Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Tikaru]

Well, there are many possibly answers to that. Because religion is a central part of so many people's lives, because religion is a reason why we have the society we have today, because religion is a constant of greater importance to many people than any other such symbol...I don't really subscribe to any of these answers mind you, my answer is simpler:

Because some assholes can't fucking well act civil towards others and refrain from starting trouble based on their own ideologies unless it is.

Like I said at the start, I'd rather there was no need for blasphemy laws in day and age. Clearly there is.

Or, and this might sound crazy, but what if people didn't get their panties in a twist at the drop of a hat?

If searching for a video of someone burning a book is enough to send you into a violent rage, YOU are the problem, not the person burning the book. YOU have issues. YOU need help.

[zorkuus]

We have several mentions of early laws known to man, and all of those have been shown to be connected to religion, where is the proof for the positive claim that there is an earlier law, that there are earlier morals and ethics not motivated by religious beliefs?

All over anthropology and evolutionary biology.

[Zecora]

So should religion be protected from satire, mockery, insult and parody?

I mean that's where you're going if you defend the fundamentally illiberal and totalitarian concept of blasphemy.

Missed the part where I said I'd rather see that there was no need for such laws, didn't you...

[Deleted]

Depends, just as it does with any mockery, parody and satire. If someone targets you with such, there is legal recourses in most civillized countries.

Provide examples please of where people have been prosecuted (in your mind justly) for mocking, satirising, parodying a religion in the West.*

*Excepting book-burning examples.

[Deleted]

There you have it wrong. Our system protected the Muhammed-drawer out of respect for human life and civil rights, something quite unique to western civilization and which will be lost the moment we no longer bother to uphold it, because it's just "too pricey".

Or how about the Jews of Copenhagen? We've also spent millions protecting them - as have the french and the belgians - and they've done nothing but being jews. Should we stop protecting them?.

I don't disagree that this shouldn't be a thing in a perfect world. But it isn't, and government have to make compromises in some cases, when it stops being viable protecting everything and every right.
I mean a good example of that is Jagtvej 69 back in 2006. They protected property rights, and it cost them millions upon millions in police, vandalism and just overall protection. And in the end they had to give up, otherwise we'd ruin ourselves protecting and standing for property rights, over a single building.

We need a harder stance on immigrants from the middle east, and no-welfare for non-citizens along with stricter immigration-laws (1 crime and you're out), which will help alot in this regard. It should have been implemented 30 years ago, but better late than never.

We already have the strictest immigration laws in Europe, coupled with the highest deportation rate and we have made multiple changes to welfare laws regarding non-citizens. I am all for making them even stricter, but that is somewhat off topic.

[Tackhisis]

Should it be criminal to mock religion? Should parody and satire towards any religion be banned?

Obviously.

[Deleted]

Missed the part where I said I'd rather see that there was no need for such laws, didn't you...

First of all, you could criminalise this on grounds of hate speech. I disagree with such a classification, but you do not need to invoke a blasphemy law to do it.

So your reason for thinking we need a blasphemy law is....?

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously.

Why?

/10 Chars

[Zecora]

Or, and this might sound crazy, but what if people didn't get their panties in a twist at the drop of a hat?

If searching for a video of someone burning a book is enough to send you into a violent rage, YOU are the problem, not the person burning the book. YOU have issues. YOU need help.

I disagree. If some asshole tries to start stuff by stomping on the symbols of a faith that isn't his, in a country where he knows it is illegal, he had it coming.

- - - Updated - - -

First of all, you could criminalise this on grounds of hate speech. I disagree with such a classification, but you do not need to invoke a blasphemy law to do it.

So your reason for thinking we need a blasphemy law is....?

No reason, if hate laws serve as well. Yet clearly they do not, in Denmark's case.

Anyhow, that's it for me, might be back later. Cheerio!

[Deleted]

I disagree. If some asshole tries to start stuff by stomping on the symbols of a faith that isn't his, in a country where he knows it is illegal, he had it coming.

- - - Updated - - -



No reason, if hate laws serve as well. Yet clearly they do not, in Denmark's case.

Except with a blasphemy law you are inviting censorship. You're happy with that so long as it also takes out people book burning?

In any case, no, Denmark could amend their legislation to include it under hate speech. If you're only in favour of blasphemy legislation on an ad hoc basis, then you should actually be supporting the reform of hate speech legislation, not trying to protected antiquated theocratic legislation.

[deepr]

It's a lame thing to do but even if the intent was to insult, no harm was done. Sadly, we live in a world where people take offense in these things.

[Austilias]

It's amusing to see the allegedly 'progressive' MMO-Champion become so reactionary when Islam is involved

Those guys at Charlie Hebdo were really asking for it too, weren't they?

[Tackhisis]

Why?

Because religion is a fundamental human right, and is no more suitable to be a point of satire, mockery, or insults, as a race, culture, or sexual orientation.

[Deleted]

It's amusing to see the allegedly 'progressive' MMO-Champion become so reactionary when Islam is involved

Those guys at Charlie Hebdo were really asking for it too, weren't they?

It's utterly pathetic. I mean I haven't read through 20 pages of this thread, but I've seen the sentiment elsewhere.

Much of the modern left seem to now be in favour of blasphemy laws.

[zorkuus]

I disagree. If some asshole tries to start stuff by stomping on the symbols of a faith that isn't his, in a country where he knows it is illegal, he had it coming.

He also knows said law has not been enforced for a long time. Who is really at fault? Him or the law being applied arbitrarily?

[Pengekaer]

Those guys at Charlie Hebdo were really asking for it too, weren't they?

Yeah, how dare they (sarcasm).

[Deleted]

Because religion is a fundamental human right, and is no more suitable to be a point of satire, mockery, or insults, as a race, culture, or sexual orientation.

Someone mocking your religion does not inflict upon your right to practice your religion.

You want to imprison comedians and journalists, out of interest? You want to ban Danger 5, Four Lions?

You want to ban large chunks of Black Metal?

What about my rights?

Also, sod that. People can mock race, culture or sexual orientation if they like. People doing that does not inflict on their right to be of that race, culture or sexual orientation.

[Tikaru]

I disagree. If some asshole tries to start stuff by stomping on the symbols of a faith that isn't his, in a country where he knows it is illegal, he had it coming.

"It's illegal because it's illegal"

- - - Updated - - -

Because religion is a fundamental human right, and is no more suitable to be a point of satire, mockery, or insults, as a race, culture, or sexual orientation.

I can't choose my skin color.

I can't choose my sexuality.

I can't choose what country I was born in.

I CAN choose to believe in cloud monsters.

[Deleted]

"It's illegal because it's illegal"

- - - Updated - - -



I can't choose my skin color.

I can't choose my sexuality.

I can't choose what country I was born in.

I CAN choose to believe in cloud monsters.

It doesn't matter. His point is still wrong.

Why should it be criminal to make a racist, homosexual or cultural joke?

[Tackhisis]

I CAN choose to believe in cloud monsters.

No, it's incorrect. You cannot make people stop or start believing in something arbitrarily. Religion is not a choice for most.

[Deleted]

Blasphemy apologists, should this song be banned and the band arrested?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_5ftq4vZ3E