• Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because they are using it to incite violence and hate. I’m big on the fuck all religions bandwagon but burning a religious text in front of said religious group is just being a dick.

    We tell people they can’t do stuff with their property all the time, if it’s affecting their surroundings negatively as is clearly the case.

    It’s also always the same book that gets burned, there’s clearly a heavy undercurrent of xenophobia. You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.

    • BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why can’t religious people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums over everything they don’t like?

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I partly agree but this is about personal responsibility. If someone is trying to provoke you, your reaction is entirely your decision. Someone burning your holy book didn’t “make” you retaliate. You made this decision yourself and should own the consequences.

          It reminds me of the rationale for requiring women in some countries to cover their faces, lest the sight of an uncovered female face “makes” the men rape the woman.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why can’t free speech absolutists just grow up instead of throwing irate tamper tantrums on forums over being asked to show a modicum of respect to other people?

        • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m by no means a free speech absolutist, but I have to side with them on this one.

          I will show a modicum of respect the day they show they’re taking ANY measure to actually try and stop violence, and stop sending and carrying out threats. And I believe it’s of utmost importance that we don’t change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            they

            Who? Be precise, please. The kind of Muslims who react to the burnings by announcing that they’re going to gift free Qurans? Those kinds of muslims?

            And I believe it’s of utmost importance that we don’t change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.

            Over here we do have laws against revilement of religion – not blasphemy, not disagreeing, but revilement. They were introduced after the 30 year war to make sure both Catholics and Lutherans would cool it down.

            You don’t make people less irate by stoking the flames. Stop believing in such nonsense. What you have to do is take away the fuel.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            “modicum of respect” such as not spitting someone in the face. As such actually more in the sense of “don’t egregiously insult”.

      • generalpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why can’t trans people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?

        Why can’t women just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?

        Why can’t jews/muslims/insert group of your choice grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?

        See how fucking stupid you sound?

        Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it. Period.

        • BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          What are you on about? Religion is a mental illness forced on children through abuse. No one is born with it. It’s not a choice. Why should these violent maniacs dictate policy for normal people?

        • zovits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Please name some instances when a trans person or woman has thrown a violent tantrum and ended up killing more than ten people. These issues are far from being equal or even comparable.

          • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not mentioning something that was done in a certain school by a trans person because they didn’t like what they said about them

            • zovits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you feel your comment did not adequately convey your intentions, you can always clarify the intended meaning.

              • generalpotato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It did and it was the last few lines of my comment.

                “Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it.”

                The rest of the responses to my comment have been a combination of bad faith arguments and deflections, which is why it’s not worth responding especially when people have their minds made up.

                If a group of people aren’t going to stop harassing another set of people just because they belong to a certain religion, it’s incumbent on a government to step in and pass legislation that prevents/discourages it. I’m not sure why this is confusing to literally any sane minded individual.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.

      Can you expand on this assumption for me?

      Yes, burning a Koran in front of Muslims is a dick move but it shouldn’t be against the law in a secular Western country.

      • Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There would be a justified outcry if a Torah was burned in front of a synagogue. The instigators would quickly be villefied and called Nazis. At the minimum, no one would be actively defending it.

        It shouldn’t have to be against the law, but people are abusing to the point of starting riots. It’s disturbing the peace. I lump this in with following people and screaming racial slurs constantly at the top of your lungs. Freedom of speech only goes so far, I’m okay with banning clear hate speech and similar actions.

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It makes no difference to me if someone is burning a Torah, Koran, Bible, or any other religious text, as long as it’s their property they can do whatever they want with it.

          I think we’re placing too much emphasis on the person being provocative and acting like a dick and not nearly enough on the people who resort to violence over these provocations.

          • Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            What about burning crosses on someone’s lawn, or flying Nazi flags? Lmao, they could just not burn the damn book. Usually, people being dicks don’t have a army of people coming to their defence.

            Obviously you don’t care, you aren’t the one being personally attacked so you can just overlook it. But if this happened in a vaccum, you wouldn’t be defending the Nazi burning a Torah infront of a synagogue yet here we are.

            Look, I hate the policies in the middle east as well, but I’m able to differentiate between individuals and governments. This is Muslim hate and nothing else.

              • Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No one is upset about people burning a Koran in their backyard firepit. The example is very similar to what is happening.

              • livus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                To build on @Jaded’s analogy,

                What about burning a cross on your own front lawn where your Black neighbours have a clear view of it through their own front windows?

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You should stop trying to misrepresent my position, it doesn’t help you at all.

              If an asshole is trying to get a rise by burning things the worst thing to do is to give them what they want. Where I live we have an old guy who regularly flies the confederate flag. He’s a sick old fuck who only wants attention, or better yet, a chance to shoot someone if they try and take the flag down. What can be done?

              The only solution that makes sense is to ignore the loser and not give him the attention he so badly needs.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Burning an item be it a flag or a book is a quintessential form of free speech. It’s a clear way of expressing discontent towards an idea.

      Controversial speech is the most important kind of free speech. If we only allowed speech we agreed with society wouldn’t advance and grow.

      Ideas like ‘Women should get to vote’ once were controversial and that expression might have been met in an incendiary manner by it’s opponents, none the less that speech was important to protect.

      If you only support free speech for ideals you agree with you don’t support free speech at all.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        But not all speech is protected speech. The same should be true here. Like as an extreme example, should the KKK be allowed to burn a cross outside a black person’s house?

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          On that black man’s lawn? No. On their own? Knock themselves out.

          Like I said if you draw the line at the ends of your own beliefs you don’t believe in free speech. I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk’s) conclusion on that matter.

          Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don’t have merit.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk’s) conclusion on that matter.

            Then I would say you are incredibly incredibly incredibly naive, to the point where I don’t think you’ve actually put any thought into it, or a purposefully and wilfully ignorant of all the very blatant and obvious examples where the opposite has happened. Including the very example I gave of thr KKK, as well as antisemitism in the 20th century leading to nazism and concentration camps. Or how about how we’ve gone from nobody caring about trans people to them having their rights denied across several states. Or how about vaccines going from routine healthcare to a massive hot topic because people pushed it as an agenda.

            Do you actually have faith in the general public? Or is the whole “Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don’t have merit.” Just the canned response you’ve been given to justify this fetishism version of free speech?

            • FireTower@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I never suggested that those changes would be instant. You point out concentration camps, racism, & antisemitism as counterpoints. But they are more widely accepted to be wrong today then they’ve been historically in no small part due to their opponents speaking out against them.

              I’d counter do you faith in yourself to make the right conclusion when presented all the information? Have you never changed your stance? If you have what makes you better than the general public?