Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Forogil]

You can do so when it's tactful. Don't be an angstheist.

So, are religious people also forbidden to proselyte, and express objections to other religions (or variants of their religion), non-believers etc, unless they do it tactfully?

Or are you just creating arbitrary rules?

[Deleted]

No, I do not suffer. Not even "in a very small way".

That's because you're not interested in doing it. It doesn't remotely compare to an Atheist unable to articulate his or her position without the government threatening them.

Insults, parody and satire should be fine (though I would never resort to that, since it's pathetic) within the limitations of the freedom of speech act. Those limitations can be found if you Google 'Freedom of speech'.

I understand why they're find *in general*, but I want to know why you consider them fine. What's the objective distinction between Muhammed drawn with a bomb as a turban and Quran being burnt?

[Stormdash]

I understand why they're find *in general*, but I want to know why you consider them fine. What's the objective distinction between Muhammed drawn with a bomb as a turban and Quran being burnt?

I know what's the same about them -- neither of them are things a just and civilized society can treat as criminal acts (other than property crime obviously).

[Jewbagel]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Blasphemy laws limit that freedom. They are mutually exclusive.

[Minikin]

By the way, this is somewhat related.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/...id=mailsignout

The judge's words as per the article:

“Whoever can sit here at a tragic moment like this and laugh and smile when somebody has lost a family member ... in the entire time that Mr. Zirker’s sister was speaking, that clown -- and that’s what I am going to call him, a clown -- was sitting there smiling and laughing,” said Lillard.

“And you can go, too,” the judge added, pointing to Kosal’s mother, Donna. “Because if you don’t know how to act, you can go to jail. So leave.”

Decency isnt covered by Law, but people who govern the law (judges and such) are in full capability (rightly so, our entire western system depends on it) of enforcing it. But should someone need policing to be decent? Is it not better to be a decent person without a consequence keeping you in line?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry if I have misunderstood your post here, but are you suggesting that shrugging when someone is offensive isn't an ok response?

No I agree with you (im not being sarcastic) that shrugging is an appropriate response to someone being an idiot. But my point is, just like we are told to stand together against bullies, that watching it happen is us letting it happen. We can do better than simply shrugging. If there was a meter that measured responses between terrible | meh | OK | great | legendary, /shrug would be a tepid OK at best. It introduces a slippery slope.

[Moratori]

So, are religious people also forbidden to proselyte, and express objections to other religions (or variants of their religion), non-believers etc, unless they do it tactfully?

Or are you just creating arbitrary rules?

Only Islam is allowed to engage in proselytism there iirc, other religions can't do it. You can't fuck with other religions either. You can however do so with non-religious people. Is it fair? No, but that's the law there.

I don't make the laws/rules there.

[Forogil]

Only Islam is allowed to engage in proselytism there iirc, other religions can't do it. You can't fuck with other religions either. You can however do so with non-religious people. Is it fair? No, but that's the law there.

I don't make the laws/rules there.

You don't make the laws there - but you are agreeing with their arbitrary restrictions on proselyting:

You can do so when it's tactful. Don't be an angstheist.

[Deleted]

That's because you're not interested in doing it. It doesn't remotely compare to an Atheist unable to articulate his or her position without the government threatening them.


I understand why they're find *in general*, but I want to know why you consider them fine. What's the objective distinction between Muhammed drawn with a bomb as a turban and Quran being burnt?

Who says you're unable to articulate your position? Did you know that Jehovah's Witnesses preach their message in more than a few muslim countries? Among which Indonesia.

Their right to proselytise isn't protected by constitutional laws though. It's a bit like the marijuana trade in The Netherlands; it's illegal yet [generally] tolerated. Now note, that Indonesia is a fairly moderate country, not unlike Turkey - even if their constitution doesn't reflect that. There are countries where such a thing is punishable, even by death. Truly horrible.

As for your second question:

What message does a drawing of muhammed with a bomb in his turban send? What were the consequences of publishing that image?

What message would a drawing of a Jew with big nasal features, clutching onto his money while there's a startving person behind him send?

What message would a drawing of a black man, holding a television while running from the police send?

Do you think this falls under satire/witty japes or plain discrimination, antisemitism and dissemination of racial hatred?

etc.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Blasphemy laws limit that freedom. They are mutually exclusive.

FYI, Freedom of Speech has official boundaries.

Burning books is the exact opposite of Freedom of Speech. Especially if the law about it is clear. You don't go burning books because you disagree of what's inside it.

I agree. Burning books is a form of radical censorship, which is why I said it's ironic to call libricide 'Freedom of Speech'.

[Moratori]

You don't make the laws there - but you are agreeing with their arbitrary restrictions on proselyting:

Try reading my posts instead of just making things up.

[Deleted]

Who says you're unable to articulate your position? Did you know that Jehovah's Witnesses preach their message in more than a few muslim countries? Among which Indonesia.

Some Islamic countries grant exceptions to people of the book and sometimes other religions. Rarely is this courtesy extended to Atheists.

As for your second question:

What message does a drawing of muhammed with a bomb in his turban send? What were the consequences of publishing that image?

What message would a drawing of a Jew with big nasal features, clutching onto his money while there's a startving person behind him send?

What message would a drawing of a black man, holding a television while running from the police send?

Do you think this falls under satire/witty japes or plain discrimination, antisemitism and dissemination of racial hatred?

Okay then. So you do think that drawing Mohammaed with a bomb on his head should be illegal?

I thought you were saying otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Burning books is the exact opposite of Freedom of Speech. Especially if the law about it is clear. You don't go burning books because you disagree of what's inside it.

No it's not. Not if it's your books.

[Deleted]

Some Islamic countries grant exceptions to people of the book and sometimes other religions. Rarely is this courtesy extended to Atheists.

I disagree and I speak out of extensive experience.

Okay then. So you do think that drawing Mohammaed with a bomb on his head should be illegal?

I thought you were saying otherwise.

I never said that

No it's not. Not if it's your books.

Again, we disagree. "Usually carried out in a public context, the burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question."

One of the many practical examples is burning dictionaries because they contained words that offend you. Radical censorship. It's ridiculous and directly opposes freedom of speech.

[Deleted]

I disagree and I speak out of extensive experience.

Except every single page on "Human Rights in (X)" for Islamic countries talks about general free speech restrictions when it comes to speaking negatively about Islam and/or speaking about Atheism/Secularism. Turkey was the great exception, but under Erdogan even they're also slipping.

I never said that

Many posts back, which I'm too lazy to find, you did seem to suggest that.

In any case, banning things like Mohammed with a bomb on his head, a black man running with a television, whatever is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope. You might as well say we should ban any image that depicts a negative and 'offensive' stereotype.

Again, we disagree. "Usually carried out in a public context, the burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question."

One of the many practical examples is burning dictionaries because they contained words that offend you. Radical censorship. It's ridiculous and directly opposes freedom of speech.

If a state body encourages the burning of books, then it has an element of censorship. If a private individual chooses to do so, then that's up to them. They could have several reasons for doing so.

[kushlol]

If you don't charge him then you get angry terrorists looking at denmark for revenge. I'd prefer to charge the idiot then rile up terrorists/radical muslims.

[Deleted]

If you don't charge him then you get angry terrorists looking at denmark for revenge. I'd prefer to charge the idiot then rile up terrorists/radical muslims.

You get that if a well known newspaper just prints something mean against Islam.

Should we ban all mockery and insult towards Islam too? Just in case.

What else are you willing to throw away?

[kushlol]

You get that if a well known newspaper just prints something mean against Islam.

Should we ban all mockery and insult towards Islam too? Just in case.

What else are you willing to throw away?

There's a very clear difference between printing rude text as opposed to burning a holy book.

[Deleted]

There's a very clear difference between printing rude text as opposed to burning a holy book.

Not to Muslims, and if your reason is to not upset them....

[Deleted]

Except every single page on "Human Rights in (X)" for Islamic countries talks about general free speech restrictions when it comes to speaking negatively about Islam and/or speaking about Atheism/Secularism. Turkey was the great exception, but under Erdogan even they're also slipping.

We already established that those countries do not offer constitutional protection. Even Turkey, before Erdogan. If you had carefully read my previous reply, you wouldn't have had to repeat this.

Many posts back, which I'm too lazy to find, you did seem to suggest that.

No, I didn't say that. What you "think I suggested" has to do with the way you interpreted my alleged remark. Since you're "too lazy to find it", I can not say whether I could've formulated it more eloquently, or you just didn't understand it. I'm not perfect, nor is English my native language so let's just assume, for the sake of fraternity, that I'm at fault.

In any case, banning things like Mohammed with a bomb on his head, a black man running with a television, whatever is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope. You might as well say we should ban any image that depicts a negative and 'offensive' stereotype.

I never said "ban". What I did say is that it's unwise not to discuss the consequences of such behaviour. Thus, the extensive political debates on legislating exceptions to freedom of speech.
Do you think a newspaper should be allowed to depict Jews the way I described in my example? What do you think would happen if the New York Times published such an image? Would you agree or disagree with what you predict would happen? Why?

If a state body encourages the burning of books, then it has an element of censorship. If a private individual chooses to do so, then that's up to them. They could have several reasons for doing so.

Yet it's still a radical form of censorship, especially since he decided to make it public by posting it on Facebook; there's a message to the action.

You see, he didn't coincidentally grab the quran from his library to burn in his hearth because he was freezing.

I'm not purposely contradicting you for the fun of it. My only goal is to raise awareness and insight about matters that can get very complicated once you adopt a radical approach.

[Deleted]

I never said "ban". What I did say is that it's unwise not to discuss the consequences of such behaviour. Thus, the extensive political debates on legislating exceptions to freedom of speech.

Do you think there ought to be exceptions to that kind of material? You won't call it a "ban", but what would you call it?

Do you think a newspaper should be allowed to depict Jews the way I described in my example? What do you think would happen if the New York Times published such an image? Would you agree or disagree with what you predict would happen? Why?

I do, and they'd probably get mass protested and boycotted. I'd agree with protests and boycotts towards it.

Yet it's still a radical form of censorship, especially since he decided to make it public by posting it on Facebook; there's a message to the action.

By the same metric, someone saying to you or me "You shouldn't say that" is a form of censorship. If you're defining censorship so trivially, that is.

There could be several reasons not related to try to warm yourself up related to burning a book. You could do it as a threat to its readers, or as an objection to its content, or both.

[Deleted]

Do you think there ought to be exceptions to that kind of material? You won't call it a "ban", but what would you call it?

I do, and they'd probably get mass protested and boycotted. I'd agree with protests and boycotts towards it.

By the same metric, someone saying to you or me "You shouldn't say that" is a form of censorship. If you're defining censorship so trivially, that is.

There could be several reasons not related to try to warm yourself up related to burning a book. You could do it as a threat to its readers, or as an objection to its content, or both.

I absolutely agree with the excpetions to freedom of speech and the way they are enforced. So does my government, by the way. As I said, Freedom of Speech does not mean you can say whatever the heck you want, without facing the consequences. I agree with that.

You can contrive a thousand different reasons to justify any kind of immoral behaviour.

[Xarkan]

What message does a drawing of muhammed with a bomb in his turban send? What were the consequences of publishing that image?

Financial loss for companies associated with the country in which those pictures were published... Say.. Arla for example.