• gapbetweenus@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    We can not have a modern society where people feel strongly about religion. And there is really no point in appeasement of fundamentalists - they don’t want a compromise they allays want it all.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah, clearly the compromise needs to be burning symbols of a group in public to stir hatred and violence against that group. That is totally the reasonable compromise. Clearly the people wanting the right to burn things in public are not fundamentalist, after all basically everyone burns a Quran, or Torah or Bible for breakfast amirite?

      • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Look at the real-world consequences of mocking Islam, of drawing prophet Muhamed, or burning the Qur’an.

        Compare them with the real-world consequences of mocking any other religion (or atheism), or burning their “sacred” books.

        Are they comparable? Who is then the oppressor, and who is the oppressed?

        • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US conservatives and Hillary Clinton were calling for war against Iran because the people there burnt US flags. Trump then bombed a person invited on a diplomatic talk with the US, which is one of the worst crimes against diplomacy imaginable.

          Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.

          Attacking symbols of groups in hate causes escalations all the time.

    • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree with that statement. However - the world is not a modern society in most places yet and we can´t expect the rest of the world to simply adopt our values because we would like them to. They have to get there by themselves, in a long painful process of social evolution - just as we did. We need to make sure to not allow any of our hard earned freedoms to be taken away, which are under constant attack from multiple sides, not just religious forces but also authoritarians of different political directions, capitalists and so on. At the same time we have to respect other cultures and their individual development. It´s a challenge and sometimes there might have to be compromise but I think not burning books in public is really acceptable and nobody will suffer from not doing it. Full expression of thought is perfectly possible just by speaking, no book burning required for that.

      Imo it also should be considered that western colonialism often had a devastating effect on the social evolution of eastern countries. Just think of the history of Iran for example. Iran was on the way to become a lighthouse of democracy in the region by it´s own development and would now probably have been a democracy for decades if the west would not have intervened and prevented that (Operation Ajax). This caused Iran to become one of the worst theocratic dictatorships instead. That does not make the fundamentalists any better of course but it can also not be ignored in the context of this discussion.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again there is no point in appeasing fundamentalist. They don’t want the finger or the hand, they want the whole state to run by their rules - they are not searching for a compromise. Sure, nobody sane is really in favor for burning books - but what is the point, they won’t be any happier with that and will work on the next thing that is offending their archaic views of the world.

        Full expression of thought is perfectly possible just by speaking, no book burning required for that.

        Where do you draw the line of what is considered acceptable form of expression?

        It’s not that I like, I would say - I even despise people burning books. But in my opinion, everyone has the right to do so - since in the end no direct harm is caused to anyone.

        • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          One important point is imo that publicly burning the Quran as a provocation does not just offend the few fundamentalists but all believing Muslims in the world, also the moderate ones. That they don´t get angry and violent like the fundamentalists does not mean it´s not offensive to them. Because of this I consider not burning the Quran publicly simply as normal and polite behavior towards all Muslims -especially the moderate ones- and not at all as a form of appeasement to fundamentalists.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            but all believing Muslims in the world,

            Than all believing Muslims are fundamentalists. But we both know that that’s not the case. Moderate Muslims per definition don’t give shit. Like moderate Christians don’t care if you burn a bible. Or I don’t care if you burn a biography of Darwin. Sure I will think you are a dumb person to avoid. But ultimately it’s up to you, not my business.

            Also where do you draw the line? Homosexuality and modern view of women rights is offensive to conservative Muslims. Therefore, I prefer to draw a line at actual direkt harm to other people. Burning books, dumb and provocative - but so is a good portion of art.

            • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              It´s not that simple. There is a wide spectrum between feeling offended and reacting with terrorism, don´t you agree?

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                All kind of folks is offended by all kind of things. The question is rather simple where do you draw the line.

                • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well I think it´s obvious, the line is where just feeling offended ends and reacting with violence starts, is it not?!?

                  • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Now I’m confused about your opinion - since burning Quran does exactly that, offend feelings - no-one is harmed directly.