Most people who kill in the name of the religion dont really claim its a religion of peace. Hence why they often cite violent passages.
Man who burned Quran shot dead in Sweden
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
Most people who kill in the name of the religion dont really claim its a religion of peace. Hence why they often cite violent passages.
There is clearly a difference between racially abusing an individual, or condemning a religion by burning the holy text.
And yeah, I can look at what happened and conclude that the problem is religious fundamentalism. People should not be murdered for burning a book, and every "He had it coming" or "There are consequences" reinforces that this is somehow the natural outcome.
What's that difference? Bear in mind he did it outside a mosque. I don't see any difference.
Each is intentional incitement against a group of people: one primarily for race, the other primarily for who they are and how they live with that book being a key symbol of their daily and lifelong practice.Also has a secondary ethnic salience. You are just wrong.
If you went to an ultras section in any properly mental supporters section on the planet and burned their flags and so on.What do you think will happen? And this is lesser than the Quran because one is leisure and the other to over 1.5 billion people symbolizes a way of life which they actually practice.
Should they beat you to death? No. That's wrong. But should you be that stupid and then retreat behind "ah, look at how snowfakey you all are" when the inevitable happens. Either mental illness or complete fecktard (mental illness by default).
Should they beat you to death? No. That's wrong. But should you be that stupid and then retreat behind "ah, look at how snowfakey you all are" when the inevitable happens. Either mental illness or complete fecktard (mental illness by default).
I would argue that any religion that seeks to convert and dominate over others can't really be described as a "peaceful" religion. They may have a definition of peace but it's unlikely to be a shared interpretation. That said, I also don't think it's a binary concept either, and that for the most part religions are capable of coexistence.
But - assuming this has been perpetrated in the name of what we all likely expect - then it is probably far more damaging to those communities in this region in the long run than anyone else (with the notable exception of the guy who's been fecking murdered). Just grim.
What religion does not do this? They all seek to grow and against competitors.
Patently false. Judaism for instance does not encourage conversion.
That's not true.The children are "born into it". Conversion by default. And Christianity began as a Jewish sect. As did Islam, really.
Also, check your sects. Many a Jewish sect will convert and seek conversion. It's not -ironically- a monolith.
Actually only Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent Buddhism do this.
Judaism and Hinduism don't, and neither do any of the Chinese/Japanese/Far Eastern religions many of the best of my knowledge.
Then they don't exist. If they don't convert people to that religion, whether children or otherwise, those religions disappear. It's a fallacy (the arguments being made here).
Bang on the moneyWell, Judaism counters this by having the religion follow the mother's line. Therefore, anyone born to a Jewish woman is Jewish (although this is somewhat complicated by the interpretations of reformist/orthodox sects). Aka - grow the religion by having more children.
I assume Hindiusm does something similar via their caste system - but in both cases what is highlighted is the blurring of religion and culture. A religious identity is more than just the scripture and text followed - although I'm sure there are a hundred good arguments to be made suggesting both Islam and Christianity is the similar in this regard.
Also - I don't think being born into a religion is the same as converting. Conversion demands an element of free-will and choice to revert from one spiritual mindset to another.
Children often refuse to go with the religion they would otherwise be born into, so the distinction is minimal. Also, if you mean in-group conversion, the children of the adherents, then there is still conversion (again, if no conversion to a cultural lifestyle, then no reproduction of that religion if we say it is a religion).
You can be without religion and claim spirituality -- so texts can often be irrelevant but the lifestyle and cultural practice is not:indigenous of Papa New Guinea believe in a very different form of "religion" but it has similarities with respect to the universality, among humans, of "afterlife" and"creation".
Some Jewish sects would rhetorically lynch you for that. They say it comes from the father. Like I said, not a monolith.
If they read Genesis without error they'd have to say it comes from both (where "it" is the child) and have the benefit of not contravening common sense.
They need to be alive to speak first. As I said, doing this discreetly without revealing identity is fine. Publicly exposing yourself is just inviting trouble. Key is to survive and also reduce social cost of police protection etc. He's not convincing any hyper religious moron by burning books.
Last edited:
Except he did this in Sweden, a western liberal democracy. I feel like the people making this argument are really glossing over the location of where this happened.
Do it in Italy, a western liberal democracy or any of the EU states which have ultras. The same outcome. To them, not unsurprisingly, you are burning "at them" or "to them". It is so common sense that even these distinctions make it complicated.
Only a child (who would not necessarily know what they are doing) or someone insane (this guy outside a mosque) would do what happened. Life experience and common just says "no" whatever your opinion about the ultras or any given religion. It's the worst way of addressing the problem.
This is massively determined by where you are in the world. I think this is far more likely in a liberal democratic setting than a more culturally conservative one. Also, I think this presupposes what it means to follow a religion. You can be culturally adherent to a faith without necessarily buying into the more literal or dogmatic interpretations. For example, in most of the West you can reject the fundamentals of Christianity but you are also a product of a society that has been established along Christian ideals. You can partake in the cultural celebrations of religious events without necessarily recognizing the purely religious or spiritual acknowledgements.
Regarding conversion, whilst I think you're right to acknowledge this adoption process of a faith in childhood, I don't think conversion is the right term. If all they have ever known is a religious environment, then that is their starting point. It's what defines their initial code of ethics and understanding of the world. We are not born with a version of this established, therefore adoption of a religion cannot really be conversion from one state to another.
Literally acknowledged that this is not universal across all sects in the same post you quoted, but for the vast majority it's the mother's line that is followed.
There are apostic (apostasy) outcasts even in indigenous societies which do not adhere to the cultural ethos (which would include what we call religion). So it does happen rather universally.
Man is born free but is everywhere in chains -- Rousseau. Now, sensibly, those chains, for Rousseau are the ideologies and practices of a society. Thus, it is -- again I use "aposteriori" to mean non-innate -- "conversion" to a way of being which is practiced. You are not born with religion but into cultures which practice it. What distinguishes spirituality from religion is that "religion" is a master term plastered onto (take the indigenous) human understandings of afterlife and creation (which do not consider themselves "religious" at all in many cases and also are universal among humans). There's more to it than that but as a synopsis it's decent.
He went to a mosque and burned it. It's not the same at all to the other examples. It's an extremely aggressive attempt at inciting anger from a group and nothing else and is IMO a hate crime that is illegal to do in many civilized parts of the world. It's not freedom of speech, it's in the same tier as showing/wearing hate symbols or using hate speech which gets you tossed in jail in loads of countries, for good reason.
What would you do if some cnut went outside your house, unprovoked, and started burning pictures of your family? Not that you'd kill him, but I'm sure many people would resort to some form of violence (like fighting them). This guy going to a mosque and burning their book and nothing else happening to him during the event is quite a good look for that mosque Id say. Years later being killed because he's also part of a militia and as some sort of international political killing is just the sort of reason why it's beyond stupid to do this in the first place, and why I have absolutely 0 sympathy for him. A shit human got targeted by a random nut job somewhere in the world and eventually that person got to him.
Last edited:
I'm all for burning religious books.
You've misunderstood my point.
If he did this in a Muslim country, in an area full of fundamentalist Muslims, your ultra comparison would make sense. But he didn't. He did this in Sweden, a country in which Muslims are a tiny minority.
Everyone is rightly worried about the rise of the far right in Europe but the rise of a more extreme, fascist form of Islam in Europe is also concerning
Outside a Mosque, burning that which is related to the identity of a minority group: that makes it even worse. It is literally a hate crime by western liberal standards.
We have already saw people who follow Islam attack and butcher old women in France leaving a Catholic church for no reason at all. Islam has major issues and people here defending this killing because he 'should have known better' will keep making excuses for this religion.
There is absolutely no way to reform Islam, unlike any other religion in the world. This action shows it is built on violence rather than peace.
The punishment for hate crimes in Europe isn't death
Nor is anyone here saying that the murderers had a right to murder. That's beside the point. Your primary argument is defeated, not to be cnut, and so you pivot to this.
What about all the institutional abuses of the Catholic, Protestant (in fact, name any denomination...) churches? Do you say the same? And what the refractation, moral, of Fascism by many of these institutions? Or.. and the history is bleak. As bleak as Islam if not much worse for the Islamic had but one or two empires whereas the explicitly Christian had many. Quantitatively, Christianity is way out in front of all packs (we'd have to go back thousands of years) when it comes to atrocities.
My primary argument is actually that Islam isn't compatible with western values and it's concerning that actions like this are becoming more and more normalised here in Europe. I don't think that's been defeated
I'm not sure how that massively differs from my assertion, though. To reinterpret Rousseau somewhat to the context of childhood we're discussing, we are a blank slate to begin with and informed by our surroundings - be them cultural or religious - during our formative years. As we grow older and - hopefully - wiser, we develop the critical means to assess these ideas. But I don't think the term "conversion" is applied correctly in the instance of forming our initial understanding of the world, theology, creation, or whatever it may be. It would be impossible to ever revert back to an initial blank slate. But then again, I think I am probably referring to religion in a broader sense than you are.
You mean Islamic people. Not the religion, but the people who practice it. And the extremists, only, at that. It's best to make that apparent from the outset.
We aren't a blank slate in the literalist sense of that term (tabula rasa). But insofar as culture -- societal practice (phenomenological) -- goes, you are correct (ish).
People do change, often radically, and this isn't national characteristic but universal.
Nope, I mean Islam. If you actually practice Islam the way the Quran and Hadith tell you to, there are so many incompatibilities with western values. I don't even know where to begin
And we've seen people get attacked in mosques for no reason at all. What's your point?
Islam is a term. Islamic people is what you mean. You're not debating an analytic phil. point but an empirical behavior which must be of the people which practice that religion not that religion in absentia of practice. Whether you know it or not, that is what you are saying. Islamic people are incompatible with western culture.
Not really.
I'm not really looking to argue semantics with you, you know the point I'm trying to make.
The instructions set out in Islamic texts/scriptures, which advise Muslims on how they should lead their lives, aren't compatible with western values. Better?
Which instructions, and lives, Muslims lead.Easier?
Empirically, "really". By the 100s of millions.
If that makes you happier, sure.
Any thoughts on that particular point? Do you disagree they're incompatible?