62
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Protesters angered by the planned burning of a copy of the Quran stormed the Swedish Embassy in Baghdad early Thursday, breaking into the compound and lighting a small fire.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Nacktmull@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What about

C - Sane people -no matter if it´s legal or not- don´t burn books that are holy symbols of a world religion because that's a sacrilege

[-] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Who cares if it's a sacrilege? Excommunicate them from the religion then, that's your recourse. Sleep soundly knowing they're going to your version of Hell or whatever. Religious ideaology should not affect law or public policy.

[-] Nacktmull@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Please stop talking to me in a way that implies I would be religious, or even sympathizing with religious fanatics. I have been an atheist my whole life, just as the rest of my family. The way you talk makes it sound like if I would be religious and that is offensive to me. I´m not in any way siding with the idiots who attacked the embassy, this is much more complex than choosing sides. I naturally condemn all aggressive and all violent actions on both sides. However -I was trying to make a point about sacrilege- so back on topic:

Think about it. Every civilized country has laws against offending people, so obviously there is a global consensus that the law should aim to protect people from being offended. You probably agree that what is considered offensive depends on the cultural background of an individual and is different from country to country. Now consider that to followers of a religion a desecration of the symbols of their religion** is the worst possible offense that is thinkable**. Why do you argue that certain (religious) people should be excluded from the protection by law against being offended - just because they were born into a different culture than you were and thus believe other things than you?

Burning sacred books of a foreign religion is a sign of intolerance and a poster-like act of aggression, offense and provocation that aims to cause an outrage in the targeted religious community. This fact can not be ignored when assessing events of this kind. It also does not excuse violent behavior by the offended community in my opinion but that is another topic.

[-] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you personally are religious or that you are advocating for people storming the embassy by taking your position. I shouldn't have used "your" in my hypothetical.

I personally do not believe there should be laws specifically against "offending" someone, and I don't think not having that law makes a country uncivilized. I absolutely believe there should be harsher punishments for actual crimes motivated by prejudices, but what qualifies as "offensive" is incredibly subjective and open to exploitation. If a Nazi found Mein Kampf to be genuinely just as sacred to them as a religious text, would you agree that burning it should be illegal as to not offend them?

[-] Nacktmull@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

National socialism is objectively evil and is also not a religion so the example seems pretty far fetched to me. I could not care less about the feelings of nazis but Mein Kampf is important historical source material so it should definitely not be burned but instead preserved. I also think the impact of that book is generally overstated. Germans who voted for Hitler back then did not do so because of Mein Kampf but for several reasons including they felt the treaty of Versailles was unfair, that the new democratic system had failed them and because of the global economic crisis/inflation.

A civilized society does not necessarily require laws against offense in my opinion. Laws against incitement on the other hand are generally needed to keep things peaceful in most societies if you ask me.

[-] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean it's 2023 and the internet exists, there's no history lost by burning a single copy of Mein Kampf. So religion is just where you draw the line?

Some people have just as much fervor for nationalism as religion, is it incitement to burn a US flag in the US? What about burning another country's flag?

[-] Nacktmull@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If the Quran or the US flag gets burned to incite hate and violence makes no difference to me, both is the same kind of wrong. I simply don´t think that intentional incitement, especially of groups that are particularly easy to enrage is aiding humanity or is in general a good idea. There is so much violence in the world already, why do you think there should be a right to pour gas into the fire?

this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
62 points (98.4% liked)

News

23305 readers
5038 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS