagination. An idea. And you cannot attack ideas, really. You can dislike them, sure. But that's about it. And "I don't like it!" has been the weakest argument in the history of debates as far as I know. :P

Without the religion, nobody to believe in it and have their mind influenced by it. The difference is how religious people are. Some are less religious and some are more religious.