Its not limited to burning a Quran. Its inappropiate(a lot of this being up to interpretation) treatment of sacred religous text of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Its not limited to burning a Quran. Its inappropiate(a lot of this being up to interpretation) treatment of sacred religous text of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Yes, it's totally about *checks notes* the concern around burning of the Tanakh.
Yes that's fine but like I said, I was referring to the poster I first quoted who wrote multiple offensive things in one post and then pretended it was all out of concern for women in Islam.
Perhaps there's better ways to make your point than a video where the speaker rails against the term entirely, when anyone who doesn't harbour a genuine hatred of all Muslims can see and acknowledge that there can be aggression and violence against everyday Muslims walking about trying to live their normal lives, while also acknowledging that those people can still hold problematic views.
To be honest I agree with you. I could posted a better video or made a better point about the how the word can be problematic or abused.
Last edited:
Equally wrong. All these "holy" books were written by ignorant people and they are all full of lies. Add to them the "holy" books of all other religions, there have been thousands of religions and they are all wrong.
If I can burn in public a calculus book or a cooking book, which are actually useful books, I don't see why I cannot burn the Quran or the Bible, which are useless books full of lies.
You wont find me defending this law.
Then why did you post the above explanation about "religous text of Islam, Christianity and Judaism "?
We all know that this law was created because of the Quran.
All religions are wrong. All religions are based on lies. All religions are trying to manipulate their faithful.
But unfortunately, today and in the past 30 years, only Islam produces religious fundamentalists and religious terrorists with alarming frequency. Why are we trying to hide this? This is the reality. Not accepting reality is against science.
I was simply stating what the law is, not defending it. Everyone knows that its because of terror threats, averted terror attempts from from muslim terrorists and geopolitical pressure from the muslim world. The politicians at least admitted that. They all said they essentially couldnt make a law like this without including the other religions. They did for some weird reason exclude Buddhism and Hinduism though and restricted it to the abrahamic religions.
I’m not a big fan of laws giving special rights to religious texts, but to equate it to a calculus text misses the mark for me. Like it or not millions are raised to think the book is divine, and they take it very seriously. Then you have idiots who want to escalate tensions between cultures who are purposely doing what they can to provoke, and all it takes is ONE person who loses their shit over it and they get their talking points and backing for their rallying cry against the minorities that they are bigoted against.
One Iraqi dude running around burning Qurans is affecting Swedish foreign policy and their application to NATO, it’s ludicrous how much bullshit can be set in motion by assholes abusing their right to free speech. The outcomes are distasteful either way to me.
One Iraqi dude running around burning Qurans is affecting Swedish foreign policy and their application to NATO, it’s ludicrous how much bullshit can be set in motion by assholes abusing their right to free speech. The outcomes are distasteful either way to me.
Interesting exchange here
We used to be like that in the west about the bible. None of the people taking offense would be living in the west if we still did. Not getting that offended is probably the price you have to pay to live in a democracy championing individual rights like free speech over religious doctrine.
What do you do, when the idiot moves on to insulting the religion some other way? You outlaw that method and the next and next.
Pretty soon you are just another reactionary country, selling out your principles to assuage religious arseholes and the precedent is set, get offended enough and you can your own way.
What's interesting about this exchange that hasn't already been repeated about liberal societies and islamism?
Anyone who thinks men and women have to deal with the same degree of community pressure in most well-known demographics is being incredibly naive, to say the least.
In regards to the argument, Islam among a lot of other constructs has been a reason for women being punished or have rituals forced upon them throughout their lives which includes what they are allowed to wear.
There was no claim that it was the first time it was ever said, but it is something that isn't discussed nearly enough.
I agree. But Popper said the way forward for this is to be intolerant towards those who are intolerant towards the otherwise tolerant. Which in law would be to outlaw Islamism which would be very difficult to carry out in western democracies and set the world alight with accusations about islamophobia and the hypocritical west.
Last edited:
It can just as easily be interpreted that western nations should be incentivized to curate their migratory policies to ensure they aren't importing a disproportionate amount of people from intolerant cultures, who might one day seek to make their new home countries the same.
But that would have people up in arms about the rise of western far right to paradoxically limit the muslim far right. Unless of course left wing parties adopt the hard line stance on immigration like our last government here did. Essentially almost the only way to do that would be to discrimate against immigrants, migrants and refugees by their religion which is against the human rights laws that were created post WW2.
Last edited:
A danish iranian artist who used to shred the Quran now being confronted by the police in Copenhagen because she's shredding carrots in mockery of the law.
Freedom for religion should be and is a fundamental right, that was not what I was saying. The acceptance of ideas coming from religious dogma, and thus without evidence, as just as valid as those relating to women or gay rights is the problem.
Also, if one is fundamentally hateful of sexual minorities, it should not matter if it comes from religious dogma or personal hate or whatever. One can not treat hate coming from religion as being somehow justified because it appeals to magic. Hate beliefs are hate no matter where they originate from. Religion can not be a shield for holding any discriminatory and hate based views. Do you think gays are an abomination? Are you religious? yes. then its ok. No. then you are immoral.
The moment when religion becomes a shield for hate, we can just as well go back to the middle ages.
This is a reasonable idea, before you actually look at the numbers. The number of refuges and migrants coming from Islam dominated countries is super small compared to the actual population of Europe. To think or say that they are a threat to the culture, democracy, human rights, etc is absurd.
What is happening in Europe and also the US is something very wicked IMO. The right and mostly far right is pretending like "we" are about to be invaded and, the left is acting like it's ok to accept any and all beliefs. Both sides have taken a radical position that has nothing to do with reality, because they are both looking for votes. It is the result of a hyper polarized environment in politics IMO; politicians feel forced to be all the way that side or the other, little in the way of reason. And truth be told, people respond to that.
Can you give an example of when the left were ok with hate against any group of people because it was wrapped in a religious blanket?
The british left of the last many decades or like the Maoist left? The left used to be famous for being extremely anti-clerical. A lot today cant compute that Charlie Hebdo is a far left wing magazine.
Last edited:
The left is ok with antisemitism. It is ok with the destruction of a nation and of a people by the "from the river to the sea".
It is a new age of antisemitism that is ok. It's juts we don't want them to have shops, to have a place in their historical land. It's ok. From the river to the x we sing. Let the Jews fall in the ocean.
Imagine being so triggered by an animal-shaped tin foil head…
This is just hyperbole. Plenty of people on the left have called out antisemitism. I would agree that there is an extremist segment on the left that isn't exactly helping its own image with regards to antisemitism. But I wouldn't frame it as "the left".
Peace on you.
Is it religion? Is it customs? Is it both?
Is it religion? Is it customs? Is it both?
Video deleted but seen it elsewhere as it's been doing the rounds on the far-right channels. Horrendous but is there any religious context to it? From what I gather, it's the accused's sister and her mates attacking the accuser for reporting him.
What's your definiton of "the left"? Seems very different from mine.
It's apparently the political side that hates gays and jews, but in a roundabout kind of way. That's why so many people turned their backs on the democrats and voted for Trump instead, you know they guy who is incredibly open and direct in his hatred of gays and jews.
Wilders seems to be on the case. I'd like to preface that i dont endorse him. I just checked in with his election today and found it quite extreme.
This cat is insane...
While I agree with the point that it is not the wider left, as in the voters, I consider myself to be left even though some consider me racist for not respecting hate beliefs that come from religious dogma, it is undeniable that these extreme manifestations of what I call "the vocal/ internet/ college kids" left is left unchallenged by the majority. If we are going to call out the right for not doing enough to distance themselves from the far right, then the same is true for the left.
I am not actually that much in to politics and I find the tribalism to be absurd. My desire is that the Western World does not decent back to fascism,extreme racism and that all that was built over the decades goes to s. The left as a political entity, be it in the US or UK, instead of pushing aside the extreme manifestations and often times racist (against white people) and anti-Semitic and sexist even, by the media they control, they embraced these things. All this does is to push more and more people not just to the right but to the far right.
Do we really need to get to a fascist US and again to a fascist dominated Europe before the left decides that pandering to extreme versions, that having mutually opposing views in a schizophrenia like manner, was not the best of ideas? Do we need nazism to come back before we can admit that pandering to everything, no matter how abhorrent but acceptable because of "magic" was never going to create a better World but a more violent and hateful one?
The left for a long time was 10/10 with dealing with the Christian hate beliefs and the anti science that resulted from that. Today? Religious beliefs are a shield against any and all things. This is just one side of things, there are many others, like Biology teachers being abused because science does not conform to gender ideology, physics, archeology and even democracy itself have become "sensitive" subject because they might upset some feelings.
I said it before, if the Western World goes to s, it will not be because the far right found a magic pill or an extremely charismatic leader (Trump is disgusting even by many of his voters standards, from my experience) but because the left is disintegrating.
I actually have some, let's call it knowledge of how that man behaves and thus thinks. All I'm going to say is that Trump is a saint and an example of respect for diversity compared to Wilders. This guy is one of the most vile humans in Europe IMO.
He certainly comes across as one.
Jesus the carpet bomber.
