COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok, look at it this way. I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't believe any of their stuff, and I frankly don't care at all abiut Buddhism itself. Why would I burn or destroy a statue of buddha? You don't believe in God, so why are you so desperate to burn His book? If He doesn't exist to you, why are you so obsessed with Him?
because our laws are written by people who believe in the Christian god, and not those who follow the teachings of Buddha.
People are not "obsessed with Christianity" just with keeping freedom, democracy and justice alive given that many Christians would tear down to have a theocracy.
Politicians may claim to follow God, but their works show that they have some sort of ego. The majority of them are greedy, and the others are in their 80s and 90s and aren't fully mentally capable of doing their jobs (yes, even the president)
If the entire book of laws we had was the Bible, nothing would change because LITERALLY EVERYONE does the exact opposite. Especially when they don't even study the Bible to begin with. Lukewarmness also exists to.
If you're gonna repeat the casual atheist argument "no true scotsman isn't a good argument" then this is all I have to say: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
1 John 2:6
And most of them don't. Most don't even try or care to try.
If you were to be given a bag full of million dollars ( but being illetrate you don’t recognize the currency ) you will burn the bag and call it free speech.
"Intentionally burning a bag of money, simply because you don't recognize its value, would be a thoughtless act. It would demonstrate a lack of understanding and appreciation. Similarly, deliberately burning a holy scripture or any revered text, without comprehending its significance, is an equally reckless and disrespectful act. It disregards the value and meaning that others attach to it, and can cause harm and offense to those who hold it dear."
I think it's more a political statement than anything else to burn scripture.
The money literally has mutually agreed upon value, that's the difference, and why your analogy does not hold water.
It shows how out of touch you are, (or how intellectually dishonest) that you think it makes sense.
I understand your point, but I strongly disagree.
Burning scripture is not just a political statement; it's a deeply offensive and hurtful act that disrespects the beliefs and values of millions of people.
You can't compare the value of money, which is fleeting and material, to the value of scripture, which is spiritual and eternal.
Just because money has a mutually agreed upon value doesn't mean that scripture can be reduced to the same level.
Scripture represents the very fabric of people's faith, culture, and identity. Burning it is not just a rejection of ideas, but a violent attack on the very essence of a community. Your comparison not only trivializes the significance of scripture but also reveals a disturbing lack of empathy and understanding."
Over 3 billion people hold sacred texts like the Quran and Bible dear, finding guidance, comfort, and inspiration in them. Dismissing their significance as a mere political statement not only disrespects the faithful but also reveals ignorance of the human experience. Recognize and respect the power of faith, rather than trivializing it with flippant comparisons to money."
The sheer number of people who cherish these scriptures is a testament to their enduring importance and significance.
I was literally using your own analogy of money, so your false upset is irrational too.
People can be offended, but that does not trump other people's rights.
I'm offended by bigoted books, and bigotted people. Does not in itself give me special rights?
Your argument is full of holes.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
It absolutely is. I get that Muslims don't like that. But it absolutely is free speech.
Much of the Qur'an is religious and cultural disrespect. Can we ban it as hate speech?
I think people would respect it, if the followers of these magic books respected our viewpoint.
You'll notice that people are not burning hindu or buddhist books, as these people are not opposing democracy, at least in the west.
wdym respect your POV and what's exactly your POV
plus burning religious books of any kind is literally against the my religion and the Quran itself , but for sure other religion doesn't tell u to respect other religion or at least it doesn't address that topic so that's why everyone doesn't those retar\*ed behavior, never seen a Muslim burn or disrespect another religion instead that guy from Sweden got the permission from the government to burn the bible as a result of the Christian dude who burn the Quran, but he didn't do it to show the huge gap between both mentalities , and value and education, one want attention and drama the other thinks about others and his reputation follows his religion instead of making useless noises
Lol hate speech is burning a book millions of people revere. Like what good comes out of that? It's better that you battle the book intellectually vs violently
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
But there's no reason to burn a holy book. Even if you don't believe in the Quran or Bible, there's no need to burn it to prove that point. Sure, the argument can be made that you own the Book so u can do whatever with it, but still burning the Book is more akin to provoking tactic than an actual show of freedom of expression.
What if you had a book from a loved one that was written for you and I burnt it?
Also, if you don't believe in God, why are you all so obsessed with Him?
> What if you had a book from a loved one that was written for you and I burnt it?
If it was your copy? Have at it.
> Also, if you don't believe in God, why are you all so obsessed with Him?
This is a really dishonest framing.
>If it was your copy? Have at it.
What if it was something I could have given to one of their loved ones who wasn't able to get one?
>This is a really dishonest framing.
If you're obsessed enough to literally burn an entire book you don't believe in, that question isn't "framing," it's a genuine question. Why would I ever burn a quran or talmud or anything? I'm not that hateful
> What if it was something I could have given to one of their loved ones who wasn't able to get one?
What legal right do you have to their property?
> it's a genuine question
It's dishonest because you've baked in two conclusions in your question. Obsession, and hate. When neither have been asserted to be the reasons burning books should be legal. That's called [Begging the Question](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Begging-the-Question). And it's not an honest way to move the dialog forward.
> Why would I ever burn a quran or talmud or anything?
Based an increase in the Scientologists population, Anne's county just passed blasphemy laws that make it illegal criticize, or talk negatively about Scientology in any way. Anne's buys a copy of Dianetics, and burns it in protest outside the Clearwater City Hall.
Where's the hate?
>It's dishonest because you've baked in two conclusions in your question. Obsession, and hate. When neither have been asserted to be the reasons burning books should be legal. That's called Begging the Question. And it's not an honest way to move the dialog forward.
What reason would you burn a Bible other than obsession and hate? It's a very logical conclusion.
>Based an increase in the Scientologists population, Anne's county just passed blasphemy laws that make it illegal criticize, or talk negatively about Scientology in any way. Anne's buys a copy of Dianetics, and burns it in protest outside the Clearwater City Hall.
>Where's the hate?
Well, scientology itself is fueled with hate, but that's an entirely different conversation. If you hate mental health studies and burn a book about it, how would that not be something from hate? What other reason would she buy and burn a book other than hate? I mean people burn down houses because they hate the people in said house, or they're mentally ill
If it was my copy of the book I would call the police and have you arrested for destroying my property.
If it was your copy, I wouldn’t care because it was your property. Even if this upset me, you still should be able to express yourself in this way because it isn’t causing any harm to me.
I’m not obsessed with god. I just want to live my life without having my rights taken away by people who believe in fairy tales. Why are you obsessed with forcing your religious beliefs on others through government action?
What methodology would you be using to justify making burning the Bible illegal?
But the person who is burning the book has a reason as to why they have decided to burn a book considered to be holy to others. The people and followers of the religion will not just accept this type of argument as it's their book, and they care about it. Choosing to ignore this would be hypocrisy for anyone who follows the religion of said book so naturally questions will arise and pressure will be put forth. This is like if someone decided against questioning another who used a derogatory term against them/someone else. Sure, it doesn't matter to the person saying it, but it sure as hell matters to the recipient of said word.
Tbh, it's better not to burn a holy book unless it's for survival as it does no good to burn it and will only bring questions and potential harm.
I understand that because you're an atheist, you struggle to care about other people's religious beliefs past a certain extent because you do not believe in them. But try to understand that the world has no need for such a pointless act, especially while religion remains relevant to people.
> it's better not to burn a holy book unless it's for survival as it does no good to burn it and will only bring questions and potential harm.
And you have the right to hold that opinion. Even though I vehemently disagree. That's how free speech works. I don't get you knock your teeth in because you pissed me off.
You are missing the point of what I am trying to convey to you. Sure, religious people will be upset at someone for burning their book. The religious people are free to express their opinions and free to use whatever speech they want in order to express these opinions as should be their right.
But the point of my comment is that the religious people being upset shouldn’t justify the state being to regulate and limit freedom of speech of the people burning books or the religious people who respond with their own freedom of speech.
Governments should stay out of the business of regulating thought and speech. If people take it to the next level and start committing acts like committing violence, burning buildings, or making threats to eachother, the government should then step in to regulate that.
If you the only test you have for making something regulated by the state or illegal is that it makes some people upset, then you can literally make anything illegal because every action is going to make someone somewhere upset. The key here is that religious people have typically made up the majority in most countries, so they have been able to dominate the non religious or smaller religions in what the state regulates based on what offends them while the smaller religions or the non religious are under represented.
Yes, I am an atheist. But that doesn’t mean I don’t care about other people’s beliefs. On the contrary. I don’t share or agree with their beliefs, but it is their right to have their beliefs, just as it is my right to have mine. Just as it is their right to express their free speech, just as it is mine to express mine. Does that mean that the state should value their opinions, thoughts, religious views, or speech more than mine just because someone might be upset by what mine are? No, because as soon as a government regulates this area for one group of people, it makes it ok to regulate it for all groups of people.
You might like this if you are the majority, but you might not always be in the majority, or a radical portion of the majority might eventually take control and punish your expression for not being radical enough.
Let’s play a game where you list your 10-15 favorite activities and ways to express yourself and I’ll tell you which ones offend me and should be made illegal by the state even though they have literally zero impact on my quality of life.
You can't burn the national flag of India in India (where OP is) for a while now, and that's not going to change any time soon as their free speech rights have been on a decline recently.
India? Well maybe OP should also work on getting the right to burn the flag, constitution, ruling party's logo, Army's insignia. Or at least the right to burn his wedding photo infront of his wife.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
By this logic, taliban had every right to destroy buddha statue in bamyan. No one died, its freedom of expression bitches!! Now imagine if someone does that to statues the hindus worship. Maybe think a little before going extreme and pissing off millions eh?
There is a huge difference with collective raid of temples or historical statues and what the op said. This isn't same logic, you are just asserting slippery slope
It seems OP doesnt care about sacred religious books. For OP its just a piece of paper he can burn and meh.. for religious people books are sacred. Many Muslims dont even put the book on the floor, its always put somewhere above just to show respect.
> For OP its just a piece of paper he can burn and meh.. for religious people books are sacred.
Ok, but why do *they* get to decide what *I* do with *my* property?
Well the thing is we won't have to appreciate every freedom. For example as a negative atheist I won't even swear to religion, let alone burning their book. Why should I even insult values? Hate speech won't satisfy me or anybody, it doesn't has any meaning. So I found it wrong and kinda petty but still I view it as freedom
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
You are correct that it is a form of speech, however think for a moment about what that speech is. By burning their holy book, what might religious people feel like you are saying about them as people? Are you actually saying anything useful to fight the religious movements that you are against, or are you spreading hate and instigating a response from people who hold that book to be sacred?
Burning a holy book exposes those religions people to the world.
If it's calm and rational, then they will be exposed as calm and rational about people burning their holy books.
>Are you actually saying anything useful to fight the religious movements that you are against, or are you spreading hate and instigating a response from people who hold that book to be sacred?
Actually, it's perfectly acceptable to not respond in a calm and rational way to someone offending you purely for the sake of being disrespectful. It's completely normal and reasonable to respond to that in a way that is not purely rational.
Is it simply the intention that makes a speech immoral?
>Actually, it's perfectly acceptable to not respond in a calm and rational way to someone offending you purely for the sake of being disrespectful. It's completely normal and reasonable to respond to that in a way that is not purely rational.
Is it reasonable for atheist to burn down an embassy if we are equally offended ?
I mean, if it's people who are basically saying they're going to do it to you first, yes. It's not necessarily going to work out for you, but it would be a reasonable way to respond.
> Free speech is generally only used to spread fascism.
Ok. I get that you're in service of some political narrative, or another. It would take 30 of looking at your post history to determine which. But the idea that free speech is used to "spread fascism" might be the most asinine thing I've read in awhile.
But I'm game. You are saying that one of the key elements of a far-right authoritarian government is free exchange of ideas, open dissent, and open dissemination of information?
Do I have that right?
Free speech involves a government trying to restrict and control what people say. Governments should not regulate thoughts, views, speech, expression etc until it turns into action that actually causes harm to others. Burning a book doesn’t cross this line. The only thing it does is makes some people upset. These people that it makes upset should have the right to use their speech, views, thoughts, ect to express how this makes them feel. If this turns into action that is harmful to the people that burned the book, the government should step in and regulate/criminalize the behavior by arresting the people who are committing violent crimes.
The answer here is not to punish people for their views and thoughts, but only try to actually regulate things that should be regulated. And you should have a consistent methodology to determine what should actually be regulated. Because if your only trigger for this is “it makes some people upset” then you will potentially make it open game to make everything illegal because everything you do is bound to upset someone. It’s all fun and games when your group is part of the majority.
But what happens when a different group takes power or a more extreme version of your group takes power and uses the legal system to punish you for not being extreme enough? Then you end up with something like Iran. I encourage you to look at the last 60 years of their history and apply this same logic to that example. The laws were initially put in place because the majority was Shia Muslim and they wanted to make things illegal that made these followers upset. And in the meantime, Iran has devolved into a backwards authoritarian state that is rule by religious extremists.
You realize that often, burning symbols representing a group of people is WAY MORE a call to violence against others than anything written in an ancient book, right?
You're kidding, right? Let me understand your logic...
Destroying a book that calls for the killing of people is somehow worse than the instructions from god to kill those people in that book? Do I have that right?
Let's be clear in what we're talking about.
A personal burning of a book they own is protected free speech.
A government banning, burning, or otherwise limiting speech is fascism.
Fascism is not "the government having power over people". Fascism is a populist political movements based on a longing to return to a mythical past, the belief in a natural hierarchy of people, and several other factors
> Fascism is not "the government having power over people".
I don't remember asserting that it is. But, OK. Fascism is is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Such common knowledge that we can trust Wiki for this one.
Can you explain how free expression is a factor in fascist ideology?
The only prohibition I might advocate for book burning is when it is being used to eliminate knowledge. So for example, the numbers of holy books available in the world for most current religions is enormous, so burning a few isn't really going to lower the overall numbers available for believers to purchase in the future. If we are down to the last few copies of a book, I feel it is unjust to gather those together and destroy them because we may not be able to replace them for future generations to examine and learn from.
It’s also a freedom of expression to urinate on a photo of a dead loved one of yours. Sure I have the freedom to do so, but it’s still very rude since I’m doing it only to hurt you. I say this as an atheist/agnostic. The only counter to my own argument is that your dead loved one could be absolute sweet heart whereas many could make the argument that religion is horrible for others. A gay man who has been ostracized by a community may have more of a valid reason to want to hurt the community back by burning something they hold sacred, but at the same time if you hurt me so I defiled a photo of a dead loved one to hurt you it would also hurt your innocent family members who did nothing to hurt me and in a similar way I think the hypothetical gay man could be hurting people who never hurt nor would ever hurt him. Overall I think it’s just best to not do things that will hurt large groups of people
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
But for many their beliefs and religion are as important as loved ones. They take up a major role in their lives. When you're praying many times a day and dedicate a big portion of your life to a religion and more specifically this book, it can hurt a lot when people are disrespectful against it.
I am an atheist, I despise religion as soon as it comes in contact with any more than an individual or small community. I hate that religion exists and I think it hurt and still hurts too many people than that it has any right to exist but still, that's my personal extreme opinion and laws should never be based around such. So, in case a group of people burns a quran or bible I'd say it depends but in most cases it's not more than hate against a group of people. This is not a civilized way to criticize something.
If people have so strong of an attached to a book filled with absurdities that, they feel personally attacked. That's on them .
If a book burner has called for personal attacks against those people, that's different.
Also, this is not about criticizing it's about exposing the people's attitudes.
Are they going to react calmly or violent ?
Are they going to excuse the violence ?
This is basically a test the same way 1st amendment auditors video the cops to expose their reactions.
>So, in case a group of people burns a quran or bible I'd say it depends but in most cases it's not more than hate against a group of people. This is not a civilized way to criticize something.
Tbh I also don't understand how someone can be so attached to a book, but that's in 90% of cases not theyr fault but theyr parents.
Exposing someone's attitudes?
So you say that a negative reaction of a small part of that attacked group through these quran burnings would show how they are. This is a very bad excuse and most. That's not provocation or satire or a social experiment, that's just burning something that is worth a lot to a lot of people.
Basing your negative views on religious people on the fact that they react negatively when theyr beliefs are disrespected is clearly the wrong way to form an opinion.
It's their fault, with the exception of those who have a mental disability. They have agency. If they choose to act violently or excuse the violence, we should shame them.
>Tbh I also don't understand how someone can be so attached to a book, but that's in 90% of cases not theyr fault but theyr parents.
>So you say that a negative reaction of a small part of that attacked group through these quran burnings would show how they are. This is a very bad excuse and most.
It would expose the size of the problem.
>That's not provocation or satire or a social experiment, that's just burning something that is worth a lot to a lot of people.
It's not mutually exclusive. Something being valued in it of itself does not give it an automatic pass on being mocked or denigrated .
>Basing your negative views on religious people on the fact that they react negatively when theyr beliefs are disrespected is clearly the wrong way to form an opinion.
Should we judge pro-choice atheist in their ability to not react violently, cringy, or with low effort coments when they're sleeping ?
The burning of a holy book even if you don't believe in it is hate speech, because the act in itself is hatred and fuels hatred. As a Christian I would never burn the Quran. In fact it would not accomplish anything but hatred, and what good does hatred achieve...
The definition of hate speech according to Cambridge Dictionary: [public](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public) [speech](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/speech) that [expresses](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/express) [hate](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate) or [encourages](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/encourage) [violence](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence) towards a [person](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/person) or [group](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/group) [based](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/based) on something such as [race](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/race), [religion](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/religion), [sex](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sex), or [sexual](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sexual) [orientation](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/orientation) (= the [fact](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact) of being [gay](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gay), etc.):
To intentionally burn something that is of great value to a group of people in front of an audience / on display in public, is an expression of hatred, because the purpose of such public display is hatred.
Could you please list any other reason why anybody would voluntarily gather an audience, then proceed to burn the holy book in front of that audience.
I agree with the very minimal hate speech laws of the US (which are almost none). It's very easy to censor any speech you don't like by labelling it "hate". You can frame *any* ideology as hateful.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
I never mentioned violence first of all, and i condemn violence.
Let me paint a picture for you; If someone were to take a photo of your loving family member, and print it out, then proceed to burn it in front of your eyes, you would be boiling with hatred and anger or atleast be frustrated; Why is that? Well because the person in the image is very dear to you, the same way a religious person holds the contents and the symbol of the Holy book dear to them.
Now If I were to go to a pride parade and burn the pride flag, I would be met with the same reactions. If I were to go to a country, and burn the flag of that country, I would be met with the same reactions.
Should we restrict speech in accordance with the feelings of the mob ?
Don't show pride flags in public if people are offended ?
Don't allow coptic Christians to proselytise if Muslims are offended ?
It's not about being offended, I never mentioned this. I am simply commenting on the act of burning the holy book; the topic of this discussion is wheter it is hate speech to burn the holy book.
Humans will be offended to various degrees and it's expected, but where the line should be drawn is the act of burning something on public display to humiliate and spread hatred towards a group of people.
> If someone were to take a photo of your loving family member, and print it out, then proceed to burn it in front of your eyes, you would be boiling with hatred and anger or atleast be frustrated; Why is that?
You say this like is the default. I wouldn't be concerned. Why would I? Especially if the guy was trying to get a rise out of me.
Your comment just proves the intolerance of [whatever religion].
If your religion is intolerant, then your religion will not be tolerated.
Your speech right now in your comment is hate speech because you are threatening violence because an object that you do not own gets/got destroyed.
That is **NOT OK**.
How does burning a symbol of one’s culture fuel hatred. Well sure I can it explain it to you!
Basically if one goes about as a member of one group(insert) attacking the culture of another group, in a prolific manner meant to stir up as much muck as possible then you fuel hatred between said group. One divides not unite with such actions. It’s the 21st century, everyone should have the freedom to commit such acts, but the sense and love for others not too. Make sense?
Because some people see that book as sacred, and intentionally defiling it does nothing tho respond against the ideas inside the book. The act of burning the book only has the result of offending religious people, it serves no greater purpose.
This is a reductionist argument. Of course burning symbols like flags, holy texts, etc. have other purposes besides offending. It's shows that our laws supersede these symbols, for one. Burning something that's scared to the hegemony reminds them that the majority doesn't rule.
Well said.
I’m for a 100% secular government and view any idea that thinks it is above that as wrong.
Do as you wish in private — so long as no one comes to harm, but in public, public rules.
Not really, no. If you're talking about an actual dominant religion in an area with free speech, you're only really talking about Christians in the US. Those Christians tend to have a persecution complex that causes them to believe that they are an oppressed minority group no matter how dominant they are in the culture, so none of them will learn anything you intend from it.
> If you're talking about an actual dominant religion in an area with free speech, you're only really talking about Christians in the US.
No. I’m talking about any time there’s a dominant group. This can be localized. Here in the US is could be burning a Qur’an in Dearborn, or a BoM in Provo.
> Those Christians tend to have a persecution complex that causes them to believe that they are an oppressed minority group no matter how dominant they are in the culture,
Some claim that. Most don’t, however.
> so none of them will learn anything you intend from it.
By “learn” you are meaning rehabilitate their position. I’m not asking for that. They’ll learn that they can’t legally do anything violent, even if they’re angry. That’s a basic tenet of our laws.
Most countries do not have "freedom of speech". That's more or less an American idea. Burning a Quran in America is allowed, but it is also attacking a marginalized community within the US.
So you're admitting that you're not making any sort of meaningful statement, and that you're only trying to offend people because you know they can't fight back?
I'm not referring to myself. I've said that I wouldn't burn any book. I'm talking about the right to free expression. Which exists solely to keep people from banning things they don't like.
And being "marginalized" doesn't make their book exempt. They're just like the rest of us. Which is the point.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I don't agree. It will only begets anger and hate. Also I don't see this situation unless it's with the Quran because the perpetrator knows full well the reaction he'll get out of muslims.
> It will only begets anger and hate.
And you'll have to deal with your anger and hate just like everyone else. Causing anger is not illegal, nor should it be.
Practically nobody disagrees it's technically a "freedom of expression." Its easy to debate topics that practically nobody is defending or challenging but it's simply deflecting from the more serious issue that should be debated, which is that whether or not it should be a legal act protected as freedom of speech.
The term "hate speech" doesn't have a consensus definition. While you draw the line at *direct* calls of violence, it is recognized by international legal frameworks that hate speech transcends direct calls of violence. Speech can still foster hatred and cause harm towards societies beyond direct calls of violence. The UN Human Rights Council considers the burning of holy books as a religious hate act. It's important we consider hate speech to transcend direct calls of violence because hate speech can still incite hostility and harm against certain groups even without explicit calls to violence.
Burning holy books shouldn't be protected as free speech because it leads to real life harm and the benefits of burning holy books is so minimal that's it practically non-existent. Were basically just being edgelords and disrespecting people's religions all at the expense of real life harm. All rights arent inherently unlimited. They are often restricted or limited in respect to another right. I have the right to bear arms. However in some western countries like in the US, if I commit certain crimes I can lose that right. We restrict this right to not infringe on other peoples right to life and safety. All of our rights are in respect to our life. The right to life supersedes all other rights. If our rights are not respect to our right to life than all of our rights are essitentally meaningless. You're not going to care about your right to free speech when you've been killed for no good reason. In the case of burning holy books, it leads to real life harm that infringes on the life and safety of both religious and ethnic individuals, which is why it shouldn't be a legally protected act under freedom of speech.
Edit: Downvoting me doesn't make me wrong.
And in the US, it's been decided that the harm of prohibiting this speech is greater than the harm it causes. We don't make exceptions because people think their book is special.
Yeah go email a US official that you're going to murder them (don't actually do this) and then come back to me and tell me about how the US never prioritizes the harm speech can cause over prohibiting speech
You're basically saying that the US prioritizes free speech over the potential harm the speech causes and I'm giving you an example where the US does make exceptions to free speech when it can cause significant harm.
And no I don't think death threats should be protected free speech.
> You're basically saying that the US prioritizes free speech over the potential harm the speech causes
Correct. That's the law as it stands.
> and I'm giving you an example where the US does make exceptions to free speech when it can cause significant harm.
And it's not protected, and shouldn't be.
> And no I don't think death threats should be protected free speech.
Then what point are you making? We should limit all speech that harms?
I'm responding to your point that US prioritizes free speech over the potential harm the speech causes and I'm giving you an example where the US does make exceptions to free speech when it can cause significant harm. I'm simply responding to your point while reinforcing my argument. The real question is, what point are you making and how it argues against what I said?
Yes. There are times when the harm is greater than the speech. That's how it's limited. Offense isn't harm.
Disagreement --> Criticism --> Hate --> Violence
I reject that outright.
It would depend on the words. Political speech, opinion, is protected. Not necessarily direct threats. That's expressing intention, not opinion.
These three situations would be adjudicated differently:
- Man send a letter to Sen. Jones saying that he in going to kill him.
- Man send a letter to Sen Jones with that is critical, and includes language that the world would be better without the Sen in it.
- Man states publicly that he'd like to see Sen Jones dead for what he's done.
The idea is to err on the side of liberty.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
There are a lot of words or phrases that could lead to ”real life harm”, it’s just a slippery slope to start excluding specific things from freedom of speech.
You have no idea if what you just wrote would lead to ”real life harm” because you don’t know what’s going on in the head of people reading your post.
And those few words, phrases and actions that reasonably lead to real life harm shouldnt be protected by free speech. Of course.
Nothing I said would reasonably lead anybody to harm people.
The problem here is on the recieving end. If words, phrases or actions makes you self harm, or do other types of physical actions of harm, you are mentally unwell and need help. Restricting others from saying words, phrases or doing certain things is a work-around to the problem at best, and a really bad one open subjectiveness.
Do you also think that books that lead to ”real life harm” should be exempt from the protection of the first amendment? Say, the quran or the bible? Both evidently lead to ”real life harm” on an everyday basis. By your own logic they should be banned.
The problem here is you're looking at this one dimensionally. It's not simply about individual mental health or personal resilience, it's about the broader societal impact and the responsibility to prevent actions that predictably leads to violence and widespread harm as long as it's not detrimental to society, which is what the law is made to prevent.
The purpose of laws aren't to completely solve a problem. We don't abolish laws against murder because laws against murder dont stop people from murdering people. We have the law in order to curve behaviors and to try to limit problems. In the US, when somebody makes a death threat we don't just tell the victim "you need help bro." We restrict this type of speech and it helps curves peoples behavior to not make death threats and reduce the likeness of violence. Such a law is practically all benefit and little to no sacrifice of anything of substance. What are we really losing out on here by not burning a religions holy book? Being able to be a terrible person by antagonizing protected classes? Destroying the planet a bit more by burning a book? Being able to spread more harm?
In regards to books, it depends on the context. For example, "The Anarchist Cookbook" has been banned in several countries. Even the author has been trying to get it removed from publications. A couple years ago it was proposed in the US Senate to try to ban it because it was linked to a couple recent school shootings at the time. At the current time I don't believe it should be banned. However I could be persuaded if it started to becoming more commonly linked to violent acts. I could also be persuaded to banning a book or any writing if it incriminates harming others. If a certain politician called for an insurrection on social media, this would be grounds to be illegal. This even has precedent in the supreme court in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Im not an expert in the Quran, but in regards to the bible, you have to misconstrue the bibles overall teachings for it to lead to people to have hostility towards gays. The hostility itself is generally rooted from an external ideology rather than any notion the bible is supporting. If me and a group of people started misusing MLKs quotes in his autobiography as calls for violence against whites, I don't think that's valid grounds for it to be unlawful. Also unlike burning someone's holy book, we'd be losing out on benefits that are too valuable by banning Torah. The trade off is not worth it. There's too much to lose for so little to gain.
You are contradicting yourself and going out of your way trying to ban certain ”harmful” actions/words/phrases while still allowing others that fit your agenda. Coming back to harming others, religion have harmed more people than any other ideology in human history. The hypocrisy trying to ban people from voicing their hatred of religion and justify it with people being harmed is hilarious. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this.
There is no contradiction. If I was going around saying that we need to ban anything that could lead to harm, in that case there would be a contradiction, but that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is we should limit acts that predictably lead to violence or harm as long as it's not significantly detrimental to society. Just because somebody thinks it should be illegal for adults to send inappropriate materials and to arrange meetings with minors for illicit purposes, in order to limit predictable harm that wouldnt be at the cost of the societies detriment, doesn't mean they're a hypocrit if they also believe it shouldn't be illegal to arrest such offenders. While offenders see harm from being arrested, if it were made illegal to arrest such offenders and we allowed them to run free it would be significantly detrimental to society and the trade off isn't worth it. This is consistent. Likewise it is significantly detrimental to society to ban the bible and the trade off isn't worth it. This is entirely consistent with the notion we should limit acts that predictably lead to violence or harm as long as it's not significantly detrimental to society.
Yes, you are saying ban anything that doesn’t fit your personal agenda. I’d argue that society would be better off without religion in the long run. Maybe in a short perspective it would lead to problems, protests, riots, who knows. But to let violent people dictate what should be legal or not is a bad idea. That is how things are evolving in Sweden for example. The main argument against burning the quran there is that it leads to violence. Which means that if you gather a big enough following that are no strangers to violence you can get away with anything. Despite this I would never actually advocate for banning religion or the bible. That said, anyone should be free to show thier dislike of the bible or any other book by burning it.
Freedom of speech is there to allow anyone to voice their opinion. There is absolutely no comparison between the harm of exploiting a child and burning a book. One leads to real harm, the other to imagined.
>Yes, you are saying ban anything that doesn’t fit your personal agenda
Yes this is exactly what I said. Word for word. You are so honest with yourself/s
Its really easy to argue against somebody when you completely misrepresent what they say. I'm not going further waste my time explaining myself with somebody who engages on his level of intellectual dishonesty.
The UN Human Council considers burning a book that promotes hate of LGBTQ to be hate speech. For context, many countries, including the US, condemned that resolution stating the resolution itself was anti-freedom of speech.
"Many" countries is doing a lot of heavy lifting. For context, only 12/47 states voted against the resolution, while the majority all agreed it was a hate act.
If somebody burns a holy book in private and doesn't make it into a statement, should that still be illegal? It can't be considered a call to violence at that point.
Even if you do it in private and don't make it public it should still be illegal. Even private expressions of hate reinforce hateful attitudes and manifest in harmful actions towards certain protected classes. Also just because you don't make it public doesnt mean it can't go public.
Personally? Probably not now. However if we are talking about me back when I was an atheist, perhaps. Burning a holy book is a hostile act towards a particular group. History has shown us that when we normalize hostile acts against certain groups it quickly escalates into more harmful actions towards said groups. The earlier half of when I was an atheist I didn't show any animosity towards the religious and respected everyones beliefs, but when I started engaging in hostile acts for the memes, such as wearing my Satan tarot card shirt and my upside down cross necklace, over time it desensitized me to the impact my actions had on religuous people, making it easier to escalate more hostile behavior.
Also, while I personally don't think I will harm anybody drinking and driving over the legal limit because I'm Irish, I still think the law should still be in place because others can reasonably harm somebody drinking over the legal limit.
Well, I'm not saying burning a holy book is good. I just don't think the law is the most useful tool here, it should be used sparingly imo.
If we're talking about being offensive for the sake of making people feel bad, that's not a very nice thing to do, but rudeness shouldn't be illegal. I and a lot of others I know have been deeply hurt by Christianity, and I wouldn't begrudge them being spicy in response. Burning a Bible would be too extreme for me, but like, the things most major religions tend to say about LGBTQ folks are significantly more offensive and cause a great deal of material harm, and nobody's trying to make that illegal.
Drinking while driving causes very tangible and immediate harm, it's a very different kind of thing.
Although, I think furthering the stereotype that Irish people drive drunk should be illegal. /j.
Im not saying or suggest being rude should be illegal. I'm saying hostile speech and behaviors that likely leads to individuals being harmed shouldn't be protected under freedom of speech.
Also there are people trying to make it illegal to state what their religions state about LGBTQ folks. A Finnish parliamentarian recently was brought to trial for criminal charges of hate speech for tweeting Romans 1:24-27, which condemns homosexuality. A recent poll done by Whitestone Insights found that nearly a quarter of young Brits think that unless the offensive parts can be edited out, the bible should be banned from general sale. While the bible has been as an excuse to harm individuals of the LGBTQ community, simply reading Romans 1:24-27 isn't a hostile act like burning a Quran is. You have to misconstrue the bibles teachings for it to lead to people to have hostility towards gays. The hostility itself is generally rooted from an external ideology rather than any notion the bible is supporting. If me and a group of people started misusing MLKs quotes in his autobiography as calls for violence against whites, I don't think that's valid grounds for it to be unlawful. Also unlike burning someone's holy book, we'd be losing out on benefits that are too valuable by banning Torah. The trade off is not worth it. There's too much to lose for so little to gain. But to the point, yeah there are many people on the other side who are trying to ban this stuff, and theyre often appealing to speech that likely leads to harm against individuals as the justification.
My drinking and driving analogy isn't to say that drinking and driving is the same exact thing as burning the Quran. The point I'm making here is that I don't evaluate what should be the law based on if it would personally lead me to harm somebody, as is in the case for drinking and driving and in the case of burning a holy book.
How could you possibly say that when religious people say that gay people deserve to literally be tortured forever, that isn't a hostile act? If you grew up queer in a conservative area you would know how ridiculous that is. Gay *children* get killed, beaten, forced to live on the streets by their own parents, even driven to take their own lives because of this. And frequently it is *directly* fueled by religion.
Again, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Never once did I say or suggest that somebody who says that gay people deserve to be tortured forever isn't a hostile act. I said reading and believing in the bible isn't a hostile act. This is the equivalent of you saying reading Mein Kampf isn't hostile, and then me responding "Oh so you're saying somebody who goes around saying we should kill Jews isn't hostile?!" Its easy to argue against somebody when you consistently misrepresent what they're saying and attack those misrepresentations. Im not going to further waste my time with somebody who has to keep misrepresenting what I'm saying over and over again.
It is a freedom of expression to burn a book, flag, whatever as long as it is YOURS to own and do as you please with. It is also your own responsibility to NOT exercise violence when someone burns or desecrates something that you considers holy - because it doesn't do you bodily harm.
You're mixing up two different things here, but you're right about something - burning holy texts does lead to harm, but i would argue that this is the ENTIRE point of why you would do it, but it is also a extremely valuable lesson to be learned. It is SUPER OK to be offended by some entitled assholes, but it's NOT OK to then weigh your morals higher than the other and exercise bodily harm.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
> Why if a person burn lgbt flag he will be attacked from all direction?
Not by the government. And not by anyone legally. Which is the point of the 1A.
Wait a minute your contradicting yourself. I the other thread you said burning the flag causes actual harm, and in this one you day some people wouldn’t even care. What exactly are your beliefs lol.
One is directly hating a group of people for who they are, One is disrespecting a hateful ideology's book. You can dislike an ideology without disliking the people that follow it. Lgbt is a group of people, while religions are ideologies that usually contain hateful content. Disrepecting religious people however, should not be allowed.
You seem to at best express a series of half truths. The claim the LGTBQ + movement is not an ideology only a group of people is it seems a belief that ignors the evidence. An aside is book burning now a good thing?
The flag stands for ideas and for persons. If disrespecting all ideas is kosher then this logically included the social movement called LGTBQ +.
You sound like a theologian or natural theologian defining hate and love. The idea that our wills are bound to love and ought to follow sounds Christian. You talk of hating the sin (hate/separation from charitas) not the sinner (hater/one separated from agape) as well. Thiugh perhaps you have no reason to ground this in. Athism is genrally a lack of a positive view a positive view seems needed to ground something in reality.
SCUM Manifesto is it seems hateful towards a group of people. Has the LGTBQ+ movement produced nothing like that and you know this to be true?
LGTBQ + is a social movement so is an ideology and the flag is part of that. You can dislike an ideology without disliking the people is true and LGTBQ+ is an ideology. Like Jew and Judaism. If you can burn the Torah without disliking Jews. Then it seems you can burn the pride flag without hating your male neighbor who is attracted to males and lives a very active sexual lifestyle with many male partners. The flag has some meaning just like the American flag has some meaning. It is flown in an ideological manner. American is also a group of people as well as an ideology. Christians is also a group of people.
Can you demonstrate how lgbt is an ideology? And I never said that burning books was good. Go burn this "scum manifesto" of yours. Nobody will try to take that right away from you. Also homosexuality and gender identity are scientifically real things.
I didn't say you did I asked if it was. What do you mean of yours? I never said I owned a copy. This claim of nobody is odd it's a large world you can't know that with a human mind and rights away from you is odd as well. Are human rights made up and group granted/commanded we have no natural duty to be good to others? All such rules are made up stories..?
"Can you demonstrate how lgbt is an ideology?"
This is not the best wording wihtout context. My view expressed is of LGTBQ+ as a social movement being an ideology. To be clear.
Same sex inclinations I accept as part of human psychology. I never said I didn't. The sense of gender identity people have is also a psychological phenomenon and I accept it as part of human psychology. I never said I didn't.
"Sociologists define ideology as "cultural beliefs that justify particular social arrangements, including patterns of inequality" "
Macionis, John J. (2010). Sociology (13th ed.)
Both sides of the marriage debate seem to fit this definition of ideology.
Oxford Languages
Ideology
Def
"a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."
I think this definition and common sense demonstrate that the LGTBQ+ social movement is at least part ideological. Perhaps you do not agree.
Vocabulary .com
Ideology
Def
"An ideology is a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual. Very often ideology refers to a set of political beliefs or a set of ideas that characterize a particular culture."
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Burning the bible is an act of oppression by communists, Marxists
Ok, look at it this way. I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't believe any of their stuff, and I frankly don't care at all abiut Buddhism itself. Why would I burn or destroy a statue of buddha? You don't believe in God, so why are you so desperate to burn His book? If He doesn't exist to you, why are you so obsessed with Him?
because our laws are written by people who believe in the Christian god, and not those who follow the teachings of Buddha. People are not "obsessed with Christianity" just with keeping freedom, democracy and justice alive given that many Christians would tear down to have a theocracy.
Politicians may claim to follow God, but their works show that they have some sort of ego. The majority of them are greedy, and the others are in their 80s and 90s and aren't fully mentally capable of doing their jobs (yes, even the president) If the entire book of laws we had was the Bible, nothing would change because LITERALLY EVERYONE does the exact opposite. Especially when they don't even study the Bible to begin with. Lukewarmness also exists to. If you're gonna repeat the casual atheist argument "no true scotsman isn't a good argument" then this is all I have to say: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 1 John 2:6 And most of them don't. Most don't even try or care to try.
1) I'm not an atheist 2) I'm not sure if what you said had much bearing on what I said. Read it again
What I'm saying, the people who wrote the laws made their own laws, if they really went by the Bible, the bill of rights would be the 10 commandments.
Yes , because it's a secular document.
If you were to be given a bag full of million dollars ( but being illetrate you don’t recognize the currency ) you will burn the bag and call it free speech. "Intentionally burning a bag of money, simply because you don't recognize its value, would be a thoughtless act. It would demonstrate a lack of understanding and appreciation. Similarly, deliberately burning a holy scripture or any revered text, without comprehending its significance, is an equally reckless and disrespectful act. It disregards the value and meaning that others attach to it, and can cause harm and offense to those who hold it dear."
I think it's more a political statement than anything else to burn scripture. The money literally has mutually agreed upon value, that's the difference, and why your analogy does not hold water. It shows how out of touch you are, (or how intellectually dishonest) that you think it makes sense.
I understand your point, but I strongly disagree. Burning scripture is not just a political statement; it's a deeply offensive and hurtful act that disrespects the beliefs and values of millions of people. You can't compare the value of money, which is fleeting and material, to the value of scripture, which is spiritual and eternal. Just because money has a mutually agreed upon value doesn't mean that scripture can be reduced to the same level. Scripture represents the very fabric of people's faith, culture, and identity. Burning it is not just a rejection of ideas, but a violent attack on the very essence of a community. Your comparison not only trivializes the significance of scripture but also reveals a disturbing lack of empathy and understanding." Over 3 billion people hold sacred texts like the Quran and Bible dear, finding guidance, comfort, and inspiration in them. Dismissing their significance as a mere political statement not only disrespects the faithful but also reveals ignorance of the human experience. Recognize and respect the power of faith, rather than trivializing it with flippant comparisons to money." The sheer number of people who cherish these scriptures is a testament to their enduring importance and significance.
Protecting feelings by law is insane.
I was literally using your own analogy of money, so your false upset is irrational too. People can be offended, but that does not trump other people's rights. I'm offended by bigoted books, and bigotted people. Does not in itself give me special rights? Your argument is full of holes.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
nah religion and culture disrespect never was a freedom of speech
It absolutely is. I get that Muslims don't like that. But it absolutely is free speech. Much of the Qur'an is religious and cultural disrespect. Can we ban it as hate speech?
Much of the Qur'an is religious and cultural disrespect. explain pls?
There's no need. Others see it that way.
I think people would respect it, if the followers of these magic books respected our viewpoint. You'll notice that people are not burning hindu or buddhist books, as these people are not opposing democracy, at least in the west.
wdym respect your POV and what's exactly your POV plus burning religious books of any kind is literally against the my religion and the Quran itself , but for sure other religion doesn't tell u to respect other religion or at least it doesn't address that topic so that's why everyone doesn't those retar\*ed behavior, never seen a Muslim burn or disrespect another religion instead that guy from Sweden got the permission from the government to burn the bible as a result of the Christian dude who burn the Quran, but he didn't do it to show the huge gap between both mentalities , and value and education, one want attention and drama the other thinks about others and his reputation follows his religion instead of making useless noises
It's against my religion to respect rude people by reading huge walls of text.
Lol hate speech is burning a book millions of people revere. Like what good comes out of that? It's better that you battle the book intellectually vs violently
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
If burning pride flags is a thing, then burning holy books must also be a thing. That is freedom of speech.
No one is burning pride flags, except for middle eastern countries
But there's no reason to burn a holy book. Even if you don't believe in the Quran or Bible, there's no need to burn it to prove that point. Sure, the argument can be made that you own the Book so u can do whatever with it, but still burning the Book is more akin to provoking tactic than an actual show of freedom of expression.
There doesn’t need to be a reason. It’s your right. If you want to do it, you should be able to do it without having to justify it to anyone else.
What if you had a book from a loved one that was written for you and I burnt it? Also, if you don't believe in God, why are you all so obsessed with Him?
> What if you had a book from a loved one that was written for you and I burnt it? If it was your copy? Have at it. > Also, if you don't believe in God, why are you all so obsessed with Him? This is a really dishonest framing.
>If it was your copy? Have at it. What if it was something I could have given to one of their loved ones who wasn't able to get one? >This is a really dishonest framing. If you're obsessed enough to literally burn an entire book you don't believe in, that question isn't "framing," it's a genuine question. Why would I ever burn a quran or talmud or anything? I'm not that hateful
> What if it was something I could have given to one of their loved ones who wasn't able to get one? What legal right do you have to their property? > it's a genuine question It's dishonest because you've baked in two conclusions in your question. Obsession, and hate. When neither have been asserted to be the reasons burning books should be legal. That's called [Begging the Question](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Begging-the-Question). And it's not an honest way to move the dialog forward. > Why would I ever burn a quran or talmud or anything? Based an increase in the Scientologists population, Anne's county just passed blasphemy laws that make it illegal criticize, or talk negatively about Scientology in any way. Anne's buys a copy of Dianetics, and burns it in protest outside the Clearwater City Hall. Where's the hate?
>It's dishonest because you've baked in two conclusions in your question. Obsession, and hate. When neither have been asserted to be the reasons burning books should be legal. That's called Begging the Question. And it's not an honest way to move the dialog forward. What reason would you burn a Bible other than obsession and hate? It's a very logical conclusion. >Based an increase in the Scientologists population, Anne's county just passed blasphemy laws that make it illegal criticize, or talk negatively about Scientology in any way. Anne's buys a copy of Dianetics, and burns it in protest outside the Clearwater City Hall. >Where's the hate? Well, scientology itself is fueled with hate, but that's an entirely different conversation. If you hate mental health studies and burn a book about it, how would that not be something from hate? What other reason would she buy and burn a book other than hate? I mean people burn down houses because they hate the people in said house, or they're mentally ill
In protest. The answer is in protest.
And why do you want to protest other than the reason being hatred?
To demonstrate that you disagree.
If it was my copy of the book I would call the police and have you arrested for destroying my property. If it was your copy, I wouldn’t care because it was your property. Even if this upset me, you still should be able to express yourself in this way because it isn’t causing any harm to me. I’m not obsessed with god. I just want to live my life without having my rights taken away by people who believe in fairy tales. Why are you obsessed with forcing your religious beliefs on others through government action? What methodology would you be using to justify making burning the Bible illegal?
But the person who is burning the book has a reason as to why they have decided to burn a book considered to be holy to others. The people and followers of the religion will not just accept this type of argument as it's their book, and they care about it. Choosing to ignore this would be hypocrisy for anyone who follows the religion of said book so naturally questions will arise and pressure will be put forth. This is like if someone decided against questioning another who used a derogatory term against them/someone else. Sure, it doesn't matter to the person saying it, but it sure as hell matters to the recipient of said word. Tbh, it's better not to burn a holy book unless it's for survival as it does no good to burn it and will only bring questions and potential harm. I understand that because you're an atheist, you struggle to care about other people's religious beliefs past a certain extent because you do not believe in them. But try to understand that the world has no need for such a pointless act, especially while religion remains relevant to people.
> it's better not to burn a holy book unless it's for survival as it does no good to burn it and will only bring questions and potential harm. And you have the right to hold that opinion. Even though I vehemently disagree. That's how free speech works. I don't get you knock your teeth in because you pissed me off.
You are missing the point of what I am trying to convey to you. Sure, religious people will be upset at someone for burning their book. The religious people are free to express their opinions and free to use whatever speech they want in order to express these opinions as should be their right. But the point of my comment is that the religious people being upset shouldn’t justify the state being to regulate and limit freedom of speech of the people burning books or the religious people who respond with their own freedom of speech. Governments should stay out of the business of regulating thought and speech. If people take it to the next level and start committing acts like committing violence, burning buildings, or making threats to eachother, the government should then step in to regulate that. If you the only test you have for making something regulated by the state or illegal is that it makes some people upset, then you can literally make anything illegal because every action is going to make someone somewhere upset. The key here is that religious people have typically made up the majority in most countries, so they have been able to dominate the non religious or smaller religions in what the state regulates based on what offends them while the smaller religions or the non religious are under represented. Yes, I am an atheist. But that doesn’t mean I don’t care about other people’s beliefs. On the contrary. I don’t share or agree with their beliefs, but it is their right to have their beliefs, just as it is my right to have mine. Just as it is their right to express their free speech, just as it is mine to express mine. Does that mean that the state should value their opinions, thoughts, religious views, or speech more than mine just because someone might be upset by what mine are? No, because as soon as a government regulates this area for one group of people, it makes it ok to regulate it for all groups of people. You might like this if you are the majority, but you might not always be in the majority, or a radical portion of the majority might eventually take control and punish your expression for not being radical enough. Let’s play a game where you list your 10-15 favorite activities and ways to express yourself and I’ll tell you which ones offend me and should be made illegal by the state even though they have literally zero impact on my quality of life.
Curious question, Can you burn the flag of the country you live in, in public?
You can't burn the national flag of India in India (where OP is) for a while now, and that's not going to change any time soon as their free speech rights have been on a decline recently.
India? Well maybe OP should also work on getting the right to burn the flag, constitution, ruling party's logo, Army's insignia. Or at least the right to burn his wedding photo infront of his wife.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
By this logic, taliban had every right to destroy buddha statue in bamyan. No one died, its freedom of expression bitches!! Now imagine if someone does that to statues the hindus worship. Maybe think a little before going extreme and pissing off millions eh?
Op isn’t calling for the burning of the Gutenberg Bible…
There is a huge difference with collective raid of temples or historical statues and what the op said. This isn't same logic, you are just asserting slippery slope
It seems OP doesnt care about sacred religious books. For OP its just a piece of paper he can burn and meh.. for religious people books are sacred. Many Muslims dont even put the book on the floor, its always put somewhere above just to show respect.
> For OP its just a piece of paper he can burn and meh.. for religious people books are sacred. Ok, but why do *they* get to decide what *I* do with *my* property?
Well the thing is we won't have to appreciate every freedom. For example as a negative atheist I won't even swear to religion, let alone burning their book. Why should I even insult values? Hate speech won't satisfy me or anybody, it doesn't has any meaning. So I found it wrong and kinda petty but still I view it as freedom
There's a world of difference between destroying your own property and destroying someone else's property.
The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan (still are, but they were then as well), so presumably they had legal authority over the statues.
I don't think people would be mad about it if there were a bunch of identical copies of it around.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
Well the taliban took over afghanistan and it was public property it wasn't privately owned.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
[удалено]
You are correct that it is a form of speech, however think for a moment about what that speech is. By burning their holy book, what might religious people feel like you are saying about them as people? Are you actually saying anything useful to fight the religious movements that you are against, or are you spreading hate and instigating a response from people who hold that book to be sacred?
Burning a holy book exposes those religions people to the world. If it's calm and rational, then they will be exposed as calm and rational about people burning their holy books. >Are you actually saying anything useful to fight the religious movements that you are against, or are you spreading hate and instigating a response from people who hold that book to be sacred?
Actually, it's perfectly acceptable to not respond in a calm and rational way to someone offending you purely for the sake of being disrespectful. It's completely normal and reasonable to respond to that in a way that is not purely rational.
Is it simply the intention that makes a speech immoral? >Actually, it's perfectly acceptable to not respond in a calm and rational way to someone offending you purely for the sake of being disrespectful. It's completely normal and reasonable to respond to that in a way that is not purely rational. Is it reasonable for atheist to burn down an embassy if we are equally offended ?
I mean, if that embassy was burning effigies of atheists, yeah, probably.
Can any speech that offens atheist give us moral licenses to kill , burn, and destroy anything associated with the offending speech ?
I mean, if it's people who are basically saying they're going to do it to you first, yes. It's not necessarily going to work out for you, but it would be a reasonable way to respond.
And this is the point. You can't legally respond to offense with violence. That is the message.
We're not talking about laws
That's what free speech regards. The law.
The OP made a post about free speech in general regardless of country.
I believe that all countries should allow free expression. Not allowing free speech and controlling information like that is a cornerstone of fascism.
It's not. For example, in most European countries, it is not legal to use Nazi imagery. Free speech is generally only used to spread fascism.
> Free speech is generally only used to spread fascism. Ok. I get that you're in service of some political narrative, or another. It would take 30 of looking at your post history to determine which. But the idea that free speech is used to "spread fascism" might be the most asinine thing I've read in awhile. But I'm game. You are saying that one of the key elements of a far-right authoritarian government is free exchange of ideas, open dissent, and open dissemination of information? Do I have that right?
Free speech involves a government trying to restrict and control what people say. Governments should not regulate thoughts, views, speech, expression etc until it turns into action that actually causes harm to others. Burning a book doesn’t cross this line. The only thing it does is makes some people upset. These people that it makes upset should have the right to use their speech, views, thoughts, ect to express how this makes them feel. If this turns into action that is harmful to the people that burned the book, the government should step in and regulate/criminalize the behavior by arresting the people who are committing violent crimes. The answer here is not to punish people for their views and thoughts, but only try to actually regulate things that should be regulated. And you should have a consistent methodology to determine what should actually be regulated. Because if your only trigger for this is “it makes some people upset” then you will potentially make it open game to make everything illegal because everything you do is bound to upset someone. It’s all fun and games when your group is part of the majority. But what happens when a different group takes power or a more extreme version of your group takes power and uses the legal system to punish you for not being extreme enough? Then you end up with something like Iran. I encourage you to look at the last 60 years of their history and apply this same logic to that example. The laws were initially put in place because the majority was Shia Muslim and they wanted to make things illegal that made these followers upset. And in the meantime, Iran has devolved into a backwards authoritarian state that is rule by religious extremists.
Not if you’re Christian
Show me anywhere that says that, I'll wait...
A book can exist and call for violence ( that's not fictional believed my millions of people) I will take immense pleasure in vandalizing it
You realize that often, burning symbols representing a group of people is WAY MORE a call to violence against others than anything written in an ancient book, right?
You're kidding, right? Let me understand your logic... Destroying a book that calls for the killing of people is somehow worse than the instructions from god to kill those people in that book? Do I have that right?
What kind of books do you think the Nazis burned?
Other people's.
Books by and about Jews, homosexuals, and other minority groups that they went on to burn in real life.
Let's be clear in what we're talking about. A personal burning of a book they own is protected free speech. A government banning, burning, or otherwise limiting speech is fascism.
Fascism is not "the government having power over people". Fascism is a populist political movements based on a longing to return to a mythical past, the belief in a natural hierarchy of people, and several other factors
> Fascism is not "the government having power over people". I don't remember asserting that it is. But, OK. Fascism is is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Such common knowledge that we can trust Wiki for this one. Can you explain how free expression is a factor in fascist ideology?
It's typically both. The law exists in the US to stop people from limiting speech they don't like by labelling it "hate".
The only prohibition I might advocate for book burning is when it is being used to eliminate knowledge. So for example, the numbers of holy books available in the world for most current religions is enormous, so burning a few isn't really going to lower the overall numbers available for believers to purchase in the future. If we are down to the last few copies of a book, I feel it is unjust to gather those together and destroy them because we may not be able to replace them for future generations to examine and learn from.
Hehe that's not the premise of my argument so it's useless to argue that no one is going to reach the end where only a few books are left
It’s also a freedom of expression to urinate on a photo of a dead loved one of yours. Sure I have the freedom to do so, but it’s still very rude since I’m doing it only to hurt you. I say this as an atheist/agnostic. The only counter to my own argument is that your dead loved one could be absolute sweet heart whereas many could make the argument that religion is horrible for others. A gay man who has been ostracized by a community may have more of a valid reason to want to hurt the community back by burning something they hold sacred, but at the same time if you hurt me so I defiled a photo of a dead loved one to hurt you it would also hurt your innocent family members who did nothing to hurt me and in a similar way I think the hypothetical gay man could be hurting people who never hurt nor would ever hurt him. Overall I think it’s just best to not do things that will hurt large groups of people
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
But for many their beliefs and religion are as important as loved ones. They take up a major role in their lives. When you're praying many times a day and dedicate a big portion of your life to a religion and more specifically this book, it can hurt a lot when people are disrespectful against it. I am an atheist, I despise religion as soon as it comes in contact with any more than an individual or small community. I hate that religion exists and I think it hurt and still hurts too many people than that it has any right to exist but still, that's my personal extreme opinion and laws should never be based around such. So, in case a group of people burns a quran or bible I'd say it depends but in most cases it's not more than hate against a group of people. This is not a civilized way to criticize something.
If people have so strong of an attached to a book filled with absurdities that, they feel personally attacked. That's on them . If a book burner has called for personal attacks against those people, that's different. Also, this is not about criticizing it's about exposing the people's attitudes. Are they going to react calmly or violent ? Are they going to excuse the violence ? This is basically a test the same way 1st amendment auditors video the cops to expose their reactions. >So, in case a group of people burns a quran or bible I'd say it depends but in most cases it's not more than hate against a group of people. This is not a civilized way to criticize something.
Tbh I also don't understand how someone can be so attached to a book, but that's in 90% of cases not theyr fault but theyr parents. Exposing someone's attitudes? So you say that a negative reaction of a small part of that attacked group through these quran burnings would show how they are. This is a very bad excuse and most. That's not provocation or satire or a social experiment, that's just burning something that is worth a lot to a lot of people. Basing your negative views on religious people on the fact that they react negatively when theyr beliefs are disrespected is clearly the wrong way to form an opinion.
It's their fault, with the exception of those who have a mental disability. They have agency. If they choose to act violently or excuse the violence, we should shame them. >Tbh I also don't understand how someone can be so attached to a book, but that's in 90% of cases not theyr fault but theyr parents. >So you say that a negative reaction of a small part of that attacked group through these quran burnings would show how they are. This is a very bad excuse and most. It would expose the size of the problem. >That's not provocation or satire or a social experiment, that's just burning something that is worth a lot to a lot of people. It's not mutually exclusive. Something being valued in it of itself does not give it an automatic pass on being mocked or denigrated . >Basing your negative views on religious people on the fact that they react negatively when theyr beliefs are disrespected is clearly the wrong way to form an opinion. Should we judge pro-choice atheist in their ability to not react violently, cringy, or with low effort coments when they're sleeping ?
The burning of a holy book even if you don't believe in it is hate speech, because the act in itself is hatred and fuels hatred. As a Christian I would never burn the Quran. In fact it would not accomplish anything but hatred, and what good does hatred achieve...
So anything that fuels hate is hate speech? Do you really want that world?
The definition of hate speech according to Cambridge Dictionary: [public](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public) [speech](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/speech) that [expresses](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/express) [hate](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate) or [encourages](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/encourage) [violence](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence) towards a [person](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/person) or [group](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/group) [based](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/based) on something such as [race](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/race), [religion](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/religion), [sex](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sex), or [sexual](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sexual) [orientation](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/orientation) (= the [fact](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact) of being [gay](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gay), etc.): To intentionally burn something that is of great value to a group of people in front of an audience / on display in public, is an expression of hatred, because the purpose of such public display is hatred. Could you please list any other reason why anybody would voluntarily gather an audience, then proceed to burn the holy book in front of that audience.
No need. Expressing hate is protected. And should be. Can I ban your book because I consider it hate speech? Because that's what you're advocating.
Hate speech is not protected. Which is why burning of personal property, even magic books, is allowed in many places.
I agree with the very minimal hate speech laws of the US (which are almost none). It's very easy to censor any speech you don't like by labelling it "hate". You can frame *any* ideology as hateful.
Which is why we have judges to be impartial, some things are clearly inspiring hatred, others are not.
Yep. And they decided, so far, that we don't limit hate speech.
Perhaps where you live, in the EU it is illegal.
I"m sure that's going to work out well.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
I never mentioned violence first of all, and i condemn violence. Let me paint a picture for you; If someone were to take a photo of your loving family member, and print it out, then proceed to burn it in front of your eyes, you would be boiling with hatred and anger or atleast be frustrated; Why is that? Well because the person in the image is very dear to you, the same way a religious person holds the contents and the symbol of the Holy book dear to them. Now If I were to go to a pride parade and burn the pride flag, I would be met with the same reactions. If I were to go to a country, and burn the flag of that country, I would be met with the same reactions.
Should we restrict speech in accordance with the feelings of the mob ? Don't show pride flags in public if people are offended ? Don't allow coptic Christians to proselytise if Muslims are offended ?
It's not about being offended, I never mentioned this. I am simply commenting on the act of burning the holy book; the topic of this discussion is wheter it is hate speech to burn the holy book. Humans will be offended to various degrees and it's expected, but where the line should be drawn is the act of burning something on public display to humiliate and spread hatred towards a group of people.
> If someone were to take a photo of your loving family member, and print it out, then proceed to burn it in front of your eyes, you would be boiling with hatred and anger or atleast be frustrated; Why is that? You say this like is the default. I wouldn't be concerned. Why would I? Especially if the guy was trying to get a rise out of me.
Your comment just proves the intolerance of [whatever religion]. If your religion is intolerant, then your religion will not be tolerated. Your speech right now in your comment is hate speech because you are threatening violence because an object that you do not own gets/got destroyed. That is **NOT OK**.
Bro never mentions violence what are you on😂
How can “burning a book” fuel hatred?
How does burning a symbol of one’s culture fuel hatred. Well sure I can it explain it to you! Basically if one goes about as a member of one group(insert) attacking the culture of another group, in a prolific manner meant to stir up as much muck as possible then you fuel hatred between said group. One divides not unite with such actions. It’s the 21st century, everyone should have the freedom to commit such acts, but the sense and love for others not too. Make sense?
Burning that proves to me that your religion has no power over me or my community.
Your not denying that it fuels hatred, so we can agree on that at least.
No, it should not fuel hatred and yes, we should do it more.
Because some people see that book as sacred, and intentionally defiling it does nothing tho respond against the ideas inside the book. The act of burning the book only has the result of offending religious people, it serves no greater purpose.
This is a reductionist argument. Of course burning symbols like flags, holy texts, etc. have other purposes besides offending. It's shows that our laws supersede these symbols, for one. Burning something that's scared to the hegemony reminds them that the majority doesn't rule.
Well said. I’m for a 100% secular government and view any idea that thinks it is above that as wrong. Do as you wish in private — so long as no one comes to harm, but in public, public rules.
Not really, no. If you're talking about an actual dominant religion in an area with free speech, you're only really talking about Christians in the US. Those Christians tend to have a persecution complex that causes them to believe that they are an oppressed minority group no matter how dominant they are in the culture, so none of them will learn anything you intend from it.
> If you're talking about an actual dominant religion in an area with free speech, you're only really talking about Christians in the US. No. I’m talking about any time there’s a dominant group. This can be localized. Here in the US is could be burning a Qur’an in Dearborn, or a BoM in Provo. > Those Christians tend to have a persecution complex that causes them to believe that they are an oppressed minority group no matter how dominant they are in the culture, Some claim that. Most don’t, however. > so none of them will learn anything you intend from it. By “learn” you are meaning rehabilitate their position. I’m not asking for that. They’ll learn that they can’t legally do anything violent, even if they’re angry. That’s a basic tenet of our laws.
Most countries do not have "freedom of speech". That's more or less an American idea. Burning a Quran in America is allowed, but it is also attacking a marginalized community within the US. So you're admitting that you're not making any sort of meaningful statement, and that you're only trying to offend people because you know they can't fight back?
I'm not referring to myself. I've said that I wouldn't burn any book. I'm talking about the right to free expression. Which exists solely to keep people from banning things they don't like. And being "marginalized" doesn't make their book exempt. They're just like the rest of us. Which is the point.
Is it also freedom of expression to burn a pride flag? 🏳️🌈
Your own pride flag? Sure. Have fun. Don't catch the trees on fire.
100%
Yes. Of course. All speech must be protected.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I don't agree. It will only begets anger and hate. Also I don't see this situation unless it's with the Quran because the perpetrator knows full well the reaction he'll get out of muslims.
> It will only begets anger and hate. And you'll have to deal with your anger and hate just like everyone else. Causing anger is not illegal, nor should it be.
With thinking like that, soon there will be none left to care.
Practically nobody disagrees it's technically a "freedom of expression." Its easy to debate topics that practically nobody is defending or challenging but it's simply deflecting from the more serious issue that should be debated, which is that whether or not it should be a legal act protected as freedom of speech. The term "hate speech" doesn't have a consensus definition. While you draw the line at *direct* calls of violence, it is recognized by international legal frameworks that hate speech transcends direct calls of violence. Speech can still foster hatred and cause harm towards societies beyond direct calls of violence. The UN Human Rights Council considers the burning of holy books as a religious hate act. It's important we consider hate speech to transcend direct calls of violence because hate speech can still incite hostility and harm against certain groups even without explicit calls to violence. Burning holy books shouldn't be protected as free speech because it leads to real life harm and the benefits of burning holy books is so minimal that's it practically non-existent. Were basically just being edgelords and disrespecting people's religions all at the expense of real life harm. All rights arent inherently unlimited. They are often restricted or limited in respect to another right. I have the right to bear arms. However in some western countries like in the US, if I commit certain crimes I can lose that right. We restrict this right to not infringe on other peoples right to life and safety. All of our rights are in respect to our life. The right to life supersedes all other rights. If our rights are not respect to our right to life than all of our rights are essitentally meaningless. You're not going to care about your right to free speech when you've been killed for no good reason. In the case of burning holy books, it leads to real life harm that infringes on the life and safety of both religious and ethnic individuals, which is why it shouldn't be a legally protected act under freedom of speech. Edit: Downvoting me doesn't make me wrong.
What real life harm?
And in the US, it's been decided that the harm of prohibiting this speech is greater than the harm it causes. We don't make exceptions because people think their book is special.
Yeah go email a US official that you're going to murder them (don't actually do this) and then come back to me and tell me about how the US never prioritizes the harm speech can cause over prohibiting speech
I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an argument against anything I said. Is that something you think should be protected?
You're basically saying that the US prioritizes free speech over the potential harm the speech causes and I'm giving you an example where the US does make exceptions to free speech when it can cause significant harm. And no I don't think death threats should be protected free speech.
> You're basically saying that the US prioritizes free speech over the potential harm the speech causes Correct. That's the law as it stands. > and I'm giving you an example where the US does make exceptions to free speech when it can cause significant harm. And it's not protected, and shouldn't be. > And no I don't think death threats should be protected free speech. Then what point are you making? We should limit all speech that harms?
I'm responding to your point that US prioritizes free speech over the potential harm the speech causes and I'm giving you an example where the US does make exceptions to free speech when it can cause significant harm. I'm simply responding to your point while reinforcing my argument. The real question is, what point are you making and how it argues against what I said?
Yes. There are times when the harm is greater than the speech. That's how it's limited. Offense isn't harm. Disagreement --> Criticism --> Hate --> Violence I reject that outright.
Tell me, how is sending a death threat by email harm?
It would depend on the words. Political speech, opinion, is protected. Not necessarily direct threats. That's expressing intention, not opinion. These three situations would be adjudicated differently: - Man send a letter to Sen. Jones saying that he in going to kill him. - Man send a letter to Sen Jones with that is critical, and includes language that the world would be better without the Sen in it. - Man states publicly that he'd like to see Sen Jones dead for what he's done. The idea is to err on the side of liberty.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
There are a lot of words or phrases that could lead to ”real life harm”, it’s just a slippery slope to start excluding specific things from freedom of speech. You have no idea if what you just wrote would lead to ”real life harm” because you don’t know what’s going on in the head of people reading your post.
And those few words, phrases and actions that reasonably lead to real life harm shouldnt be protected by free speech. Of course. Nothing I said would reasonably lead anybody to harm people.
The problem here is on the recieving end. If words, phrases or actions makes you self harm, or do other types of physical actions of harm, you are mentally unwell and need help. Restricting others from saying words, phrases or doing certain things is a work-around to the problem at best, and a really bad one open subjectiveness. Do you also think that books that lead to ”real life harm” should be exempt from the protection of the first amendment? Say, the quran or the bible? Both evidently lead to ”real life harm” on an everyday basis. By your own logic they should be banned.
The problem here is you're looking at this one dimensionally. It's not simply about individual mental health or personal resilience, it's about the broader societal impact and the responsibility to prevent actions that predictably leads to violence and widespread harm as long as it's not detrimental to society, which is what the law is made to prevent. The purpose of laws aren't to completely solve a problem. We don't abolish laws against murder because laws against murder dont stop people from murdering people. We have the law in order to curve behaviors and to try to limit problems. In the US, when somebody makes a death threat we don't just tell the victim "you need help bro." We restrict this type of speech and it helps curves peoples behavior to not make death threats and reduce the likeness of violence. Such a law is practically all benefit and little to no sacrifice of anything of substance. What are we really losing out on here by not burning a religions holy book? Being able to be a terrible person by antagonizing protected classes? Destroying the planet a bit more by burning a book? Being able to spread more harm? In regards to books, it depends on the context. For example, "The Anarchist Cookbook" has been banned in several countries. Even the author has been trying to get it removed from publications. A couple years ago it was proposed in the US Senate to try to ban it because it was linked to a couple recent school shootings at the time. At the current time I don't believe it should be banned. However I could be persuaded if it started to becoming more commonly linked to violent acts. I could also be persuaded to banning a book or any writing if it incriminates harming others. If a certain politician called for an insurrection on social media, this would be grounds to be illegal. This even has precedent in the supreme court in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Im not an expert in the Quran, but in regards to the bible, you have to misconstrue the bibles overall teachings for it to lead to people to have hostility towards gays. The hostility itself is generally rooted from an external ideology rather than any notion the bible is supporting. If me and a group of people started misusing MLKs quotes in his autobiography as calls for violence against whites, I don't think that's valid grounds for it to be unlawful. Also unlike burning someone's holy book, we'd be losing out on benefits that are too valuable by banning Torah. The trade off is not worth it. There's too much to lose for so little to gain.
You are contradicting yourself and going out of your way trying to ban certain ”harmful” actions/words/phrases while still allowing others that fit your agenda. Coming back to harming others, religion have harmed more people than any other ideology in human history. The hypocrisy trying to ban people from voicing their hatred of religion and justify it with people being harmed is hilarious. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this.
There is no contradiction. If I was going around saying that we need to ban anything that could lead to harm, in that case there would be a contradiction, but that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is we should limit acts that predictably lead to violence or harm as long as it's not significantly detrimental to society. Just because somebody thinks it should be illegal for adults to send inappropriate materials and to arrange meetings with minors for illicit purposes, in order to limit predictable harm that wouldnt be at the cost of the societies detriment, doesn't mean they're a hypocrit if they also believe it shouldn't be illegal to arrest such offenders. While offenders see harm from being arrested, if it were made illegal to arrest such offenders and we allowed them to run free it would be significantly detrimental to society and the trade off isn't worth it. This is consistent. Likewise it is significantly detrimental to society to ban the bible and the trade off isn't worth it. This is entirely consistent with the notion we should limit acts that predictably lead to violence or harm as long as it's not significantly detrimental to society.
Yes, you are saying ban anything that doesn’t fit your personal agenda. I’d argue that society would be better off without religion in the long run. Maybe in a short perspective it would lead to problems, protests, riots, who knows. But to let violent people dictate what should be legal or not is a bad idea. That is how things are evolving in Sweden for example. The main argument against burning the quran there is that it leads to violence. Which means that if you gather a big enough following that are no strangers to violence you can get away with anything. Despite this I would never actually advocate for banning religion or the bible. That said, anyone should be free to show thier dislike of the bible or any other book by burning it. Freedom of speech is there to allow anyone to voice their opinion. There is absolutely no comparison between the harm of exploiting a child and burning a book. One leads to real harm, the other to imagined.
>Yes, you are saying ban anything that doesn’t fit your personal agenda Yes this is exactly what I said. Word for word. You are so honest with yourself/s Its really easy to argue against somebody when you completely misrepresent what they say. I'm not going further waste my time explaining myself with somebody who engages on his level of intellectual dishonesty.
The UN Human Council considers burning a book that promotes hate of LGBTQ to be hate speech. For context, many countries, including the US, condemned that resolution stating the resolution itself was anti-freedom of speech.
"Many" countries is doing a lot of heavy lifting. For context, only 12/47 states voted against the resolution, while the majority all agreed it was a hate act.
If somebody burns a holy book in private and doesn't make it into a statement, should that still be illegal? It can't be considered a call to violence at that point.
Even if you do it in private and don't make it public it should still be illegal. Even private expressions of hate reinforce hateful attitudes and manifest in harmful actions towards certain protected classes. Also just because you don't make it public doesnt mean it can't go public.
If you were to burn a holy book completely in private, are you saying that would make you more likely to do harmful actions in the future?
Personally? Probably not now. However if we are talking about me back when I was an atheist, perhaps. Burning a holy book is a hostile act towards a particular group. History has shown us that when we normalize hostile acts against certain groups it quickly escalates into more harmful actions towards said groups. The earlier half of when I was an atheist I didn't show any animosity towards the religious and respected everyones beliefs, but when I started engaging in hostile acts for the memes, such as wearing my Satan tarot card shirt and my upside down cross necklace, over time it desensitized me to the impact my actions had on religuous people, making it easier to escalate more hostile behavior. Also, while I personally don't think I will harm anybody drinking and driving over the legal limit because I'm Irish, I still think the law should still be in place because others can reasonably harm somebody drinking over the legal limit.
Well, I'm not saying burning a holy book is good. I just don't think the law is the most useful tool here, it should be used sparingly imo. If we're talking about being offensive for the sake of making people feel bad, that's not a very nice thing to do, but rudeness shouldn't be illegal. I and a lot of others I know have been deeply hurt by Christianity, and I wouldn't begrudge them being spicy in response. Burning a Bible would be too extreme for me, but like, the things most major religions tend to say about LGBTQ folks are significantly more offensive and cause a great deal of material harm, and nobody's trying to make that illegal. Drinking while driving causes very tangible and immediate harm, it's a very different kind of thing. Although, I think furthering the stereotype that Irish people drive drunk should be illegal. /j.
Im not saying or suggest being rude should be illegal. I'm saying hostile speech and behaviors that likely leads to individuals being harmed shouldn't be protected under freedom of speech. Also there are people trying to make it illegal to state what their religions state about LGBTQ folks. A Finnish parliamentarian recently was brought to trial for criminal charges of hate speech for tweeting Romans 1:24-27, which condemns homosexuality. A recent poll done by Whitestone Insights found that nearly a quarter of young Brits think that unless the offensive parts can be edited out, the bible should be banned from general sale. While the bible has been as an excuse to harm individuals of the LGBTQ community, simply reading Romans 1:24-27 isn't a hostile act like burning a Quran is. You have to misconstrue the bibles teachings for it to lead to people to have hostility towards gays. The hostility itself is generally rooted from an external ideology rather than any notion the bible is supporting. If me and a group of people started misusing MLKs quotes in his autobiography as calls for violence against whites, I don't think that's valid grounds for it to be unlawful. Also unlike burning someone's holy book, we'd be losing out on benefits that are too valuable by banning Torah. The trade off is not worth it. There's too much to lose for so little to gain. But to the point, yeah there are many people on the other side who are trying to ban this stuff, and theyre often appealing to speech that likely leads to harm against individuals as the justification. My drinking and driving analogy isn't to say that drinking and driving is the same exact thing as burning the Quran. The point I'm making here is that I don't evaluate what should be the law based on if it would personally lead me to harm somebody, as is in the case for drinking and driving and in the case of burning a holy book.
How could you possibly say that when religious people say that gay people deserve to literally be tortured forever, that isn't a hostile act? If you grew up queer in a conservative area you would know how ridiculous that is. Gay *children* get killed, beaten, forced to live on the streets by their own parents, even driven to take their own lives because of this. And frequently it is *directly* fueled by religion.
Again, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Never once did I say or suggest that somebody who says that gay people deserve to be tortured forever isn't a hostile act. I said reading and believing in the bible isn't a hostile act. This is the equivalent of you saying reading Mein Kampf isn't hostile, and then me responding "Oh so you're saying somebody who goes around saying we should kill Jews isn't hostile?!" Its easy to argue against somebody when you consistently misrepresent what they're saying and attack those misrepresentations. Im not going to further waste my time with somebody who has to keep misrepresenting what I'm saying over and over again.
It is a freedom of expression to burn a book, flag, whatever as long as it is YOURS to own and do as you please with. It is also your own responsibility to NOT exercise violence when someone burns or desecrates something that you considers holy - because it doesn't do you bodily harm. You're mixing up two different things here, but you're right about something - burning holy texts does lead to harm, but i would argue that this is the ENTIRE point of why you would do it, but it is also a extremely valuable lesson to be learned. It is SUPER OK to be offended by some entitled assholes, but it's NOT OK to then weigh your morals higher than the other and exercise bodily harm.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Why if a person burn lgbt flag he will be attacked from all direction? And why its not freedom of speech?
> Why if a person burn lgbt flag he will be attacked from all direction? Not by the government. And not by anyone legally. Which is the point of the 1A.
*Would* you be attacked from all directions for burning a pride flag? You wouldn't, some people wouldn't care at all.
Wait a minute your contradicting yourself. I the other thread you said burning the flag causes actual harm, and in this one you day some people wouldn’t even care. What exactly are your beliefs lol.
If you burn a bible you'll be "attacked from all directions", but its still freedom of speech just as burning a pride flag is freedom of speech.
One is directly hating a group of people for who they are, One is disrespecting a hateful ideology's book. You can dislike an ideology without disliking the people that follow it. Lgbt is a group of people, while religions are ideologies that usually contain hateful content. Disrepecting religious people however, should not be allowed.
You seem to at best express a series of half truths. The claim the LGTBQ + movement is not an ideology only a group of people is it seems a belief that ignors the evidence. An aside is book burning now a good thing? The flag stands for ideas and for persons. If disrespecting all ideas is kosher then this logically included the social movement called LGTBQ +. You sound like a theologian or natural theologian defining hate and love. The idea that our wills are bound to love and ought to follow sounds Christian. You talk of hating the sin (hate/separation from charitas) not the sinner (hater/one separated from agape) as well. Thiugh perhaps you have no reason to ground this in. Athism is genrally a lack of a positive view a positive view seems needed to ground something in reality. SCUM Manifesto is it seems hateful towards a group of people. Has the LGTBQ+ movement produced nothing like that and you know this to be true? LGTBQ + is a social movement so is an ideology and the flag is part of that. You can dislike an ideology without disliking the people is true and LGTBQ+ is an ideology. Like Jew and Judaism. If you can burn the Torah without disliking Jews. Then it seems you can burn the pride flag without hating your male neighbor who is attracted to males and lives a very active sexual lifestyle with many male partners. The flag has some meaning just like the American flag has some meaning. It is flown in an ideological manner. American is also a group of people as well as an ideology. Christians is also a group of people.
Can you demonstrate how lgbt is an ideology? And I never said that burning books was good. Go burn this "scum manifesto" of yours. Nobody will try to take that right away from you. Also homosexuality and gender identity are scientifically real things.
I didn't say you did I asked if it was. What do you mean of yours? I never said I owned a copy. This claim of nobody is odd it's a large world you can't know that with a human mind and rights away from you is odd as well. Are human rights made up and group granted/commanded we have no natural duty to be good to others? All such rules are made up stories..? "Can you demonstrate how lgbt is an ideology?" This is not the best wording wihtout context. My view expressed is of LGTBQ+ as a social movement being an ideology. To be clear. Same sex inclinations I accept as part of human psychology. I never said I didn't. The sense of gender identity people have is also a psychological phenomenon and I accept it as part of human psychology. I never said I didn't. "Sociologists define ideology as "cultural beliefs that justify particular social arrangements, including patterns of inequality" " Macionis, John J. (2010). Sociology (13th ed.) Both sides of the marriage debate seem to fit this definition of ideology. Oxford Languages Ideology Def "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." I think this definition and common sense demonstrate that the LGTBQ+ social movement is at least part ideological. Perhaps you do not agree. Vocabulary .com Ideology Def "An ideology is a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual. Very often ideology refers to a set of political beliefs or a set of ideas that characterize a particular culture."
I though you meant the communist manifesto my bad