Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[luc54]

The symbolic act wants to destroy the idea. It is about attitude here.

The idea to destroy an idea by burning a book is silly, but still those who burn books pretend they are able to do exactly that.

So what? Your relentless crusade against liberalism is also symbolicly trying to destroy peoples freedoms as well. Why isn't this banned in your books?

[Zecora]

It is not according to me, it is what Western Society has been based on, Age of Enlightenment, separation of church and state.

And much as you'd like that to be the whole truth, it is not so. Separation of church and state is not an automatic feature of modern societies everywhere, and Western society grew from many sources and took inspiration from widely diverse ideas, both secular AND religious.

If you value a nanny state, which is what your first paragraph is about, and that seems to be the current "left" idea, than I am going to stand with actual Liberals, Libertarians, and Conservatives, and fight against that.

Yeah, I get that you can't make an argument without spewing some hatred towards "teh eevul left". Too bad you are incapable of keeping to the matter at hand.

Respect should not be compulsory, to people, ideologies, religions, or imaginary "holy" books/items. And moreover, it should not be mandated by the state/government.

That's fine, but it is your OPINION, not an objective FACT. You are welcome to your opinion, but keep in mind that opinions are like assholes, everyone and his dog has one, but having one doesn't make yours special.

[Deleted]

So what? Your relentless crusade against liberalism is also symbolicly trying to destroy peoples freedoms as well. Why isn't this banned in your books?

It is not liberal to burn a book.

[Deleted]

It is not liberal to burn a book.

But it is liberal to defend people's right to do so.

[Forogil]

But burning books is no free speech. It is destroying ideas. It is avoiding the debate. It is trying to get rid of ideas.

Let me correct that:
Burning books is free speech.
Burning books does not destroy ideas.
Burning books causes debate - it does not avoid it.
Burning books may get rid of an idea - by showing the ridiculousness of it; or it may cause sympathy for the idea.

But I assume you will not listen; and continue in your own bubble.

[luc54]

It is not liberal to burn a book.

It's not liberal to burn book, but it's liberal to allow book burning because it's none of your fucking business unless said books were stolen.

[Eyliria]

People on the internet non-ironically defending Blasphemy laws and punishing people for mocking religion.
It's like I stepped into a time machine and ended up in the 1200s.

What a time to be alive.

[Deleted]

The only that that is going to happen with this, is there will be more people burning the Qurans to be subversive and upset even more people because they now know they have that power over some people.

They have no power over people. They just show that they dont know that burning books is no adequate way to get rid of ideas. At the end they show up as incapable to handle controversive ideas.

[zorkuus]

The symbolic act wants to destroy the idea. It is about attitude here.

The idea to destroy an idea by burning a book is silly, but still those who burn books pretend they are able to do exactly that.

You want to make a law against imaginarily destroying ideas? Well I don't want to live in that kind of nanny state.

[Zecora]

We already have laws that forbid bodily harm, done and done. No need for laws that forbid hurting feelings. And who are you to judge how people should behave?

Ah, yet another one who have no sympathy for the kids who are cyberbullied until they can't take it anymore and kills themselves, or the woman who is told for the hundredth time that she is worth less than a man, or a thousand others who are not harmed bodily but harmed nonetheless.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I think it reeks.

[Moratori]

And much as you'd like that to be the whole truth, it is not so. Separation of church and state is not an automatic feature of modern societies everywhere, and Western society grew from many sources and took inspiration from widely diverse ideas, both secular AND religious.

Can't really call yourself a modern society when you have blasphemy laws, which means religious laws.

[Deleted]

But it is liberal to defend people's right to do so.

I am not interested in defending idiocy. And i dont have to. I have to tolerate it, that is all. I will surely not defend anyone who burns a book.

[Zecora]

Our own fucking politicians do not agree with blashphemy laws. But you know better than them right?

Well, if you want to fuck your politicians, that's your business. As for the politicians, they can remove them if they want. If they have not, then clearly, they see a continued need for them even if they do not like them, just as I do.

The big irony is some of these countries have a state religion for which the blashphemy laws were originally written for. They were not intended to cover other religions. If that state religion is not enforced in modern times then so shouldn't the ancient laws that were written for it.

Once again, that's your opinion, nothing more.

[Deleted]

I am not interested in defending idiocy. And i dont have to. I have to tolerate it, that is all. I will surely not defend anyone who burns a book.

Defending their *rights*, not their behaviour. You don't have to tolerate anything. Just close the tab.

[melodramocracy]

Did you actually take my quote out of context on purpose?

Nevermind. Well, i just think it is better to read a book and understand it. Then find ideas which are better. Instead of just burning it.

I don't believe I took you out of context. The purpose of this thread is discussing whether the man burning this book was guilty of blasphemy, or any crime at all.

Blasphemy shouldn't even BE a law outside the confines of a given religious practice, because the gov't should have no authority in said area to begin with. The laws it DOES have authority in cover religious freedom, which was not limited or infringed in this individuals act under any circumstance.

You can think that it's a bad idea to burn books (though I'm sure we could come up with situations where you might think differently), but that is a separate discussion from what is / should be legal.

Somewhat off topic, are you ok with the idea of flag burning?

[zorkuus]

Ah, yet another one who have no sympathy for the kids who are cyberbullied until they can't take it anymore and kills themselves, or the woman who is told for the hundredth time that she is worth less than a man, or a thousand others who are not harmed bodily but harmed nonetheless.

Nice try but with less strawman next time tyvm.

Once again, that's your opinion, nothing more.

I happen to live in one of those countries. Who the fuck are you?

[Deleted]

They have the power to make you upset, and go crazy. Milo caused a whole lot of damage by exercising his power of making sensitive virtue signalers cause a riot.

And you believe the best defense is not to get upset by sensitive topics?

Did you ever think about the question if propagandists exactly want you to stop reacting? That they want to blunt people emotionally?

Every single lie of Donald Trump should make people upset. Every crossing the line should make people upset. It is exactly the wrong reaction not to be upset anymore.

[Zecora]

I am on the left... but being there with people like you is, I imagine, how it feels like for normal Republicans to be lumped in with the alt-right.

Still incapable of discussing the issue instead of your (wrongful) impression of me I see. Well, it says more about you than about me.

As for you being on the left, you could have fooled me. Unless you are referring to the US idea of what "the left" is, which is wildly inaccurate everywhere but in the US.

As for the other stuff you said, ideally, that is what the Western society would be, as based on historical writings of various Western thinkers, but thanks to the fringe on both sides, we do not live in the ideal. As for me, I will be fighting both the left and right for the ideal of the Age of Enlightenment.

Once again, your opinion is not fact, and your ideal is not universal.

[Powerogue]

Laughable, really. I thought western countries would have gotten rid of blasphemy laws but I guess I was wrong.

Are you kidding? We still have laws in a good chunk of the states here that forbid atheists from public office.

The difference of course is those are unenforceable, whereas this was actually used on someone. That's the part I'm worried about.

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?

The difference is this was his book. He bought it with his own money. I don't care if he cut a hole in it and masturbated with it at that point.

No speech can be above ridicule in any society that calls itself free.

[zorkuus]

As for you being on the left, you could have fooled me. Unless you are referring to the US idea of what "the left" is, which is wildly inaccurate everywhere but in the US.

I'm pretty sure an overbloated nanny state with blashphemy laws is not anyone's idea of the left, unless you're talking about extreme left.