There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

jet ,

I assume they will also ban burning of all religious books to be fair?

DoctorTYVM OP ,

Yeah the proposal is for all religious texts

Droechai ,

I’m still not really sure if it’s a good idea to ban the burnings, since it’s apparently how you are supposed to dispose of Qurans in the first place

npr.org/…/how-to-properly-dispose-of-sacred-texts

barsoap ,

Context very much matters I think. People respectfully disposing of a religious text don’t tend to do it in front of foreign embassies while frothing at the mouth; they aren’t simultaneously taking a ritual shit on said text. Exception being Buddhists as destroying Buddhist stuff is part of the whole acceptance of impermanence thing but even then there’s ways to do it wrong. Frothing at the mouth being one of them.

Harrison ,

Blasphemy laws for the modern day.

Diprount_Tomato ,
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

So they really fell for the boycott

Candelestine ,

I think that’s reasonable, given the circumstances.

Just because we have freedoms doesn’t mean everyone does. So when we burn one of their books, without the context of that same freedom that we have, they don’t really necessarily understand what we’re trying to say. Just that we hate their sacred book.

We’re really trying to say more than that though, we don’t hate the book, we hate the actions some people do in its name. I don’t think that always gets communicated though, since they don’t necessarily follow our news.

Diprount_Tomato ,
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

Nah, Islamism (not Islam) promotes an extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them. And guess what? Islamism is thriving in Muslim countries

Candelestine ,

Can you elaborate on this distinction?

Diprount_Tomato ,
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

Islamism is a political movement, Islam is a religion

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Candelestine ,

Ah, got it. Yeah, theocracies suck. I think undermining them without infuriating them would be a more intelligent strategy though.

Diprount_Tomato ,
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

That’s like making a fire that doesn’t burn. And no, it’s closer to fascism than to a theocracy

Candelestine ,

Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.

And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.

Diprount_Tomato ,
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.

Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.

And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?

Candelestine ,

I was moving back to my original thesis, which is that offending them doesn’t accomplish much. I don’t perceive Islam itself to be the problem.

I admit I don’t fully understand what you’re specifically trying to say though.

Diprount_Tomato ,
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them

Candelestine ,

But how does this relate to the book burning ban being a good or bad idea?

Diprount_Tomato , (edited )
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

Because it’s basically giving Islamism concessions. The Qur’an burning is a mild one, but just imagine they do it with more serious issues.

Candelestine ,

I see now. Someone else mentioned it too, it’s similar to how we don’t negotiate with terrorists imo.

Personally I’m against all book burning, religious or no. In this instance though, it’s not just that Islamists are against it, as much as it giving them free recruitment ammunition, to help motivate their populace.

There’s always a certain percentage of crazies in any society. They benefit if they can recruit more moderate people to that extremist position. When we attack them, either physically or ideologically, we feed into that mechanism that strengthens them by giving them more of what they want. They say they don’t want us to burn their quoran, but I suspect their leaders are actually extremely happy when we do.

We’re literally shooting ourselves in the foot.

Addv4 ,

In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.

Diprount_Tomato , (edited )
@Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world avatar

Oh don’t even mention that heretical joke of Christianity that claims to be true but was founded 1700 years after Jesus taught

Windex007 ,

I mean, if we step back and observe the situation, we can see the best strategy is to threaten violence.

Why? Because one side wanted to impose their sensibilities on the other, threatened them with violent retribution, and then got what they wanted. It WORKS.

And now that it is a proven strategy, there is no reason to bother exploring other alternatives. Threatening violence is EASY. It’s the lowest and simplest rhetoric available. Also, there are always nutjobs in the wings who will independently act on violent rhetoric if you just keep pumping it. You don’t even have to plan or direct the actual violence, it’ll just happen organically.

So yeah, based on the results of this, I think any reasonable person would conclude violence and threats of violence are a simple and effective way to achieve political goals in Denmark.

Candelestine ,

Reasonable, and extremely simple person, maybe. I see what you’re saying though. Similar to the “don’t negotiate with terrorists” thing.

kaput ,

There la a Southpark episode coming To this exact conclusion. Violence works. It’s a sad truth

Kidplayer_666 ,

Twas an episode explaining how Muhamed got the power to not be made fun of

AbidanYre ,

Good luck. Undermining their authority infuriates them all by itself.

Candelestine ,

I don’t care how they feel, I just care how useful it is to them. They can use some things more than others. Burning their favorite things is something they can use for sure.

Making all their women want to wear bikinis and their teenagers want to watch movies and play video games is harder for them to make use of. And probably more effective in the long run. Soft power, basically.

GregorGizeh ,

This. The very essence of our free, liberal western democracies is threatened when we bow to religious demands. That’s completely misguided tolerance and a defeatist attitude towards extremism.

If a religion is not compatible with an open and pluralist society then it’s not the society that has to change, it’s the religious dipshits who have to cope with it or honestly go and fuck themselves somewhere else.

livus ,
@livus@kbin.social avatar

extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them.

It's a method of control.

Cults and totalitarian leaders rely on creating an "us vs them" mentality where they paint the outside world as evil people who "hate" the cult members and want to harm them. So they will stay in the cult.

A bunch of westerners desecrating their region's sacred texts is exactly what Islamicist leaders like to see because it visually corroborates the worldview they are trying to instill in their people.

c0mbatbag3l ,
@c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world avatar

It’s an infinitely copyable book with it’s source material thousands of miles away outside of the local country. There is no potential for this to totally wipe out the literature. No one is being harmed by the burning of said literature, therefore it’s a peaceful form of protest.

Trying to stop peaceful protest isn’t something you can pick and choose, you are either ok with it or you’re not. Deciding what is and isn’t ok to protest about means you don’t actually believe in the freedom of protest.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I hate their scared book.

BakedGoods ,

Yeah great idea to let literally insane people force policy on us through threats and violence. It’s only reasonable.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

COPENHAGEN, Aug 25 (Reuters) - The Danish government said on Friday it was proposing legislation that would make it illegal to burn copies of the Koran in public places, part of the Nordic country’s effort to de-escalate tensions with Muslim countries.

Denmark and Sweden have seen a string of protests in public in recent weeks where copies of the Koran have been burned or otherwise damaged, prompting outrage in Muslim nations which have demanded the Nordic governments put a stop to the burnings.

The government rejected protests by some Danish opposition parties that said banning Koran burnings would infringe on free speech.

“I fundamentally believe there are more civilised ways to express one’s views than burning things,” Hummelgaard said.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen had in July said the government would seek to “find a legal tool” that would enable authorities to prevent the burning of copies of the Koran in front of other countries’ embassies in Denmark.

Neighbouring Sweden has also said it is examining ways to legally limit Koran desecrations to reduce tensions after recent threats that led the country’s security officials to raise the terrorist threat level.

The original article contains 270 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 29%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •