Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Zecora]

Your answer is a hypothetical scenario. It is insufficient, how can you not see that? Atleast I gave facts. But you can't respect that because it isn't what you wanted to hear, it was inconvinient to your argument.

Every scenario is hypothetical, if it is not, then it is merely a recounting of an event that has already happened. What you find "insufficient" and not is no interest and no concern of mine. Come back when you have actual arguments to present, until then I don't consider you worth my time.

[Yuujin]

Evidence is third world countries with blashphemy laws. The majority religion becomes the bully, and as it happens religious violence is very common in those countries.

So given the example, Denmark I believe, what's their majority religion?

[zorkuus]

Every scenario is hypothetical, if it is not, then it is merely a recounting of an event that has already happened. What you find "insufficient" and not is no interest and no concern of mine. Come back when you have actual arguments to present, until then I don't consider you worth my time.

I gave facts, you gave a hypothetical scenario. You don't have a leg to stand here.

So given the example, Denmark I believe, what's their majority religion?

Not very relevant. The law has not been enforced for decades there.

[Yuujin]

Not very relevant. The law has not been enforced for decades there.

Are we playing the game of discarding evidence that doesn't support your conclusion? I'm not one for cherry picking data, but given that this is the article that started the whole conversation to begin with...

Christianity is the predominant religion of Denmark, with three quarters of the Danish population estimated as adherents of the "Folkekirken" ("People's Church"), Denmark's national Lutheran church. Denmark is 3% Muslim. It is possible that number may be higher now, but given that their national church is a Christian one, I think we can safely say that the argument of the majority bullying the minority is not always applicable.

[zorkuus]

Are we playing the game of discarding evidence that doesn't support your conclusion? I'm not one for cherry picking data, but given that this is the article that started the whole conversation to begin with...

Christianity is the predominant religion of Denmark, with three quarters of the Danish population estimated as adherents of the "Folkekirken" ("People's Church"), Denmark's national Lutheran church. Denmark is 3% Muslim.

I haven't disregarded anything. Nowhere did I say christianity isn't the majority religion in Denmark. You're attempting to construct a strawman.

It is irrelevant because a country that does not enforce a law is more or less the same as a country that does not have that law to begin with. But back when they did enforce it, the majority religion was infact the bully. I brought up third world countries because they do enforce it, and 9 out of 10 times it doesn't look so good for the religious minorities.

[May90]

Do you HONESTLY expect me to sort every possible incident into "yes" and "no" categories? Deciding where the limits of the law lies is the work of the legal system, rulings in the courts of law is what sets precedent for what the law covers and what it does not. As in other cases, probable harm is weighed against punishment.

Well, in my opinion, the blasphemy laws go too far. Even more so, they are inconsistent, as one's religion may demand that they act the way that is considered blasphemy in some other religion, so it is unclear which side the law should take - but that's another story.

Like I have repeated again, and again, and again, if there are other laws that covers it, that's just peachy. I am no fan of blasphemy laws for the sake of having blasphemy laws.

Why should there be laws covering it at all?

I think you can base the law on 'intent'. I'm not a fan of mandatory sentencing so someone doing something stupid and getting a reaction they weren't expecting is one thing, but that's not what we're dealing with. The intention behind this act is pretty clear. You're really trying hard and pulling shit out of left field to make your point.

I don't see the intention to express one's dislike of a certain religion as persecution-worthy. Much like me wiping my butt with Mein Kampf shouldn't be classified as an offense, despite it upsetting quite a lot of Neo-Nazis.

[Yuujin]

I haven't disregarded anything. Nowhere did I say christianity isn't the majority religion in Denmark. You're attempting to construct a strawman.

It is irrelevant because a country that does not enforce a law is more or less the same as a country that does not have that law to begin with. But back when they did enforce it, the majority religion was infact the bully. I brought up third world countries because they do enforce it, and 9 out of 10 times it doesn't look so good for the religious minorities.

Oh boy. Do you know what a strawman is? Are you saying you didn't just say this?

Not very relevant. The law has not been enforced for decades there.

It must be hard to keep up if you can't even keep track of what you are saying.

I don't see the intention to express one's dislike of a certain religion as persecution-worthy. Much like me wiping my butt with Mein Kampf shouldn't be classified as an offense, despite it upsetting quite a lot of Neo-Nazis.

Why does every argument dissolve into the Neo-Nazi example? It's not a religion, please stop comparing it to a religion. However, if you wiped your ass with a copy of Mein Kampf and posted it on a Neo-Nazi website to incite violence, you should be held accountable for it.

[zorkuus]

Oh boy. Do you know what a strawman is? Are you saying you didn't just say this?



It must be hard to keep up if you can't even keep track of what you are saying.

i'm waiting for you to explain how that is a strawman. It's going to be comical I imagine.

Why does every argument dissolve into the neo-nazi example. It's not a religion, please stop comparing it to a religion.

What makes religion so special?

[May90]

Why does every argument dissolve into the neo-nazi example. It's not a religion, please stop comparing it to a religion.

Why does a religion deserve a treatment other ideologies do not? Does believing in a sky unicorn somehow gives a Protection Aura to the one whose body encompasses the brain with that belief or something?

At least, if you give special protection to religions, give it to all world views. I will strongly disagree with this law, but, at least, I can't deny that it would be logical.

[kasuke06]

No one has an obligation to have a special degree of respect for religion or someone who is religious.

No one has to respect an asshole for being an asshole, either. You're literally standing up for a man out to start a fight so he can claim his views are justified. It's like starting a fire in your own home because you think your smoke detectors aren't working.

[Yuujin]

i'm waiting for you to explain how that is a strawman. It's going to be comical I imagine.


What makes religion so special?

Don't have to explain anything. I'm not the one throwing around strawman accusations. Again, how do you keep up?

Why does a religion deserve a treatment other ideologies do not? Does believing in a sky unicorn somehow gives a Protection Aura to the one whose body encompasses the brain with that belief or something?

At least, if you give special protection to religions, give it to all world views. I will strongly disagree with this law, but, at least, I can't deny that it would be logical.

I added more to my original post. Sorry, if you read it it should answer your questions.

[zorkuus]

No one has to respect an asshole for being an asshole, either.

Don't respect him then. There's a quite big leap from "I don't respect that" to "criminalize the behavior".

[LuminaL]

What religion? I didn't say people seeing their religion being insulted made them hate it.


This is ridiculous. Most things like that are just lost to the noise of the internet. No-one cares, and there's too much else going on.


This is not a valid comparison. If someone was to throw eggs at their own mirror, then it would be valid. They'd only be hurting themselves. If you throw eggs at me, or my house, you inflict upon me.


We're not talking about what people should or shouldn't do but whether or not the state should intervene when they do so.

so by your point of view because no one is forcing you to watch someone abuse their kid and put a video of it on internet its ok and there shouldnt be a law against it?
just as you like for your children to not be forced to a way of thinking, let say someone may not like their kids to see things like this, to think that its ok.
Im saying this AGAIN, its not just him burning something important to someone, its him being mentally problematic, if he doesnt get proper stop to his actions, he will continue or think well lets go to next level! let say even that specific person doesnt do it, can you tell me that there will be no one else like him? that there is 100% safe to say this will not happen with some other of around 7 bil ppl in the world?! and dont tell me that those 7bil ppl are unrelated because we are all connected now thanks to the media and internet. wether we like it or not or if its good or bad.

This is ridiculous. Most things like that are just lost to the noise of the internet. No-one cares, and there's too much else going on.

it is to you, its not to those (which are not that few as you may think ) crazy ppl. you see that was just one person in a whole city or even country who did that, all we need is one! one other person to be encouraged and ignited to do the same or take it to an other level and do worse.


morally we can just argue days about this and still have different opinions, but psychologically this level of hate is calls for problem, if its about someone elses religion or if its about a life style or anything else and it needs to be addressed wether by law or force or a specialist or what ever you want to. sitting in silence is a crime itself for the community . also good night!

[zorkuus]

so by your point of view because no one is forcing you to watch someone abuse their kid and put a video of it on internet its ok and there shouldnt be a law against it?

I just don't... wait what?

Where's the connection with book burning and causing bodily harm to a child?

it is to you, its not to those (which are not that few as you may think ) crazy ppl. you see that was just one person in a whole city or even country who did that, all we need is one! one other person to be encouraged and ignited to do the same or take it to an other level and do worse.

That is called a slippery slope fallacy.

[May90]

However, if you wiped your ass with a copy of Mein Kampf and posted it on a Neo-Nazi website to incite violence, you should be held accountable for it.

This approach leads to a very isolated and divided society, in which each group lives in their own bubble, protected from having to hear/watch what they see as unacceptable behavior. Not sure about others, but I prefer to live in a society in which a person can take a book that means a lot to me and to burn it in front of me, and I can tell them what I think about their actions - rather than in a society in which the person cannot do that and I never get to understand how deeply he feels about the subject and how I can address that.

But, at least, you apply this not only to religions, but to all similar entities/situations, so you are being logical here, I'll give you that.

[Deleted]

so by your point of view because no one is forcing you to watch someone abuse their kid and put a video of it on internet its ok and there shouldnt be a law against it?

Oh for goodness sake.

The act of abusing children has a direct victim. The child itself. This is not true when you burn a Quran.

But let me ask you directly. Are you actually saying it should be criminal to insult religion?

just as you like for your children to not be forced to a way of thinking, let say someone may not like their kids to see things like this, to think that its ok.

Sorry, I don't agree with purifying the world to be safe for children. By your logic, Game of Thrones should be banned because we don't want children to see it.

Im saying this AGAIN, its not just him burning something important to someone, its him being mentally problematic, if he doesnt get proper stop to his actions, he will continue or think well lets go to next level! let say even that specific person doesnt do it, can you tell me that there will be no one else like him? that there is 100% safe to say this will not happen with some other of around 7 bil ppl in the world?! and dont tell me that those 7bil ppl are unrelated because we are all connected now thanks to the media and internet. wether we like it or not or if its good or bad.

We can't control what people do like that, and the utter scale of control the state would need to have in order to arrest people based on what their behaviour suggests they might do is unreal. It sounds like the kind of society Scientology would want.

morally we can just argue days about this and still have different opinions, but psychologically this level of hate is calls for problem, if its about someone elses religion or if its about a life style or anything else and it needs to be addressed wether by law or force or a specialist or what ever you want to. sitting in silence is a crime itself for the community . also good night!

You're effectively arguing for sectioning people you think are extremists.

[Yuujin]

This approach leads to a very isolated and divided society, in which each group lives in their own bubble, protected from having to hear/watch what they see as unacceptable behavior. Not sure about others, but I prefer to live in a society in which a person can take a book that means a lot to me and to burn it in front of me, and I can tell them what I think about their actions - rather than in a society in which the person cannot do that and I never get to understand how deeply he feels about the subject and how I can address that..

I don't really agree with this. We have civil discourse. You don't have to burn a book to get a point across, you just do that for a reaction. You can challenge ideals without disrespecting them.

[Deleted]

I don't really agree with this. We have civil discourse. You don't have to burn a book to get a point across, you just do that for a reaction. You can challenge ideals without disrespecting them.

In the name of community cohesion, would you be willing to say that all insult and mockery towards religious ideologies should be banned?

[Yuujin]

In the name of community cohesion, would you be willing to say that all insult and mockery towards religious ideologies should be banned?

That's a strange question to ask. That's like asking me if I think people should go around insulting or mocking each other. This just takes it one step forward and ask if I feel like we should insult and mock each other based off our beliefs.

I think people should just not be shit heads.

[May90]

I don't really agree with this. We have civil discourse. You don't have to burn a book to get a point across, you just do that for a reaction. You can challenge ideals without disrespecting them.

I agree that burning a book is a poor way to express one's feelings towards a religion, but I also don't think it is up to the government to moral-police people, to force them to respect all ideas/ideals. I don't have to respect an idea just because it is an idea, I should have a full right to dismiss an idea as preposterous and, if I feel that its propagation threatens my values, I should be free to express my disdain of it by extravagant means. Getting a reaction, an attention is a legitimate reason to take a certain action, as long as it doesn't harm anyone directly.