I saw this post on Europe@Lemmy.World: https://lemmy.world/post/2387220
I got me in a philosophical mood.
Is it okay to burn a Koran?
On one hand, a Koran, a Bible or anything else “sacred” literature is paper and ink. And burning them is just disposing of said book. Children are taught at young age not to get provocated by provocators. Adults should be able to live with this principle.
On the other hand, burning is not the main reason people get upset when sacred literature is burnt. The whole burning ordeal is (usually) a symbol for hate. Hate should not be tolerated, and therefore it is wrong to burn a sacred books. It is imporant to make hateful actions illegal to prevent hate from spreading. If hate is allowed, then we are possibly facing hate crimes and violent actions towards minorities.
Burning a sacred book is not always about hate. It can also be a symbolical protest. In sweden, a few weeks ago, Iraqi man burned a Koran. According to news I read at the time of said event, the man justified his actions as a protest against Iraqi government. He was kept prisoner in his homecountry and tortured during his imprisonment.
Iraq is a theocracy. Amputations and even death sentence are used as forms of punishment. People are not equal and theistic law is above other laws. The country does not follow UN’s declaration of human rights. These human rights are recognized all over the globe and should be held as standards for all.
If someone burns a sacred book to protest torture, amputations or death sentences, I think it is not morally wrong, but quite the contrary. Burning a book is a victimless crime. Forementioned actions of Iraqi government however are not.
Thoughts from an European atheist.
Im interested to hear your thoughts on this matter and hoping to understand this question from different perspectives.
Hate should not be tolerated, and therefore it is wrong to burn a sacred books.
Wrong. Paradox of tolerance. Hating the hateful is completely justified
This is resolved when you realise that the tolerance is part of an unspoken social contract.
“I will be tolerant of things you do that don’t really effect me. In turn, you will show both me and others the same courtesy.”
Those who break this agreement, also lose their right to be covered by it.
It gets more complex when applied to groups. At what point do the actions of a small sub-group of individuals begin to represent the view of the larger group?
In the OP’s case, it’s a grey area. The Koran is being used as a tool of intolerance by Muslims. On those grounds it’s reasonable. Unfortunately, it’s actually a smaller subgroup spreading the intolerance. The larger group are not involved. The question is, does the subgroup sufficiently represent the views of the larger group, and so revoke it’s protection, or not?
My personal view is that it does not. The subgroup’s goal is to shatter the tolerance agreement between the larger group and us. This would force the larger group away from inclusiveness, and so more into alignment with the radicals. Reciprocating the break from our side only reinforces this.
I’m not saying we do nothing. However, ultimately, it is down to the Muslim community to put it’s house in order. The how of that, is, unfortunately, the big challenge.
However, ultimately, it is down to the Muslim community to put it’s house in order. The how of that, is, unfortunately, the big challenge.
Not to mention, in countries where religion (definitely not just Islam, or abrahamic or monotheistic religions) plays a significant role, populist and/or hardline governments often leverage extremist religious elements - in either official or unofficial capacities - to help maintain power and influence. E.g.: India, Italy, the US.
Yep, and no greater source of hate than the religious texts of these death cults.
“The Bible’s blind, the Torah’s deaf, the Qu’ran is mute If you burned them all together you’d get close to the truth”
-Bright Eyes
The intolerant can’t be tolerated by a free society suggests Popper. Very true but that’s still a long ways from hate.
Paradox of tolerance! Interesting! Thank you for your input.
The applicable term is not “paradox”, it’s “hypocrisy”…
The paradox is that, if you are tolerant of everything, then you are tolerant of intolerance. However, if you are never willing to stand up to intolerance, then you are intolerant by proxy.
The resolution is recognising it as a social contract. When a party breaks that contract, they can’t then hide behind it too.
“if you are never willing to stand up to intolerance, then you are intolerant by proxy.”
This is an assumption of the individuals beliefs and opinions… you’re attributing the “intolerance” to them simply because they don’t support you in your intolerance of the intolerance you don’t tolerate.
They aren’t hating on what you hate, so you declare them to be what you hate, simply because they won’t hate what you hate.
It’s not a paradox in actuality, it’s a paradox because of your assumption.
It’s unkind, and disrespectful. It would be awesome if we had a society which mandated a basic level of respect. But, would that be a society of free speech?
People should be free to burn religious texts, though perhaps deliberate provocation to cause violence should fall under already-existing laws against causing a disturbance or riot.
My final thought… any community which feels they have to resort to threats, violence and murder because they felt offended, imo only reveals how stunted, insecure and stupid they are.
It would be awesome if we had a society which mandated a basic level of respect.
Not sure what that would mean in this case. Because abrahamic scripture contains passages which would be prohibited under this rule.
I would be upset if someone burned a Bible but it would ultimately be on them for whatever consequences God has in mind. I wouldn’t dream of retaliating over something so dumb
Not sure why someone downvoted you for that, seems like a perfectly sensible, logical position to take.
I think it’s okay to burn any commercially mass produced book that you own, as this is effectively a form of speech.
Destroying a rare historical artifact seems unethical, regardless of its contents.
I think the Koran is supposed to be disposed of by being burnt. I know there was one religious book that burning and burying was the approved method of disposal.
Other than a copy that is historically significant in some way, burn that shit up.
It’s just garbage anyway, no matter what flavor of “sacred” it claims to be.
Pretty much depends in the intent. Protesting oppression in Islamic countries, for example. Also a good reason to burn hijabs.
Is it necessary to burn any text?
Let’s say, you want to simply show your hate. Is it healthy?
Or, you want to fight against the hateful things preached in a text. Does a text, or philosophy get animated by itself? Can they really harm without the help of their followers? They can’t. Some must adhere to them. Burning won’t help. Ideas are not only bulletproof but burning proof too. If anything does, that is education.
Or, do you want to hurt the followers? Is hurting fine? Does every follower deserve the hurt you’re inflicting on them?
Or, do you want to people not follow that text? Well, hate never turned anyone toward one’s cause.
The use case which makes sense to me is desensitization.
These book burnings exist, because some people of a group demand other people, who are not from their group, to follow the rules of that group. One such rule is to not burn that book.
I think this demand is unjustified. I’m afraid obeying it confirms their position. One way to show the opposite is to break their rules, which do not apply to you, without doing harm to anyone.
Have you observed if this method of desensitization actually works or not?
I practically live among them. The only thing ever worked is education. Punching a person repeatedly doesn’t make him punch-resistant. Building fortitude is where we should focus our limited time and energy.
Have you observed if this method of desensitization actually works or not?
Very good question. Not in this specific context, and not in transition. However I do notice that people tend to be more outspoken about their perceived rights if they feel this perception is supported by others.
The only thing ever worked is education. Punching a person repeatedly doesn’t make him punch-resistant.
You might be right.
I want to point out that burning a “sacred” book (in this context) is not punching anybody. A punch is something physical, impossible to ignore. You cannot choose not to be punched when someone punches you.
But becoming upset about a burnt book is a choice. There are many ways to process that information, many ways to react to it internally and externally.
But yeah, the ability to reflect and possibly reframe probably does require some level of education.
Define “okay”. I think you are correct in saying that it’s not morally wrong to do so, but it’s certainly understandable why it is offensive to some people.
I agree with you, context for the act is important as is the nature of who is doing the act. In this specific context an Iraqi man burning his holy book as a sign of protest against a corrupt theocracy is perfectly acceptable. However if a white christen who is not from that region were to burn another religion’s sacred text for example, then this could easily be considered a hate crime as they have no ties to that faith and would, rightly so be seen as an act of hate.
Sorry if I rambled a bit.
There’s nothing wrong with burning a book that you own as long as you’re not creating a hazard (i.e. risk of spreading the fire, direct physical harm resulting from fire/ combustion products) by doing so. The contents don’t matter and the over-the-top histrionics of people who oppose you burning your property only underline the absurdity of their position.
It can expose you and bystanders to risks from people who would use force to impose their values on people who disagree with them. That’s not your responsibility but it’s prudent to pay attention to your surroundings and have a plan in case peaceful austere religious scholars show up to try and give you the Charlie Hebdo treatment.
I’m pretty sure you’d see a reduction in terrorism if all Korans and knowledge of them disappeared in one go. So burn them.
Even if for arguments sake we ignore the bigotry of this comment. Would we actually have a reduction in terrorism? Or would the people intent on causing terror do so under a different principle?
Islam is pretty heaviliy linked to terrorism. Mohammed was literally a warlord who ordered killings. Alluh Ackbar has become a by word for “terrorist attack”. 9/11 was Islamic, and so was the biggeat mass shooting in America, (Pulse Nightclub)
Is it bigotry when it’s backed by official governmental sources? Don’t answer this, as I’m sure you want to, it’s rethorical.
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/we-need-fight-islamist-terrorism-together- _en
Funny that your first retort is ad hominem. And your second is baseless.
I guess I should be sorry for prioritising people’s lives over a religion? That’s your take so far.
Did you even read the article you linked me?
But we must avoid to identify this terrorism with Islam. It would be as incorrect as to identify the terrorism of E.T.A, fortunately defeated in Spain, with the whole Basque people as “Basque terrorism”. Quite on the contrary, this terrorism only refers to the extremism of few people, seeking false justifications for their folly in one of the great religions of the world.
So your take is that since not all terrorists are islamic, it’s bigotry to be against islamic terrorism? Do you even hear yourself?
Being against islamic terrorism is not opposed to being against all terrorism, it’s an overlap. The fact that I mentioned islamic terrorism on a post about islamic terrorism does not make me a bigot. In fact, you bringing that up makes me think you’re projecting hard.
Brah your first comment was about removing one specific holy text and that doing so would single handedly reduce terrorism… You brought up terrorism, you associated the Koran with terrorism, OP never mentioned it once.
I can’t believe you find an article with a juicy headline that fits your narrative, don’t read it yourself and see it’s actually a bait and switch and ends being the opposite of what you’re trying to say, then you downvoted me for quoting part of it back… it’s like I never left Reddit.
The entire post was about whether it should be allowed to burn Korans (among other texts). Sticking to the theme of the post, it only makes sense that removing the cause of this religious jihad would reduce the number of terrorist attacks from those groups.
Doesn’t take a genius, just a well-intentioned argument instead of immediately calling me a bigot. You’re obviously out for blood, go be an asshole elsewhere.
