โฒ 266 โผ Danish law banning public burning of Quran sparks outcry (www.lemonde.fr) submitted 2 years ago by sv1sjp@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.de 196 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[โ] Armen12@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (4 children) This is a clear violation of peoples right to free expression. religious nutjobs have no place determining what we can and can't do in society permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 11 points 2 years ago (3 children) No it is not. Hate speech should not be mislabeled as free expression and many countries exempt hate speech from protected speec and criminalize it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] charonn0@startrek.website 8 points 2 years ago On the contrary, it's free expression that should not be mislabeled as hate speech. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] crt0o@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How would you even define hate speech permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Armen12@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Religion has no place in the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I dont know about your country but mine grants the freedom of religion by constitution. Forcing citizens to be atheist or not protecting peoples right to life their religion within in the constraints of the law is no better than ordering people to adhere to a specific religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's not what he was saying. Everyone should have right to worship whatever spaghetti monster they wish, but it's still within my rights to mock it. As it's my right to be allowed to mock anything else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) And it is perfectly legal to mock it. But it isnt legal to apply and incite violence by burning symbols of a minority group in public. Because that is and will be the first step in an escalation towards murdering people, like was saw time and time again in human history, in its worst form in Nazi Germany, where book burnings were very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Burning a "holy" book is essentially mockery, in a same way as throwing some bacon between it's pages. The purpose is to mock the religion and the zealots (specifically those, since modest ones wouldn't give a flying fuck) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago "It s just a prank bro" he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago Freedom of religion is not a special super-right that lifts every rule of every religion to the status of a protected right though. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] ShadowRam@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago I don't give a fuck it it's a quran, bible, flag, or your underwear. Stop burning shit in public. Make a protest, write an article, say your piece, don't give a shit. But there's no need to burn shit in public. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] BEastDD@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago So you tell us that religious nutjobs do not have that very same right? and we are in place to determine what they can believe? permalink fedilink source parent [+] bstix@feddit.dk -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) When someone's free expression starts inferring with national security, I'm not sure it should be free. Let's say you had the passwords for Pentagons servers. Would it be free expression to give these to Putin? I doubt it. The book burners know exactly what buttons they're pressing and they do it for that reason. Religiius nutjobs and fascist nutjobs have no place determining what we can and can't do in society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lets take a comparable example. Some armed people break into a bank and are robbing it. While they are busy carrying out their loot someone notices them but isn't noticed by them. That person can see that they are armed and will likely start shooting if he tells anyone. Should that person then be held responsible for the violence if they inform the police or even other members of the public about the bank robbery? Should they be legally obligated to not tell anyone because violence might happen if they do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] bstix@feddit.dk 0 points 2 years ago That's not comparable at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 11 points 2 years ago (3 children) No it is not. Hate speech should not be mislabeled as free expression and many countries exempt hate speech from protected speec and criminalize it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [โ] charonn0@startrek.website 8 points 2 years ago On the contrary, it's free expression that should not be mislabeled as hate speech. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] crt0o@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How would you even define hate speech permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Armen12@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Religion has no place in the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I dont know about your country but mine grants the freedom of religion by constitution. Forcing citizens to be atheist or not protecting peoples right to life their religion within in the constraints of the law is no better than ordering people to adhere to a specific religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's not what he was saying. Everyone should have right to worship whatever spaghetti monster they wish, but it's still within my rights to mock it. As it's my right to be allowed to mock anything else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) And it is perfectly legal to mock it. But it isnt legal to apply and incite violence by burning symbols of a minority group in public. Because that is and will be the first step in an escalation towards murdering people, like was saw time and time again in human history, in its worst form in Nazi Germany, where book burnings were very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Burning a "holy" book is essentially mockery, in a same way as throwing some bacon between it's pages. The purpose is to mock the religion and the zealots (specifically those, since modest ones wouldn't give a flying fuck) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago "It s just a prank bro" he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago Freedom of religion is not a special super-right that lifts every rule of every religion to the status of a protected right though. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] charonn0@startrek.website 8 points 2 years ago On the contrary, it's free expression that should not be mislabeled as hate speech. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] crt0o@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How would you even define hate speech permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] Armen12@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Religion has no place in the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I dont know about your country but mine grants the freedom of religion by constitution. Forcing citizens to be atheist or not protecting peoples right to life their religion within in the constraints of the law is no better than ordering people to adhere to a specific religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's not what he was saying. Everyone should have right to worship whatever spaghetti monster they wish, but it's still within my rights to mock it. As it's my right to be allowed to mock anything else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) And it is perfectly legal to mock it. But it isnt legal to apply and incite violence by burning symbols of a minority group in public. Because that is and will be the first step in an escalation towards murdering people, like was saw time and time again in human history, in its worst form in Nazi Germany, where book burnings were very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Burning a "holy" book is essentially mockery, in a same way as throwing some bacon between it's pages. The purpose is to mock the religion and the zealots (specifically those, since modest ones wouldn't give a flying fuck) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago "It s just a prank bro" he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago Freedom of religion is not a special super-right that lifts every rule of every religion to the status of a protected right though. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I dont know about your country but mine grants the freedom of religion by constitution. Forcing citizens to be atheist or not protecting peoples right to life their religion within in the constraints of the law is no better than ordering people to adhere to a specific religion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's not what he was saying. Everyone should have right to worship whatever spaghetti monster they wish, but it's still within my rights to mock it. As it's my right to be allowed to mock anything else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) And it is perfectly legal to mock it. But it isnt legal to apply and incite violence by burning symbols of a minority group in public. Because that is and will be the first step in an escalation towards murdering people, like was saw time and time again in human history, in its worst form in Nazi Germany, where book burnings were very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Burning a "holy" book is essentially mockery, in a same way as throwing some bacon between it's pages. The purpose is to mock the religion and the zealots (specifically those, since modest ones wouldn't give a flying fuck) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago "It s just a prank bro" he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago Freedom of religion is not a special super-right that lifts every rule of every religion to the status of a protected right though. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That's not what he was saying. Everyone should have right to worship whatever spaghetti monster they wish, but it's still within my rights to mock it. As it's my right to be allowed to mock anything else. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) And it is perfectly legal to mock it. But it isnt legal to apply and incite violence by burning symbols of a minority group in public. Because that is and will be the first step in an escalation towards murdering people, like was saw time and time again in human history, in its worst form in Nazi Germany, where book burnings were very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Burning a "holy" book is essentially mockery, in a same way as throwing some bacon between it's pages. The purpose is to mock the religion and the zealots (specifically those, since modest ones wouldn't give a flying fuck) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago "It s just a prank bro" he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) And it is perfectly legal to mock it. But it isnt legal to apply and incite violence by burning symbols of a minority group in public. Because that is and will be the first step in an escalation towards murdering people, like was saw time and time again in human history, in its worst form in Nazi Germany, where book burnings were very popular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Burning a "holy" book is essentially mockery, in a same way as throwing some bacon between it's pages. The purpose is to mock the religion and the zealots (specifically those, since modest ones wouldn't give a flying fuck) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago "It s just a prank bro" he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Burning a "holy" book is essentially mockery, in a same way as throwing some bacon between it's pages. The purpose is to mock the religion and the zealots (specifically those, since modest ones wouldn't give a flying fuck) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago "It s just a prank bro" he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] tryptaminev@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago "It s just a prank bro" he said at the crying mother and children that sat in front of the house burning. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago Freedom of religion is not a special super-right that lifts every rule of every religion to the status of a protected right though. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] ShadowRam@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago I don't give a fuck it it's a quran, bible, flag, or your underwear. Stop burning shit in public. Make a protest, write an article, say your piece, don't give a shit. But there's no need to burn shit in public. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] BEastDD@feddit.de -1 points 2 years ago So you tell us that religious nutjobs do not have that very same right? and we are in place to determine what they can believe? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bstix@feddit.dk -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) When someone's free expression starts inferring with national security, I'm not sure it should be free. Let's say you had the passwords for Pentagons servers. Would it be free expression to give these to Putin? I doubt it. The book burners know exactly what buttons they're pressing and they do it for that reason. Religiius nutjobs and fascist nutjobs have no place determining what we can and can't do in society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lets take a comparable example. Some armed people break into a bank and are robbing it. While they are busy carrying out their loot someone notices them but isn't noticed by them. That person can see that they are armed and will likely start shooting if he tells anyone. Should that person then be held responsible for the violence if they inform the police or even other members of the public about the bank robbery? Should they be legally obligated to not tell anyone because violence might happen if they do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] bstix@feddit.dk 0 points 2 years ago That's not comparable at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Lets take a comparable example. Some armed people break into a bank and are robbing it. While they are busy carrying out their loot someone notices them but isn't noticed by them. That person can see that they are armed and will likely start shooting if he tells anyone. Should that person then be held responsible for the violence if they inform the police or even other members of the public about the bank robbery? Should they be legally obligated to not tell anyone because violence might happen if they do? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] bstix@feddit.dk 0 points 2 years ago That's not comparable at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] bstix@feddit.dk 0 points 2 years ago That's not comparable at all. permalink fedilink source parent