• @rab@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    322 years ago

    One has a right to burn any book they own.

    If that offends you, perhaps it’s not the country for you

    • @bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      102 years ago

      That’s an easy take.

      Let’s play with the idea. It’s legal to burn photographs.

      Now imagine if your child died in a horrible way. Someone then comes up to you and burns a photograph of your child in front of you. It’s perfectly legal, but you’d probably be less cool about it. But hey, perhaps this isn’t a country for you? No, it’s obviously a shitty thing to do because it’s a deliberate action to trigger to you. (Shit like that has actually happened.)

      The book burning idiots could go buy as many Korans as they like and have a mighty bonfire in their backyard and no one would bat an eye, but that’s not what they do. They go in front of the embassies of the countries that they want to provoke, call the press for coverage and post it everywhere so people can see how brave and free they are, hiding in the safety of free speech.

      If they actually have anything to say to the religious leaders, they should go fucking say it to them. They don’t. Because they know there’d be very real consequences if they did it in Iran. They aren’t brave enough to do that.

      I don’t give a shit about the importance of religion or bonfires, but I am pissed that these idiots are abusing the freedom of speech to spread hatred. They don’t want to burn books because they like fire. They do these “protests” because they’re racist assholes who want Muslims to feel unwelcome.

      With freedom comes a responsibility. They aren’t being responsible with it.

      • @CanofBeanz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        If someone destroys MY photograph that’s destruction of property. If I burn a book not YOUR book that’s no different than burning newspaper.

      • @chatokun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        Burning books like this requires enough targeted hatred and a need to offend the targets. It also is usually more effective if your target is a minority (not specifically racial, just a much weaker target), as that bolsters your position of power and lessens the likelihood of retaliation.

        Atheists sometimes have that much hatred, but at least where I am Christianity isn’t small enough to be a minority, so the fear of backlash might be holding back some of the hatred type atheists.

        Another reason may depend on why someone became an atheists. Many of us don’t hate religious people directly, we just have issues with what organized religion gets away with. People like me came to this conclusion by comparing scientific evidence to blind faith. By nature, faith will be more emotional and reactionary, whereas if you come to a position after learning and changing yourself, you’re more open to understanding why it’s not really a good idea to hate like that.

        Though I’d call myself agnostic vs an atheist.

        • @masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Burning books like this requires enough targeted hatred and a need to offend the targets.

          In other words… white supremacists can’t mainstream their ideology by burning Bibles.

    • @JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      Look, I am not pro russia or anything but like, how? The phenomena of people with ortodox muslim beleifs being really, really offended desecration of Quran isn’t exacly new. How would Russia play into this?

      • @snaggen@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        82 years ago

        The guy arranging the burning of the Quran this spring, have been working for RT and have a Russian wife. The play here is to agitate Turkey to make the NATO process more difficult

          • theodewere
            link
            fedilink
            6
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            it’s a really cheap way for Russia to try to destabilize surrounding countries, where there are efforts to get rid of Russia’s influence by joining NATO and so on… there is no religious or intellectual debate going on… it’s just someone trying to start a fight… luckily the Swedes are far too intelligent to fall for it…

  • @OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    162 years ago

    All these countries criticising Sweden for this like they have no understanding how freedom of speech and the right to protest work.

  • Peetabix
    link
    fedilink
    142 years ago

    When they set fire to the Swedish embassy in Baghdad (unsure if it was) as retaliation, what are the chances that there was a copy of the Qur’an in that building?

  • @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I’m always disturbed when Muslims actually are baited by this. They know the guys that set it up this way are not their friends, right?

    • @milo128@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      fyi this summary is nonsense and gets multiple things wrong. great example of ai getting confused.

      • Rikudou_Sage
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        FYI, it cannot get anything wrong, it takes sentences directly from the article. Sure, it might not be a good summary (I haven’t checked), but it definitely doesn’t contain any falsehoods (unless the article does as well).

        • @milo128@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          specifically, the context for the 5th paragraph is replaced, making it seem like it’s talking about the social democrats when in reality it is talking about the sweden democrats. Your logic is flawed, falsehoods can be and are introduced despite each sentence being taken straight from the article.

      • @BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        232 years ago

        Burning a piece of paper that you rightfully own is not “attacking a religious group” and should never be construed as such. Objects are not people.

        Any sort of law that prevents you from doing something just because a specific religion doesn’t want you to do it is inherently forcing their religion upon you. That should never be allowed.

        • @vd1n@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          11
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Yeah but usually it’s just a dumb “eDgEy” thing to do. It’s the same as maga psychos burning books. Fuck all that shit.

          • @BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            72 years ago

            If someone wants to buy a book and then burn it I simply do not care what their reasoning is, It’s their book they can do whatever they damn well please with it as long as they aren’t literally using it to hit someone.

            I see a reason to ban burning ALL books in public, because it’s a safety hazard, but banning the burning of one book because they don’t want you to is a very slippery slope to enforcing other rules the religion wants. Two men(or women) kissing offends some Christians, should that action also be banned? FUCK that.

          • @Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

            I mean, when the maga types burn books, I roll my eyes and chuckle that they still paid the author for a copy. I remember video one maga book burning where a gay(?) man throw a bible in and drove off when the chuds realized what had happened.

            Let them burn books. You can’t destroy ideas that way in the 21st century.

        • theodewere
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          until you get cancer… then cancer is cancer… and then most people get religion…

            • theodewere
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              thanks for that info… i’m gonna write that down for myself so i don’t forget…

            • interolivary
              link
              fedilink
              62 years ago

              If I could have chosen, I would rather have gotten religion than tumors. Usually slightly less radiation and surgery involved in religion, at least in the boring mainstream ones

              • TokenBoomer
                link
                fedilink
                52 years ago

                The secondary complications like oppression of women and death of thousands is way worse than a cell tumor.

                • interolivary
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 years ago

                  Heh, true. Plus it’s not like you can just surgically remove religion

  • interolivary
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 years ago

    Reich-wingers saying that Islam is an "anti-democratic, violent and misogynistic religion/ideology” is just hilariously hypocritical. Not that I necessarily disagree 100%, but it’s not like SD’s values are really too different from your average islamist’s.