- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
Not something anyone should be killed or threatened for, but it’s still being an asshole on purpose.
Sure, but surely there’s a point where the government will prosecute hate crimes, or potentially refuse to protect you from the consequences.
What’s not okay: To expect others to submit to rules of your worldview. Especially if others do not share this view or agree to the rule.
You have the right to believe whatever you like, but don’t expect me to follow. Because I have the same right.
This applies to acts which do not harm anybody or anything, like destroying a copy of a book which you own, without eradicating the book from existence or taking it from others.
Otherwise, we play the victim game. I can do that too! Look, I’m an atheist. This is a very serious thing for me. I feel appalled by the idea that more than 200 years after the enlightenment (just to name one of many reasons), people still believe and share religious ideas. The abrahamic scriptures are riddled with hate speech and endorsements of violence. To call these text collections ‘holy’ is an insult to everything I hold dear, like science and human rights. I’m offended by their mere existence, and perceive public displays as a personal offense to my worldview. I demand everybody in every country to respect my feelings and stop these atrocious acts.
Of course the sane alternative would be to thicken my skin, learn to deal with my emotions (which means I deal with them, not externalizing), respect differences as long as they do no harm.
These book burnings only exist because people make an unjustified fuzz about it, occasionally in a violent way. You can have your religion with all it’s rules, but you cannot expect people to apply who don’t subscribe.
Yeah book burnings are totally an affirmation of free and open discussion and in no way reflects a deeply seated intolerance. Countries with regular book burnings are bastions of freedom.
There’s a huge difference between a “book burning” and “burning a single book”
I don’t think that they were advocating book burnings rather than trying to point out that the burnings are an act of provocation to which the best and most mature reaction would be ignoring them.
I don’t think that’s true, at least for book burnings more generally. Ignoring such acts lends them power, and implies that it is acceptable, and leaves open the possibility of further burnings. To burn a book is a profoundly anti-intellectual action, regardless of one’s set of justifications, and regardless of the content of what one is burning. To allow such acts to continue unchallenged is to allow a festering wound to poison the bloodstream of a society.
Ignoring such acts lends them power, and implies that it is acceptable, and leaves open the possibility of further burnings.
This is exactly my worry, just applied to “setting religious rules for people outside your religion”.
To burn a book is a profoundly anti-intellectual action, regardless of one’s set of justifications, and regardless of the content of what one is burning.
There exist many ways to burn a book with very different implications. Let’s look at three of them:
- Nazi style: The attempt of intellectual genocide. The goal is to eradicate certain book(s) from existence, at least locally. In that logic, it ‘makes sense’ to steal these books from others, so that no private copy survives. Similarly, since you actually want to remove ideas from existence, it can ‘make sense’ to also kill people who hold ideas, because people, like books, serve as a storage medium for these ideas.
- Protest: A provocative show to resist the threat to your own human rights. The goal is to demonstrate “your rights end where mine begin”. In that logic, it is necessary to respect property, rights and life of others. So you only burn what you own, and have neither intent nor make attempt to remove all copies of that book from existence. In some cases, people even create their own copies merely for destroying them (which still causes outrage). The goal is not to alter the amount of available copies.
- Garbage: A task so mundane few would even think about it. We regularly destroy books without batting an eye, because someone threw them in the trash, because no one bought them, or other economic or practical reasons. In this case, they are removed not because someone cares about them, but because no one cares about them.
Wether the removal of the book is what you describe, depends entirely on intention and implementation. You are right for one specific case, and it is good to be aware of it and defend against it, to not repeat these dark chapters of history. However, all other cases have different characteristics and do not deserve the same conclusion.
There is a common ground between #1 and #2. A profoundly anti-intellectual attitude; dogma. Nazi-style book burnings are meant to force a view on others, if ‘necessary’ by brutal physical force. Some reactions to Quran burnings reveal the same mindset. One group feels so superior and entitled that they try to impose their view on others, make them submit to their rules. If necessary, by brutal physical force.
Funny, because there are over a billion Muslim people who don’t try to force their beliefs on others.
So if we can do things based on the actions of a few extremists, then given that definitively Christianity is the most violent religion in known history, both contemporary and historically, where are the Bible burnings? If they’re being consistent, singling out Islam wouldn’t be a thing. I
Or we can recognize that this is an inherently reactionary “protest” that does nothing but antagonize people who otherwise would have likely no problem with you. It’s New Atheism to the max. Thinking that one is so enlightened that being disrespectful to other groups is not only acceptable, but necessary. You catch more flies with honey than burning books.
Funny, because there are over a billion Muslim people who don’t try to force their beliefs on others.
Yes. With about 2 billion overall, it’s probably more. If I generalized I apologize for that, I didn’t mean to. Though I don’t think I have?
So if we can do things based on the actions of a few extremists, then given that definitively Christianity is the most violent religion in known history, both contemporary and historically, where are the Bible burnings?
If burning Bibles would cause violent outbursts up to burning buildings and killing people, the same logic would apply. But since there is no such reaction (as far as I know), there is no need for that provocation. People will frown and condemn and move on.
antagonize people who otherwise would have likely no problem with you.
I don’t trust a peace which only holds as long as you live by the arbitrary rules of another religion. But I understand this is subjective, and accept your opinion. We don’t need to agree.
I think the difference is if it’s the State burning the books because they are “dangerous” and the State doesn’t want you to read it then that speaks of fascism. If it is citizens/civilians burning a book, that they own, because of some personal desire to express themselves then it’s their expression.
Maybe they are expressiomlns of hate, but a citizen expressing that is different than the State expressing that. One has more power over the other.
The Nazi book burnings were conducted by the German Student Union primarily, not the state. Just as it is in Florida, and just as it is here in this instance, book burnings are primarily perpetrated by ideologues, not the state.
Thanks for the correction.
No worries. Together we are stronger! 💪
You never see edgelord atheists burning Bibles to trigger Christians - and the reason they don’t is because they know they won’t get away with it. But since Muslims have been designated as an “acceptable” target in the west, this shit is allowed - and the right-wingers know they can push people into accepting their agenda like this.
Everyone can burn a bible if they want
So do it, then. Burn a bible. Make sure you do it in the open, too.
Just a week or two ago there was an article where another protester was planned to burn Bible in front of Israeli embassy to show a point.
There was a response from a Rabbi saying that he doesn’t approve it, that he also similarly doesn’t approve burning Koran, it serves no other purpose that to generate hate, but freedom of expression is also sacred and he won’t go against it.
You never see edgelord atheists burning Bibles to trigger Christians - and the reason they don’t is because they know they won’t get away with it.
Rather because we know we get away with it. Because most Christians don’t feel so entitled to expect others to live by their rules, and threaten them with death when they don’t.
These provocations make sense as long as the other side takes offense for so little, in such a violent way. It’s this encroaching and inacceptable attitude which makes resistance a necessity.
The article sheds no light on what the actual motives of these particular protesters are.
and threaten them with death when they don’t.
You mean… except for that entire colonialism thing, huh?
These provocations make sense as long as the other side takes offense for so little
Go burn Bibles in public, then… we’ll see how long it takes the christo-fascists to show up at your door. Somehow, I don’t think you will.
The article sheds no light on what the actual motives of these particular protesters are.
Don’t have to… it’s very easy to tell what they are. And it seems plenty of people are willing to run interference for these nazis - as long as they can be aimed at Muslims, of course.
that entire colonialism thing
Not entirely sure what you meant with this short remark. I oppose colonialism for the same reason I oppose people who impose their belief on others. Because I support each and everyone’s human rights.
Go burn Bibles in public, then… we’ll see how long it takes the christo-fascists to show up at your door. Somehow, I don’t think you will.
Can you point me to any incident in the past where burnt bibles lead to angry mobs, setting buildings on fire or killing people? I’m not aware this exists. If that was a thing, I would fully support burning bibles, although I’m personally not.
willing to run interference for these nazis - as long as they can be aimed at Muslims
I understand your concern but I’m not in that camp, on the contrary. There are more sides to this story. There is a significant overlap between the reasons for me being antifascist and the reasons for opposing imposing beliefs.
You could be right in this case, we don’t know.
Because most Christians don’t feel so entitled to expect others to live by their rules, and threaten them with death when they don’t.
Ok come on, my friend. I know a bible burning won’t get you the death penalty, but many many many people have been killed and imprisoned for not living to Christian values, especially in the United States. It’s “just a few crazies” or whatever, but it really isn’t since these actions happen in an environment of indirect public support.
many many many people have been killed and imprisoned for not living to Christian values, especially in the United States.
As an outsider, I may not be aware of what you mean.
If you’re hinting at colonization: Yes, definitely. But that is no longer practiced, or is it?
If you had recent or current events in mind: I’m not aware of those, please explain.
I see, I’m gonna make a low-ish effort post, but I’m happy to discuss further if you’d like:
- Colonization still happens, but I think it matters that it happened in the past too. I would say that one of the most prominent recent examples would be the American invasion of Iraq. There are many political and economic aspects to the invasion, but one cultural angle is that it was widely supported by religious conservatives due to their opposition to Islam. American leadership was ghoulish in their own way, and to incompetent to actually colonize the country, but many of the literal footsoldiers joined the military to “get back at them for what they did to us”, although as we know, none of the 9-11 terrorists were Iraqi.
- Another example that springs to mind is the ongoing homophobic and transphobic hate crimes. One specific example would be the Pulse nightclub mass shooting. I would suggest that most American Christians don’t support death for being gay, just the same as most American/Western Muslims don’t support death for burning the Quran, but in other countries where religion overlaps more with politics, both of these can be considered serious criminial offenses.
I only mean to suggest that both religions have a bit of bloodthirst in them, which doesn’t apply to everyone, but is certainly comparable. We can go deeper into the details, I just felt like you were giving Christians a bit of a pass that they don’t deserve.
That helps to understand where you are coming from, thanks for the explanation. While I see differences, I also see the similarities.
I only mean to suggest that both religions have a bit of bloodthirst in them, which doesn’t apply to everyone, but is certainly comparable. We can go deeper into the details, I just felt like you were giving Christians a bit of a pass that they don’t deserve.
Oh, definitely. Sorry if I gave the impression to have any good opinion about Christianity. I despise it wholeheartedly.
I only, and specifically, meant that the trouble you get for burning scripture is very different in Islam and Christianity. The latter probably has more blood on it’s hands overall, but that’s a different topic from my point of view. Also the overwhelming majority of both religions are decent, peaceful people.
They can believe what they want and live by their rules if they want. Just as others can disbelieve what they want and disrespect religious rules if they want. These rules have no power outside of their own bubble. It should be opt-in. At least it should be opt-out. But they must be optional.
the reason they don’t is because they know they won’t get away with it
What do you mean by “won’t get away with it”? Also the article doesn’t mention anything about atheism, only ‘anti-Muslim’, which are obviously two very different things. I’m fairly certain the reason why you see less Bible burnings than Quran burnings in the west is because the west is predominantly Christian, so of course there would be less burning of the Bible, not because of the notion of some atheists of ‘getting away with it’.
so of course there would be less burning of the Bible,
There is absolutely no particular reason you should see Quran burnings in the west, either… that is, unless it’s the same old west demonizing the same old “other.”
not because of the notion of some atheists of ‘getting away with it’.
No, it’s a valid question - if this is (supposedly) about “freedom of speech” (which the Quran burners always pretend it’s all about), why don’t you see these vitriolic right-wing atheists (for which dipshits like Bill Maher is a spokesperson) test “freedom of speech” by burning Bibles? I mean… this is about “freedom of speech,” isn’t it?
I can take a dump on the bible and burn it in front of the vatican and there is a good chance that nothing bad will happen to me.
Removed by mod
Another political ruse in order to seed rage and division just like the last in SWE
I would not want to be working in the Danish embassy in Iraq right now…
Lol - bet that was a close call!
If they would have done that in a Muslim country they would be dead… They are crazy
This is why it needs to be done - each day until the violence stops. Its disrespectful sure, but to see all the Arabic nations raise up over a burned book just shows it’s all about local control. Nobody cares about their brothers being slaughtered in Israel, but burn a book and they’re all in the streets. Making noise that nobody ever hears. I’m places few visit. It’s a circus and their rulers are surfing on that.
Is that a good thing?
