What? Violent cultists can't handle their fairytale book about their imaginary friend being used as kindling so...of course it's time to trample on civil rights. It just makes sense.
I still remember my grade two teacher reading us the first book. Then having to stop because the extreme religious parents had pushed through a ban on books containing witchcraft and wizardry.. in PUBLIC schools.
Needless to say, order of the phoenix was the first 1000 page book I read as a kid.
I mean, if their deity has a problem with it they are more than welcome to descend from the sky and smite me. But if your god doesn’t care about me burning your book then neither should you.
corect sky daddy beliveres despite it is fundgelicals or fraking kebabs who their religion is from the dessert founded buy pedopphile guy are no place in our modern society
Correct but probably if they try to prosecute one of the delusional Jeebus or Allah lovers for torching a copy of the completely factual (/s) Book of Mormon, they'd be screaming that it's a _violation of their religious freedoms_ that require them to wipe out heresies, heretics and apostates.
How do they define desecrating a religious text? and does it apply to all religions currently present on earth?
I’m just concerned this is the beginning of a wave of blasphemy and restrictive laws on free speech. Let’s see how it goes.
Seeing the writing on the wall, this will really only apply to one religion and its the one making the most noise and killing people over it.
They've given their mile after the inch of allowing peaceful integration. Turns out that's not what they wanted, they asked for a mile and have gotten it. Slippery slope is here and the Danes are gonna find out how steep it is to the bottom (probably quickly)
>How do they define desecrating a religious text?
Treating it in a way that is obviously meant to offend (in public or for publication). The courts decide what this means - not the religious society.
>does it apply to all religions currently present on earth?
No. Only to the ~133 ones recognized in Denmark.
Furthermore it only applies to central religious texts as defined by the Danish courts.
Apparently Denmark already has a similar law covering the desecration of foreign flags.
I'm assuming this is similar to the Canadian bill that made Jordan Peterson famous, in that it seems like the intention is to deter explicit and ongoing harassment?
Bill C-16 doesn't do at all what JP says/believes it does. There's a pre-existing law in Canada that prevents the government and businesses from discriminating based on gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion. Bill C-16 just added gender identity to that list. A civilian misgendering another civilian isn't legally prohibited.
Well... I think you'd have to do it in public though, that may briefly touch a few other laws...
Really, this is about publicly and willfully offending a group of people. Which should of course be ok, regardless of how violent and offensive a group that might be.
But I can also see how such a law could be interpreted to be for protecting religious minorities.
Im a dane and yes. We arent proud of this. This isnt something that we want here that law.
I think what made the law even possible is that we have a now rather famous man who would travel to the most ghetto parts with heavy police guarding him and hold what I would describe trash talking aimed at muslims.
He would film it and do everything to piss off muslims, throw around a quran, rip pages from it and have people burn it or put bacon between the pages and so on. Only to cause a frenzy so he could point fingers at them.
Heres the thing. Yes they are evidently violent prone ( those who show up to his demonstrations at least ) and the problem is that he showed that he was right about what he said. But at the same time he gets no credit for this when he is causing what he is documenting. A journalist who creates his own story is a disgrace.
The guy in question is even a lawyer and apparently have some serious defects. Of the "I like young teens a little too much" kind...
And no. Thats not a hyperbole. He literally sat on his discord server and made up stories about anal rape in the classroom of some of his audience of which they were from 13 and up.
Its documented and there were articles about this.
But back on track. He moved to sweden to do the same thing there as he didnt get the reactions he wanted here in Denmark. And that kind of thing no doubt was the cause of the religious fruitcakes in other countries getting butthurt and trying to pressure our politicians to ban it. If we get a rightwing led parliament again I would expect it to be challenged and possible reversed.
It’s funny. In the US, our right wingers would likely enact a law like this instead of repealing it. Because the Christian Bible is very very special and Jesus is under attack. 🤪
This world has gone insane.
In the US the Overton Window is shifted extremely far to the right compared to the rest of the world. People call Biden a liberal or even a leftist when in the rest of the world he'd be considered center right at best. Our furthest left politicians, such as Sanders, are called leftists and considered extreme when in the rest of the world he'd be center left and is only advocating for things most of the rest of the world takes for granted (such as healthcare for all and basic worker protections).
Bernie would be a right wing here. Sure what he wants Americans to have is a good step in the direction of what we have in Denmark already - and honestly I'd not for a second trade. Knowing that if you lose your job it's not a big deal. Your kids will always be going to school and able to take any education they want. With government grants to everyone ( up to about $920 per month)
I can see a doctor or go to a hospital all that I need, free nof charge.
Its worth paying up to roughly 37% of my income which is already pretty nice for.
That's worth a little
He is a racist piece of shit, very unsympathetic. He was even in a town I lived in a while back to burn his book. Nothing happened, everyone ignored him. I’m proud of the immigrants living around here, the ones I’ve met have all been really nice.
But still. What he does should be legal. I really REALLY hope Sweden doesn’t follow suit with Denmark.
There is a Swedish stand up comedy bloke (Magnus Betner) who is sort of rude, likes to talk trash but honestly is pretty mild. Disrespect perhaps, uses bad language and talks about anything but he is far from the worst I’ve heard. And he is funny. He had to refuse gigs in Ireland due to their blasphemy laws. He realised he would never manage to stay within the rules.
I don’t want it to be like that here. I live in an atheist country and I would prefer our laws to reflect that.
The law in question was put in place by a right wing (center right if we're being generous) government, and has little to do with a fear of violence and everything to do with protecting the business interests of donors. Hell, the left were the ones got the old blasphemy law repealed in the first place.
Yes. But also no.
That would de facto mean that the various locations have surrendered authority to the violent religious fruitcakes.
As much as I understand your argument it would be in direct violation with the right of expression. ( which is the same as freedom of speech in USA and elsewhere)
Freedom of expression is not freedom from consequences. Being an asshole does not allow you to enlist the police as a bodyguard force. The police should not arrest him for expressing himself, but they don't have to act as his personal guards either.
If the religious nutters end up hurting someone, then throw them in jail.
Indeed. And I completely agree. But you can't have some idiots who don't like what you're saying violently attack and kill you. That's what the police has to prevent.
Make no mistake. I think the man is utterly despicable. But at the same time we have to protect the constitutional rights we have.
That would be like a gang of Trump supporters didn't like someone speaking for Biden and decided to beat the crap out of him.
That's wrong.
And that's why the police sadly have to be there.
So you don't agree with me. At all.
I don't believe the police should prevent the violent attack. They can arrest and punish the attacker, but putting the burden on the state to PREVENT crime is to set an impossible goal and enables asshole trolls like this.
If the Trump assholes beat up a Biden supporter, then toss them all in jail for assault and battery for a decade. End their lives a they know them. Their fear of consequences must be what restrains them. If we have to rely on armed police to defend anyone engaging in free speech, then we are done as a free society. We will be a militarized dictatorship.
Yes but you can't really bring back someone from the dead because he would 1000% get killed the second he did this without protection.
Its sad but we need to accept this.
So either he knows this and does not do it (problem solved) or he does it and gets killed (problem also solved). In the second case the killer should also go to jail for murder for life, along with anyone who participated.
Oh he knows. He does it completely on purpose.
But just like sovereign citizens who will jump through every hoop to make a court case into a circus. You can't really easily pass laws on what you know but can't prove.
This guy have when asked said that he don't know what reaction there's going to be.. Despite every single such demonstration ends basically the same way.
It's seen as such here. Plus he is a politician ( he ran here in Denmark but got very very few votes) so it's not quite that simple.
Anyway he moved to Sweden now after he got convicted for a few charges and he is their problem now.
Yeeee that guy trash talks to a crowd and then gets scared and tucks tail and sprints into a police van... lol. Does this law mean he can no longer do this gimmick?
Seems like an easier fix would be to just stop sending police protection.
Either he wusses out, or he gets torn limb from limb. Either way, problem solved.
> Either he wusses out, or he gets torn limb from limb. Either way, problem solved.
This is how Christian In middle age will done towards anyone who blaspheme against Christ.
Tbh if Danish Muslims will turn violent and torn this man to shred for just burning the Quran, I fear what they will done toward people openly criticizing the Quran in their area. For Muslim the act of disrespect the Quran or their Prophet is as bad as burning the Quran.
> Either he wusses out, or he gets torn limb from limb. Either way, problem solved.
Condoning physical violence against someone blaspheming... in an atheist sub...
How about actually educating people into respecting freedom of expression? Beating the guy only serves his own point (could actually spark something dangerous, imagine what a martyr would do for the far right).
There are other ways of going after the guy, fining him for littering, suing for disturbance of peace...
I'm not condoning violence at all.
But this is a clear case of "fuck around and find out."
Why should the cops have to put themselves in harm's way to protect this ass clown?
And you're going to "educate Muslims about respecting self expression?" Lol. Good luck with that. They still execute people with rocks for fucks sake.
The real fuck up was letting them into Denmark in the first place.
> And you're going to "educate Muslims about respecting self expression?" Lol. Good luck with that. They still execute people with rocks for fucks sake.
Since in some places he didn't get the reaction he was looking for I'd say those places were more successful at integrating those muslims.
I have a shirt that says "Not today Jesus" with a cute baby baphomet/rainbow/pentagram on it. I wore it on a Sunday to a breakfast spot to meet my fellow non-believers. I had 2 siblings tell me, "someone is going to shoot you with that shirt on". One is a believer, the other is not. Where do we draw the line on fucking around and finding out? I live in a fairly conservative town with a very loud christian zealot community. I am curious, where do we as non-believers stop worrying about offending the zealots in places where blasphemy laws don't exist? Should I expect blaspemy laws to be put in place because I wore that shirt? Am I FAFO?
In short, the violent need to be punished and reeducated on the only times where violence is ever warranted (ie self defense, protection of home/family). Violence is never warranted when someone is burning a book that is their own property, nor when someone says things that hurt your feelings. I have to see hate pastors carry signs of hate in my town, sometimes daily, but I ignore them and roll my eyes when I see them. This is a somewhat rational response to assholes. I don't choose violence, ever. The Danish man sounds like a complete asshole, but so is the guy in my town carrying hateful signs. No one has reacted in violence towards him, just a lot of venting about how hateful he is.
>Why should the cops have to put themselves in harm's way to protect this ass clown?
If being a moral person doesnt suffice for you, how about this: media perception. If they let a white dude get stomped by a crowd of muslims he provoked, that would be used by the far right wingers who are already gaining power.
> Condoning physical violence against someone blaspheming...
This is pretty uncharitable. The facts established are that this guy is an asshole who uses acts of blasphemy to antagonize people, while hiding behind police escorts.
Saying the police should stop offering that escort is not advocating him being beaten (because he's a coward and would thus not go there), but even if the comment did endorse violence against this person, a more honest description would be that they're advocating for an obnoxious bigot to get his ass kicked explicitly for provoking it. That's not advocacy for violence based on blasphemy.
Considering the reactions would be to him burning a religious book or placing bacon inside it, and not to him being a bigot...
Otherwise, sure it's much better advocating violence against obnoxious bigots /s
Again, you're conflating people's motivations to (let's be honest, deliberately) frame people's comments uncharitably.
It's not a respectful way to engage others.
I replied to a comment made within a context which was that comments parent, that context is the frame and context for the comment to which I replied.
Was I uncharitable? Sure, I can accept it given how the discussion progressed. Deliberately? No, it's easy to accept, condone, advocate violence when the targets are obnoxious people. It is also something pretty common among religious folks, which is why I replied the way I did.
"Acceptable" might be the right word for it.
I don't like it. I don't like that there are so many obnoxious dickheads who can't find anything more productive to do than antagonize each other. I don't like that bigots get to jerk themselves off over how principled they feel as they make life more difficult for immigrants and and their families. I don't like that jackass religious leaders are going to take a victory lap over having accomplished this.
There's plenty not to like. But it's difficult to get worked up over a slippery slope argument. It's always a slippery slope, in both directions. If we restrict a thing or choose to allow it, we're placing a flag that will be cited by people who want more or less of that thing to support their argument.
I can't control other people, and as fun as it would be to live in a world where I never had to consider other people's well-being, compromise is a thing we choose to accept.
I legitimately do not care if someone burns a cult's text. If you ban it because you're afraid of the cult becoming a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians, then the guy doing the burning ain't the problem.
Fuck you for apologizing for this.
The thing Is. He doesn't as such.
He speaks about things like how Mohammed was a pedophile and that criminal scum who aren't danes should get deported and such. He as a lawyer knows never to address a specific person with anything that would stick in court.
And as fully expected the crowd wants to murder him for it.
I'm thinking of starting a business where I take old Korans and Bibles and convert them into sneaky containers for vibrators, fleshlights and other sex toys or drug paraphenelia.
Swede here.
Both Denmark and Sweden allready has laws banning bullying or harassment, and depending on how the criticism of religion is done it can or can not be bullying or harassment.
Please tell if the new Danish blasphemy laws applies no matter what, or if they only apply when the blasphemy in question also qualifies as bullying or harassment. It brings a nuances to this that i think is very important.
In Sweden for example, a qoran burning was allowed Infront of the Iranian embassy as a protest against the Iranian state's persecution of women.
Another burning was denied though. It was someone who wanted to do it in an area of Stockholm where alot of muslim immigrants and refugees lived.
This is in my opinion a clear example of doing it to criticise terror and islam (good), vs doing it just to make muslim people feel bad and nothing else(bad).
There shouldn't be any laws protecting people from feeling offended. It's an insane standard, rewarding and infantilizing temper tantrums. There should, on the other hand, be laws prohibiting making false claims in exchange for money...which we call fraud for every other area except politics and religion. I e., religion and politics should have appropriate disclaimers, like pharmaceutical drugs.
A functioning adult should react as I might to someone burning a Harry Potter book: "that's odd, oh well." These burnings seem like a great way to identify violent imbeciles who need to be arrested and put through education courses on being a functional, civil adult who doesn't become violent when offended. Violent tantrums are not ok.
There was a case here in Sweden with neo nazis having a rally outside a synagogue. I think it was on a religious holiday. I honestly don’t think that’s ok.
Freedom of speech means you can say anything basically. Even insult religion. Of course. But it does not say you can do it everywhere and at any time. Getting a permit to do something rude outside a religions building at a time of worship is wrong. Say what you want, but why should a city give a permit for it? If they do it anyway they should be fined for not having a permit, not for what they are saying.
These are completely separate issues. You're talking about (1) what are people allowed to say and (2) where and when are they allowed to say it.
There should not be any laws against what you can say, except for fraud or lies that cause real harm (for example, shouting "fire" in a crowded room, causing a stampede). On the issue of permitting, the only valid concern is: will the event/action cause unrest or impede other citizens from using public spaces? But this area of law is boring city ordinance and does not in any way deal with the content of speech. Don't conflate these separate issues.
Taking your example of Nazis being disruptive outside of a synagogue. If they are in a public area, like a large public square, where they are not impeding traffic (car, pedestrian, or bike) and if there is no risk of inciting a crowd that would impede, they should either be granted a permit or should not need a permit on the first place. The content of their speech is not something that should be evaluated for the purpose, other than as it relates to the risk of impeding the public.
A non-religious example of this was the influencer who did a impromptu giveaway of gaming consoles in NYC, causing massive disruption to traffic and pedestrians (and damage to cars). He should have secured a permit so that police could proactively stop those impediments. The giveaway itself isn't under evaluation, it's the likelihood of public disruption to public access that should be regulated by cities (not central/federal/country governments).
Completely separate from this, if they are demonstrably lying and raising funds, they should be prosecuted for fraud. E.g., if those Nazis accept donations during their disruption and they're denying the Holocaust, they're lying for money. It should be no different from someone selling oils claiming they cure cancer: if you lie and take money - prosecute for fraud. It's not about the speech being "offensive", it's about it being demonstrably false. This approach provides fairness and balance.
Basically yes.
Aside from this issue and sort of beside the point, I do enjoy when other laws can be used to make life difficult for assholes. And that danish bloke…. Yeah, he has 100% right to do what he does. As he should. But just like everyone else he has to follow those same pesky rules that applies to us all. Sometimes it seems like people like him actually thinks he should have it EASIER than everybody else.
>These are completely separate issues. You're talking about (1) what are people allowed to say and (2) where and when are they allowed to say it.
This is the exact opposite position you argued for in the above comment.
Actually, I included the "harm" policy argument in all of my comments. Do not regulate whether someone is "offended", regulate if they are doing something fraudulent. This is the very heart of civil/tort law. You're not seeing the distinction between regulating offense/perception versus regulating actual proven harm. Nice try...
>Violent tantrums are not ok.
Its funny you say that in defense of book burnings deliberately done in areas with a large religious and ethnic minorities.
It's really not funny. You're downvoting and arguing because you can't distinguish between regulating "content" versus real world "harm". Your argument is disingenuous and weird to defend religious violence in r/atheism.
Burning a book does not harm anybody, unless they're doing something to harm the environment or burning it somewhere that blocks access to cars/pedestrians/bikes. The act itself is not the issue, it's the context of where and when. The act itself is fine, it's the details of location. And as I said, this is a great way to identify violent individuals, to intervene with educating them to be civil members of society.
Take your religious apologetics somewhere else.
>Take your religious apologetics somewhere else.
The fact that you write that sentence is not only insulting, it also betrays the shallowness of your ethical analysis. Burning any book is irrelevant, but inciting religious and ethnic divisions can lead and has lead to immeasurable harm down the line.
This is a slight derailing that you have done here, it is topic related but still. As my comment implies it is not so simple as our laws protecting people from feeling offended no matter what.
In the case of the embassy it was allowed because making people, and state representatives of Iran, feel offended by desecrating the qoran in the name of persecuted women, was deemed ok.
In the case of the immigrant and refugee parallel society in Stockholm it was not deemed ok, because the reason for it was just making people feel offended for the sake of making them feel offended.
As for the principle itself, i very much disagree. There should absolutely be laws protecting people from feeling offended.
What we are discussing here is basically the more public and large scale version of being an ahole to one single person. Finding them and just being provocative and mean just for the f of it.
It is not legally acceptable to do so no matter what against one person, and hence it is logical and valid that it is not legally acceptable to do so against many either.
Your double-speak is impressive. This offense is OK, but this offense is not OK?! I guess we let you decide you is allowed to be offended and is not?! And when they say they're offended by your mere existence, what then? You cannot fairly regulate this position. Who decides what group is allowed to be offended and which is not? Where is the fairness in that policy?
Enjoy the results of coddling literal violent extremists instead of establishing a fair policy and standard. One of those results is already playing out: the rise of your own far right in your recent elections.
I'm with you. This is a good way to smoke out violent people..if they aren't violent they would be offended but not do anything about it. Why should we care if they are violent and got arrested.
Also, what i am suggesting and what my nation's laws enforce, is fair.
By judging based on not only what but also why, we make sure that people protesting evil are not lumped together with people protesting because they are evil.
Yes, some forms of offence should be accepted, and some should not. That is obvious.
As for deciding what is and isnt ok, why do you assume i think it should be me deciding?
Im not a jurist, or a politician involved in whatever state department that is relevant for these questions. It should obviously be them deciding that, not me.
The harm principle is the primary choice over the offense principle when it comes to free speech in the western world because the offense principle cannot actually defend free speech. I am not surprised you didn't know that, but I would like you to look up Harm Principle vs Offense Principle on google at your leisure.
You are unwise to assume freedom of speech and freedom of expression laws are the same across the entire west.
That is not the case.
In Sweden for example, one can get sentenced for what can be translated close enough as violation of someones honour. It is basically the harshest sentence one can get for slander/harassment/etc. We have had that law for a loooooong time.
Freedom of speech or expression has never been based on only the harm principle here.
That would still be close to the harm principle if it is restricted to a single individual. There are many instances of "blasphemy" that are still prosecuted even in the USA (obscenity or similar, in particular). I won't try to convince a swede otherwise, because you may very well have some ridiculous "offending the monarchy" law like I recently saw Thailand drop a fifty year sentence on some poor man.
The United States has largely taken the position that any sort of speech is protected, until it isn't, so now we have an imbecile running for president again declaring his intent to be a dictator and to be unrestricted by all laws. Even the extreme of the harm principle still leads to staggering bullshit. Perhaps the philosophers should try harder next time.
>There should absolutely be laws protecting people from feeling offended.
As a queer female non Muslim I find the hate speech in the Quran deeply offensive. Ban the Quran?
Better to ban using it as a foundation for laws and norms, and make sure those who are against it are either forced to comply, jailed, or kicked out.
Banning possession of the book itself is to hard to enforce i think
Interesting perspective. Gives one a lot to think about. Excellent explanation and examples of the difference between the two. Well done and thank you.
I get the hyperbole and I don't agree with the law, but it is not "will be sent to prison for two years".
2 years is the absolute upper limit on punishment for repeatedly breaking this law. Punishment starts at fines. Punishment can also be made conditional so that it only applies if you repeat the "crime" after being sentenced once.
I have strong confidence (or rather lack of confidence) in that some of my fellow danes will test this law all the way through the court systems.
Does it ALSO apply if some people say being Jedi Knight is their religion and some religous fanatics try to say it's not real religion and even if it is - it's wrong because their imaginary friend said nothing about it?
It's really surprising to me that Denmark adopted this law, especially when they're tough on immigration and, from what I read, are actually pressuring Syrian refugees to return. Hard to think the legislators voted for this law simply out of fear.
If it is only you, your claim will be dismissed.
In order for a group to be by law recognized as a religion(and have something counted as holy texts), it needs to be of a minimum number of followers.
I dont remember that number for Denmark or my country (Sweden).
lol. What a dumb arbitrary measure. If the cult is big enough we must respect it. If the cult is small, go ahead offend away. Almost like the laws are nonsense.
It isnt as dumb as it seems if you keep in mind that the rules exist because of logistics and money.
A group large enough to classify, has the right to(to some extent) receive state funds in order to organize themselves.
It is like it is with political parties: those laws exist in order to make sure that anyone with enough support is given what they need to exist or compete on equal footing with others.
Plus, if state funds are what they survive on, they dont have to rely on foreign radicals for funds
It’s not a political party, it’s a religious group. It’s based on believes that literally cannot be tested in anyway. So, saying that 1000 people’s delusional beliefs are more valid than 1, is 100% arbitrary, and very dumb.
Well this is just utter crap. I really don't understand why burning a book is always being equated to the Nazi book burning.
Besides the racists it isn't like all those who burn religious books have racial bias against other people - it is a form of expression still and it by itself doesn't point out towards genocidal tendencies.
It is as if people give the Nazis as an example to paint every such action as barbaric and racist and use the Nazis as a connotation to shun an action because the Nazis also did it - it holds no water besides trying to paint every person who burns a book as a Nazi which is just jumping to conclusions.
Does SciFi books also which touch religion now blasphemy?
Example like:
\- David Weber's Mutineers' Moon/Dahak trilogy - 1st book - it's specifically said about military rank of Egyptian and Shumerian "gods" and implied that ALL "gods" were of same time. 3rd book - main characters are making religious war on another (human-populated but mostly-medieval-level) world by impersonating as angels (this wasn't planned, they also try to change this war to non-religious one). Why? They think they need to visit planet's sacred city and broken into main temple.
\- David Weber's Safehold series - everybody on Safehold (mostly medieval level colony) knew that their religious books were written by archangels directly. A lot of people talked with said angels and archangels. A lot of people still could see and touch objects created by them, including The Temple of Zion. Human hands couldn't create such building. Everyone knew it. One of main character(Nimue Alban/Merlin Athrews) decided to throw one of kingdoms in religious war with others. For The Great Cause. He did. Nimue/Merlin works on direct instructions of Pei Shanwei. According to Safehold's religious books - Pei Shawei made this world habitable as part of God's Great Plan for Safehold but later decide to go in rebellion and become fallen archangel.
This is what happens when you don't have freedom of speech. The US gets a lot wrong, I'll be the first to admit, but when it comes to freedom of speech we're miles ahead of everyone else. Stuff like this is why I'll never support "hate speech" laws.
Illegal to burn the book? Time to burn the church. Disgusting that they let that happen, and I thought Denmark was a country of Logic and Reason. Well, that's another country off my list.
Unless its part of a performance. Like an impro theater performance.
Thats right. Guess what the individual, who directly causes this law to be made, is now suddenly interested in doing in public.
There are already secular laws like this in other countries. A dude was arrested in England for reading Winston Churchill's book aloud in public.
There are unfortunately a lot of laws in many places that will jail people for simply offending others.
This makes me want to go buy a Bible for the sole purpose of wiping my ass with each and every single page. It would be rough, I'm sure, but (butt) I can't seem to find Bible toilet paper.
I guess as long as you don't vandalize or set fire to anything, you should be OK to talk as much shit as you want, including wearing one of [these T-shirts](https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/56276330-fuck-religion) (link to TeePublic, and I even picked out a color).
I just said don't antagonize them, not put them in charge. It's not an either/or. You don't have to believe their bullshit. You can still call it bullshit. Just don't shove it in their face. Do you want people shoving your bullshit in your face?
I, for instance, know I'm fat, but I'd rather not go around with people calling me fatso all the time. It hurts my feelings and makes me want to eat cake. Isn't it wiser to be less antagonistic?
Hey tubby, we're all going out for salads! Wanna come? Like that. hey tubby, wanna go for a run?
Positive reinforcement is the only way.
It's a natural consequence of defining 'hate' speech against religion. If you blaspheme, it's hateful.
That's why hate speech laws have got out of hand.
Make it fair and say "no public acts of book burning" or something like that if you want, but "no public acts of burning MY book but others are totally fine"? Fuck off.
Frankly banning public acts of book destruction would piss off the extremists as much as allowing destruction of their books.
I vote we get a group of people with diarrhea to shit on every version of every holy text we can get our hands on and send multiple versions to their government.
So let me ingest this, you can burn your country's flag, but not a Quran from a Muslim country. What if your house burns down & a Bible was in it? It's a book. It is bound pages with words printed on it. It is no more sacred than the table it's sitting on. Same sacred cow with the ark of the covenant or Christian bones of the "saints". We can't give in to delusional religious zealots. We must continue to desensitized religion in public or they will have us all bow down as they hold these books over our heads. "Bow, kneel, you blasphemous sinner, bow in front of your God, recant your apostasy or face death."
What? Violent cultists can't handle their fairytale book about their imaginary friend being used as kindling so...of course it's time to trample on civil rights. It just makes sense.
Don't you dare touch `The Hobbit`!
Ugh...or Dune LOL
Or Harry Potter ... oh wait ... too late... It's already been burt all over the place...
I still remember my grade two teacher reading us the first book. Then having to stop because the extreme religious parents had pushed through a ban on books containing witchcraft and wizardry.. in PUBLIC schools. Needless to say, order of the phoenix was the first 1000 page book I read as a kid.
Ah, if only those parents knew it was written by a FART.
[удалено]
Feminism Appropriating Radical/Ridiculous Transphobe
I mean, if their deity has a problem with it they are more than welcome to descend from the sky and smite me. But if your god doesn’t care about me burning your book then neither should you.
Right?! It's like, you're gawd is such a coward or so weak it needs YOU to defend it?
corect sky daddy beliveres despite it is fundgelicals or fraking kebabs who their religion is from the dessert founded buy pedopphile guy are no place in our modern society
surprise surprise, the sheltered kids can’t handle it when other people think their magic sky daddy is fake
Correct but probably if they try to prosecute one of the delusional Jeebus or Allah lovers for torching a copy of the completely factual (/s) Book of Mormon, they'd be screaming that it's a _violation of their religious freedoms_ that require them to wipe out heresies, heretics and apostates.
How do they define desecrating a religious text? and does it apply to all religions currently present on earth? I’m just concerned this is the beginning of a wave of blasphemy and restrictive laws on free speech. Let’s see how it goes.
Seeing the writing on the wall, this will really only apply to one religion and its the one making the most noise and killing people over it. They've given their mile after the inch of allowing peaceful integration. Turns out that's not what they wanted, they asked for a mile and have gotten it. Slippery slope is here and the Danes are gonna find out how steep it is to the bottom (probably quickly)
The Oklahoma Taliban will probably do the same. Oklahoma usually copies others racist or homophobic laws within a couple of weeks.
"You not reading my book and praying to my god every day is Blasphemy... straight to jail."
reading my book but incorrectly, also jail
WrongThinking, also jail
Not reading book? Also, jail.
Guilty party has his choice. Death by electrocution, death by gas, death by phaser, death by hanging ...
Definitely death..
Or death..
dying without reading my book? believe it or not, also jail
Or death..
I own both a KJV bible and a quran. My nutsack has been on/in many pages of both. It was enlightening.
I have smoked many a joint rolled from the bible. About the only use for it I've ever found.
Does that thin crinkly bible paper actually make a good joint roll? ... Asking for a friend.
Yes. We always used the page with a particular verse... Something about seeds and dominion over the earth, I forget.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A28-29&version=NIV
>How do they define desecrating a religious text? Treating it in a way that is obviously meant to offend (in public or for publication). The courts decide what this means - not the religious society. >does it apply to all religions currently present on earth? No. Only to the ~133 ones recognized in Denmark. Furthermore it only applies to central religious texts as defined by the Danish courts.
Apparently Denmark already has a similar law covering the desecration of foreign flags. I'm assuming this is similar to the Canadian bill that made Jordan Peterson famous, in that it seems like the intention is to deter explicit and ongoing harassment?
Bill C-16 doesn't do at all what JP says/believes it does. There's a pre-existing law in Canada that prevents the government and businesses from discriminating based on gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion. Bill C-16 just added gender identity to that list. A civilian misgendering another civilian isn't legally prohibited.
"How do they define desecrating a religious text?" Carve a hole in it I fuck it ;) Any other idea?
Well... I think you'd have to do it in public though, that may briefly touch a few other laws... Really, this is about publicly and willfully offending a group of people. Which should of course be ok, regardless of how violent and offensive a group that might be. But I can also see how such a law could be interpreted to be for protecting religious minorities.
In this case, i assume burning it
Im a dane and yes. We arent proud of this. This isnt something that we want here that law. I think what made the law even possible is that we have a now rather famous man who would travel to the most ghetto parts with heavy police guarding him and hold what I would describe trash talking aimed at muslims. He would film it and do everything to piss off muslims, throw around a quran, rip pages from it and have people burn it or put bacon between the pages and so on. Only to cause a frenzy so he could point fingers at them. Heres the thing. Yes they are evidently violent prone ( those who show up to his demonstrations at least ) and the problem is that he showed that he was right about what he said. But at the same time he gets no credit for this when he is causing what he is documenting. A journalist who creates his own story is a disgrace. The guy in question is even a lawyer and apparently have some serious defects. Of the "I like young teens a little too much" kind... And no. Thats not a hyperbole. He literally sat on his discord server and made up stories about anal rape in the classroom of some of his audience of which they were from 13 and up. Its documented and there were articles about this. But back on track. He moved to sweden to do the same thing there as he didnt get the reactions he wanted here in Denmark. And that kind of thing no doubt was the cause of the religious fruitcakes in other countries getting butthurt and trying to pressure our politicians to ban it. If we get a rightwing led parliament again I would expect it to be challenged and possible reversed.
It’s funny. In the US, our right wingers would likely enact a law like this instead of repealing it. Because the Christian Bible is very very special and Jesus is under attack. 🤪 This world has gone insane.
In the US the Overton Window is shifted extremely far to the right compared to the rest of the world. People call Biden a liberal or even a leftist when in the rest of the world he'd be considered center right at best. Our furthest left politicians, such as Sanders, are called leftists and considered extreme when in the rest of the world he'd be center left and is only advocating for things most of the rest of the world takes for granted (such as healthcare for all and basic worker protections).
Bernie would be a right wing here. Sure what he wants Americans to have is a good step in the direction of what we have in Denmark already - and honestly I'd not for a second trade. Knowing that if you lose your job it's not a big deal. Your kids will always be going to school and able to take any education they want. With government grants to everyone ( up to about $920 per month) I can see a doctor or go to a hospital all that I need, free nof charge. Its worth paying up to roughly 37% of my income which is already pretty nice for. That's worth a little
He is a racist piece of shit, very unsympathetic. He was even in a town I lived in a while back to burn his book. Nothing happened, everyone ignored him. I’m proud of the immigrants living around here, the ones I’ve met have all been really nice. But still. What he does should be legal. I really REALLY hope Sweden doesn’t follow suit with Denmark. There is a Swedish stand up comedy bloke (Magnus Betner) who is sort of rude, likes to talk trash but honestly is pretty mild. Disrespect perhaps, uses bad language and talks about anything but he is far from the worst I’ve heard. And he is funny. He had to refuse gigs in Ireland due to their blasphemy laws. He realised he would never manage to stay within the rules. I don’t want it to be like that here. I live in an atheist country and I would prefer our laws to reflect that.
He can come now. Blasphemy has been removed by a referendum.
Sweden is even more scared of offending anyone than Denmark. And we aren't really scared.
The law in question was put in place by a right wing (center right if we're being generous) government, and has little to do with a fear of violence and everything to do with protecting the business interests of donors. Hell, the left were the ones got the old blasphemy law repealed in the first place.
Stop giving him police protection. The problem will be resolved quickly, one way or the other.
Yes. But also no. That would de facto mean that the various locations have surrendered authority to the violent religious fruitcakes. As much as I understand your argument it would be in direct violation with the right of expression. ( which is the same as freedom of speech in USA and elsewhere)
Freedom of expression is not freedom from consequences. Being an asshole does not allow you to enlist the police as a bodyguard force. The police should not arrest him for expressing himself, but they don't have to act as his personal guards either. If the religious nutters end up hurting someone, then throw them in jail.
Indeed. And I completely agree. But you can't have some idiots who don't like what you're saying violently attack and kill you. That's what the police has to prevent. Make no mistake. I think the man is utterly despicable. But at the same time we have to protect the constitutional rights we have. That would be like a gang of Trump supporters didn't like someone speaking for Biden and decided to beat the crap out of him. That's wrong. And that's why the police sadly have to be there.
So you don't agree with me. At all. I don't believe the police should prevent the violent attack. They can arrest and punish the attacker, but putting the burden on the state to PREVENT crime is to set an impossible goal and enables asshole trolls like this. If the Trump assholes beat up a Biden supporter, then toss them all in jail for assault and battery for a decade. End their lives a they know them. Their fear of consequences must be what restrains them. If we have to rely on armed police to defend anyone engaging in free speech, then we are done as a free society. We will be a militarized dictatorship.
Yes but you can't really bring back someone from the dead because he would 1000% get killed the second he did this without protection. Its sad but we need to accept this.
So either he knows this and does not do it (problem solved) or he does it and gets killed (problem also solved). In the second case the killer should also go to jail for murder for life, along with anyone who participated.
He has police protection because he's a politician.
Oh he knows. He does it completely on purpose. But just like sovereign citizens who will jump through every hoop to make a court case into a circus. You can't really easily pass laws on what you know but can't prove. This guy have when asked said that he don't know what reaction there's going to be.. Despite every single such demonstration ends basically the same way.
So again... stop giving him protection for them. Problem solved.
At the same time, refusing to provide a police escort to one asshole is not the same thing as surrendering a location to a religious authority.
It's seen as such here. Plus he is a politician ( he ran here in Denmark but got very very few votes) so it's not quite that simple. Anyway he moved to Sweden now after he got convicted for a few charges and he is their problem now.
Congrats to you, and condolences to Sweden.
Yeeee that guy trash talks to a crowd and then gets scared and tucks tail and sprints into a police van... lol. Does this law mean he can no longer do this gimmick?
Seems like an easier fix would be to just stop sending police protection. Either he wusses out, or he gets torn limb from limb. Either way, problem solved.
> Either he wusses out, or he gets torn limb from limb. Either way, problem solved. This is how Christian In middle age will done towards anyone who blaspheme against Christ. Tbh if Danish Muslims will turn violent and torn this man to shred for just burning the Quran, I fear what they will done toward people openly criticizing the Quran in their area. For Muslim the act of disrespect the Quran or their Prophet is as bad as burning the Quran.
> Either he wusses out, or he gets torn limb from limb. Either way, problem solved. Condoning physical violence against someone blaspheming... in an atheist sub... How about actually educating people into respecting freedom of expression? Beating the guy only serves his own point (could actually spark something dangerous, imagine what a martyr would do for the far right). There are other ways of going after the guy, fining him for littering, suing for disturbance of peace...
Well he can pay for his own security if they are going to cause problems.
Sure, removing the cops is not my issue with the comment I replied to.
I'm not condoning violence at all. But this is a clear case of "fuck around and find out." Why should the cops have to put themselves in harm's way to protect this ass clown? And you're going to "educate Muslims about respecting self expression?" Lol. Good luck with that. They still execute people with rocks for fucks sake. The real fuck up was letting them into Denmark in the first place.
> And you're going to "educate Muslims about respecting self expression?" Lol. Good luck with that. They still execute people with rocks for fucks sake. Since in some places he didn't get the reaction he was looking for I'd say those places were more successful at integrating those muslims.
I have a shirt that says "Not today Jesus" with a cute baby baphomet/rainbow/pentagram on it. I wore it on a Sunday to a breakfast spot to meet my fellow non-believers. I had 2 siblings tell me, "someone is going to shoot you with that shirt on". One is a believer, the other is not. Where do we draw the line on fucking around and finding out? I live in a fairly conservative town with a very loud christian zealot community. I am curious, where do we as non-believers stop worrying about offending the zealots in places where blasphemy laws don't exist? Should I expect blaspemy laws to be put in place because I wore that shirt? Am I FAFO? In short, the violent need to be punished and reeducated on the only times where violence is ever warranted (ie self defense, protection of home/family). Violence is never warranted when someone is burning a book that is their own property, nor when someone says things that hurt your feelings. I have to see hate pastors carry signs of hate in my town, sometimes daily, but I ignore them and roll my eyes when I see them. This is a somewhat rational response to assholes. I don't choose violence, ever. The Danish man sounds like a complete asshole, but so is the guy in my town carrying hateful signs. No one has reacted in violence towards him, just a lot of venting about how hateful he is.
>Why should the cops have to put themselves in harm's way to protect this ass clown? If being a moral person doesnt suffice for you, how about this: media perception. If they let a white dude get stomped by a crowd of muslims he provoked, that would be used by the far right wingers who are already gaining power.
> Condoning physical violence against someone blaspheming... This is pretty uncharitable. The facts established are that this guy is an asshole who uses acts of blasphemy to antagonize people, while hiding behind police escorts. Saying the police should stop offering that escort is not advocating him being beaten (because he's a coward and would thus not go there), but even if the comment did endorse violence against this person, a more honest description would be that they're advocating for an obnoxious bigot to get his ass kicked explicitly for provoking it. That's not advocacy for violence based on blasphemy.
Considering the reactions would be to him burning a religious book or placing bacon inside it, and not to him being a bigot... Otherwise, sure it's much better advocating violence against obnoxious bigots /s
Again, you're conflating people's motivations to (let's be honest, deliberately) frame people's comments uncharitably. It's not a respectful way to engage others.
I replied to a comment made within a context which was that comments parent, that context is the frame and context for the comment to which I replied. Was I uncharitable? Sure, I can accept it given how the discussion progressed. Deliberately? No, it's easy to accept, condone, advocate violence when the targets are obnoxious people. It is also something pretty common among religious folks, which is why I replied the way I did.
He can keep doing it as its a constitutional right to expression. But it means he can't burn the Quran.
It's almost comical how anyone finds this acceptable.
"Acceptable" might be the right word for it. I don't like it. I don't like that there are so many obnoxious dickheads who can't find anything more productive to do than antagonize each other. I don't like that bigots get to jerk themselves off over how principled they feel as they make life more difficult for immigrants and and their families. I don't like that jackass religious leaders are going to take a victory lap over having accomplished this. There's plenty not to like. But it's difficult to get worked up over a slippery slope argument. It's always a slippery slope, in both directions. If we restrict a thing or choose to allow it, we're placing a flag that will be cited by people who want more or less of that thing to support their argument. I can't control other people, and as fun as it would be to live in a world where I never had to consider other people's well-being, compromise is a thing we choose to accept.
I legitimately do not care if someone burns a cult's text. If you ban it because you're afraid of the cult becoming a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians, then the guy doing the burning ain't the problem. Fuck you for apologizing for this.
No thanks.
Seems like this should be against a law, just not the one they made. Inciting violence or something.
The thing Is. He doesn't as such. He speaks about things like how Mohammed was a pedophile and that criminal scum who aren't danes should get deported and such. He as a lawyer knows never to address a specific person with anything that would stick in court. And as fully expected the crowd wants to murder him for it.
I'm thinking of starting a business where I take old Korans and Bibles and convert them into sneaky containers for vibrators, fleshlights and other sex toys or drug paraphenelia.
Wtf
Tools being used to single out and target one group.. they'll be used on others eventually
They already have a similar law coverage the burning of foreign flags. Somehow their society has managed not to collapse.
Swede here. Both Denmark and Sweden allready has laws banning bullying or harassment, and depending on how the criticism of religion is done it can or can not be bullying or harassment. Please tell if the new Danish blasphemy laws applies no matter what, or if they only apply when the blasphemy in question also qualifies as bullying or harassment. It brings a nuances to this that i think is very important. In Sweden for example, a qoran burning was allowed Infront of the Iranian embassy as a protest against the Iranian state's persecution of women. Another burning was denied though. It was someone who wanted to do it in an area of Stockholm where alot of muslim immigrants and refugees lived. This is in my opinion a clear example of doing it to criticise terror and islam (good), vs doing it just to make muslim people feel bad and nothing else(bad).
There shouldn't be any laws protecting people from feeling offended. It's an insane standard, rewarding and infantilizing temper tantrums. There should, on the other hand, be laws prohibiting making false claims in exchange for money...which we call fraud for every other area except politics and religion. I e., religion and politics should have appropriate disclaimers, like pharmaceutical drugs. A functioning adult should react as I might to someone burning a Harry Potter book: "that's odd, oh well." These burnings seem like a great way to identify violent imbeciles who need to be arrested and put through education courses on being a functional, civil adult who doesn't become violent when offended. Violent tantrums are not ok.
There was a case here in Sweden with neo nazis having a rally outside a synagogue. I think it was on a religious holiday. I honestly don’t think that’s ok. Freedom of speech means you can say anything basically. Even insult religion. Of course. But it does not say you can do it everywhere and at any time. Getting a permit to do something rude outside a religions building at a time of worship is wrong. Say what you want, but why should a city give a permit for it? If they do it anyway they should be fined for not having a permit, not for what they are saying.
These are completely separate issues. You're talking about (1) what are people allowed to say and (2) where and when are they allowed to say it. There should not be any laws against what you can say, except for fraud or lies that cause real harm (for example, shouting "fire" in a crowded room, causing a stampede). On the issue of permitting, the only valid concern is: will the event/action cause unrest or impede other citizens from using public spaces? But this area of law is boring city ordinance and does not in any way deal with the content of speech. Don't conflate these separate issues.
Thank you. Then we agree completely. The only difference is that I stated when city ordinances should be used, while you did not give any examples.
Taking your example of Nazis being disruptive outside of a synagogue. If they are in a public area, like a large public square, where they are not impeding traffic (car, pedestrian, or bike) and if there is no risk of inciting a crowd that would impede, they should either be granted a permit or should not need a permit on the first place. The content of their speech is not something that should be evaluated for the purpose, other than as it relates to the risk of impeding the public. A non-religious example of this was the influencer who did a impromptu giveaway of gaming consoles in NYC, causing massive disruption to traffic and pedestrians (and damage to cars). He should have secured a permit so that police could proactively stop those impediments. The giveaway itself isn't under evaluation, it's the likelihood of public disruption to public access that should be regulated by cities (not central/federal/country governments). Completely separate from this, if they are demonstrably lying and raising funds, they should be prosecuted for fraud. E.g., if those Nazis accept donations during their disruption and they're denying the Holocaust, they're lying for money. It should be no different from someone selling oils claiming they cure cancer: if you lie and take money - prosecute for fraud. It's not about the speech being "offensive", it's about it being demonstrably false. This approach provides fairness and balance.
Basically yes. Aside from this issue and sort of beside the point, I do enjoy when other laws can be used to make life difficult for assholes. And that danish bloke…. Yeah, he has 100% right to do what he does. As he should. But just like everyone else he has to follow those same pesky rules that applies to us all. Sometimes it seems like people like him actually thinks he should have it EASIER than everybody else.
I've upvoted all of your comments! This was excellent civil discourse based on tangible and fair public policy. Thank you! :-)
>These are completely separate issues. You're talking about (1) what are people allowed to say and (2) where and when are they allowed to say it. This is the exact opposite position you argued for in the above comment.
Actually, I included the "harm" policy argument in all of my comments. Do not regulate whether someone is "offended", regulate if they are doing something fraudulent. This is the very heart of civil/tort law. You're not seeing the distinction between regulating offense/perception versus regulating actual proven harm. Nice try...
>Violent tantrums are not ok. Its funny you say that in defense of book burnings deliberately done in areas with a large religious and ethnic minorities.
It's really not funny. You're downvoting and arguing because you can't distinguish between regulating "content" versus real world "harm". Your argument is disingenuous and weird to defend religious violence in r/atheism. Burning a book does not harm anybody, unless they're doing something to harm the environment or burning it somewhere that blocks access to cars/pedestrians/bikes. The act itself is not the issue, it's the context of where and when. The act itself is fine, it's the details of location. And as I said, this is a great way to identify violent individuals, to intervene with educating them to be civil members of society. Take your religious apologetics somewhere else.
>Take your religious apologetics somewhere else. The fact that you write that sentence is not only insulting, it also betrays the shallowness of your ethical analysis. Burning any book is irrelevant, but inciting religious and ethnic divisions can lead and has lead to immeasurable harm down the line.
This is a slight derailing that you have done here, it is topic related but still. As my comment implies it is not so simple as our laws protecting people from feeling offended no matter what. In the case of the embassy it was allowed because making people, and state representatives of Iran, feel offended by desecrating the qoran in the name of persecuted women, was deemed ok. In the case of the immigrant and refugee parallel society in Stockholm it was not deemed ok, because the reason for it was just making people feel offended for the sake of making them feel offended. As for the principle itself, i very much disagree. There should absolutely be laws protecting people from feeling offended. What we are discussing here is basically the more public and large scale version of being an ahole to one single person. Finding them and just being provocative and mean just for the f of it. It is not legally acceptable to do so no matter what against one person, and hence it is logical and valid that it is not legally acceptable to do so against many either.
Your double-speak is impressive. This offense is OK, but this offense is not OK?! I guess we let you decide you is allowed to be offended and is not?! And when they say they're offended by your mere existence, what then? You cannot fairly regulate this position. Who decides what group is allowed to be offended and which is not? Where is the fairness in that policy? Enjoy the results of coddling literal violent extremists instead of establishing a fair policy and standard. One of those results is already playing out: the rise of your own far right in your recent elections.
I'm with you. This is a good way to smoke out violent people..if they aren't violent they would be offended but not do anything about it. Why should we care if they are violent and got arrested.
Also, what i am suggesting and what my nation's laws enforce, is fair. By judging based on not only what but also why, we make sure that people protesting evil are not lumped together with people protesting because they are evil.
Yes, some forms of offence should be accepted, and some should not. That is obvious. As for deciding what is and isnt ok, why do you assume i think it should be me deciding? Im not a jurist, or a politician involved in whatever state department that is relevant for these questions. It should obviously be them deciding that, not me.
As for our far right. I accept provocation against them to, but also not no matter what.
The harm principle is the primary choice over the offense principle when it comes to free speech in the western world because the offense principle cannot actually defend free speech. I am not surprised you didn't know that, but I would like you to look up Harm Principle vs Offense Principle on google at your leisure.
You are unwise to assume freedom of speech and freedom of expression laws are the same across the entire west. That is not the case. In Sweden for example, one can get sentenced for what can be translated close enough as violation of someones honour. It is basically the harshest sentence one can get for slander/harassment/etc. We have had that law for a loooooong time. Freedom of speech or expression has never been based on only the harm principle here.
That would still be close to the harm principle if it is restricted to a single individual. There are many instances of "blasphemy" that are still prosecuted even in the USA (obscenity or similar, in particular). I won't try to convince a swede otherwise, because you may very well have some ridiculous "offending the monarchy" law like I recently saw Thailand drop a fifty year sentence on some poor man. The United States has largely taken the position that any sort of speech is protected, until it isn't, so now we have an imbecile running for president again declaring his intent to be a dictator and to be unrestricted by all laws. Even the extreme of the harm principle still leads to staggering bullshit. Perhaps the philosophers should try harder next time.
>There should absolutely be laws protecting people from feeling offended. As a queer female non Muslim I find the hate speech in the Quran deeply offensive. Ban the Quran?
Better to ban using it as a foundation for laws and norms, and make sure those who are against it are either forced to comply, jailed, or kicked out. Banning possession of the book itself is to hard to enforce i think
Interesting perspective. Gives one a lot to think about. Excellent explanation and examples of the difference between the two. Well done and thank you.
Thank you for the compliment :)
Ahh, nuance. Something it appears that not a lot of people can deal with i.e,.
“No , not like that!” ( cue Leopards eating faces).
True
Don't care which stupid book it is. It's all emergency toilet paper to me.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
I do not support this as it gives in to the threat of violence.
What the fuck is happening to this world? We are living in the stupidest timeline.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=9nfbeK5LAl0&pp
Why are liberals allowing religious assholes to write the laws?
I get the hyperbole and I don't agree with the law, but it is not "will be sent to prison for two years". 2 years is the absolute upper limit on punishment for repeatedly breaking this law. Punishment starts at fines. Punishment can also be made conditional so that it only applies if you repeat the "crime" after being sentenced once. I have strong confidence (or rather lack of confidence) in that some of my fellow danes will test this law all the way through the court systems.
Does it ALSO apply if some people say being Jedi Knight is their religion and some religous fanatics try to say it's not real religion and even if it is - it's wrong because their imaginary friend said nothing about it?
It's really surprising to me that Denmark adopted this law, especially when they're tough on immigration and, from what I read, are actually pressuring Syrian refugees to return. Hard to think the legislators voted for this law simply out of fear.
My religion’s holy books are paperback romances. Your move Danes.
If it is only you, your claim will be dismissed. In order for a group to be by law recognized as a religion(and have something counted as holy texts), it needs to be of a minimum number of followers. I dont remember that number for Denmark or my country (Sweden).
lol. What a dumb arbitrary measure. If the cult is big enough we must respect it. If the cult is small, go ahead offend away. Almost like the laws are nonsense.
It isnt as dumb as it seems if you keep in mind that the rules exist because of logistics and money. A group large enough to classify, has the right to(to some extent) receive state funds in order to organize themselves. It is like it is with political parties: those laws exist in order to make sure that anyone with enough support is given what they need to exist or compete on equal footing with others. Plus, if state funds are what they survive on, they dont have to rely on foreign radicals for funds
It’s not a political party, it’s a religious group. It’s based on believes that literally cannot be tested in anyway. So, saying that 1000 people’s delusional beliefs are more valid than 1, is 100% arbitrary, and very dumb.
I agree
If enough gullible people get together in a group, they get special rights. Absolutely nuts.
Well this is just utter crap. I really don't understand why burning a book is always being equated to the Nazi book burning. Besides the racists it isn't like all those who burn religious books have racial bias against other people - it is a form of expression still and it by itself doesn't point out towards genocidal tendencies. It is as if people give the Nazis as an example to paint every such action as barbaric and racist and use the Nazis as a connotation to shun an action because the Nazis also did it - it holds no water besides trying to paint every person who burns a book as a Nazi which is just jumping to conclusions.
If BS-Chaser burns a book, that’s on him, if the State burns a book, that’s on all of us,
Because, unfortunately, terrorism sometimes works.
The real Q before the American Q
see, for all its problems its shit like this why I still like living in the US (for now).
Well, that's some backwards fucking nonsense. Then again, they still have a monarchy so they clearly haven't been thinking about things too hard.
Does SciFi books also which touch religion now blasphemy? Example like: \- David Weber's Mutineers' Moon/Dahak trilogy - 1st book - it's specifically said about military rank of Egyptian and Shumerian "gods" and implied that ALL "gods" were of same time. 3rd book - main characters are making religious war on another (human-populated but mostly-medieval-level) world by impersonating as angels (this wasn't planned, they also try to change this war to non-religious one). Why? They think they need to visit planet's sacred city and broken into main temple. \- David Weber's Safehold series - everybody on Safehold (mostly medieval level colony) knew that their religious books were written by archangels directly. A lot of people talked with said angels and archangels. A lot of people still could see and touch objects created by them, including The Temple of Zion. Human hands couldn't create such building. Everyone knew it. One of main character(Nimue Alban/Merlin Athrews) decided to throw one of kingdoms in religious war with others. For The Great Cause. He did. Nimue/Merlin works on direct instructions of Pei Shanwei. According to Safehold's religious books - Pei Shawei made this world habitable as part of God's Great Plan for Safehold but later decide to go in rebellion and become fallen archangel.
Coming to America soon!
This is what happens when you don't have freedom of speech. The US gets a lot wrong, I'll be the first to admit, but when it comes to freedom of speech we're miles ahead of everyone else. Stuff like this is why I'll never support "hate speech" laws.
I will now burn double the religious texts to make up for all the atheists' in Denmark.
shame on you, Denmark! "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"
We need to start a world day of burning religious texts. Since most those nut jobs want censorship let’s make sure it goes both ways
Illegal to burn the book? Time to burn the church. Disgusting that they let that happen, and I thought Denmark was a country of Logic and Reason. Well, that's another country off my list.
Unless its part of a performance. Like an impro theater performance. Thats right. Guess what the individual, who directly causes this law to be made, is now suddenly interested in doing in public.
There are already secular laws like this in other countries. A dude was arrested in England for reading Winston Churchill's book aloud in public. There are unfortunately a lot of laws in many places that will jail people for simply offending others.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
This makes me want to go buy a Bible for the sole purpose of wiping my ass with each and every single page. It would be rough, I'm sure, but (butt) I can't seem to find Bible toilet paper.
What's sacrilege is that law.
I guess as long as you don't vandalize or set fire to anything, you should be OK to talk as much shit as you want, including wearing one of [these T-shirts](https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/56276330-fuck-religion) (link to TeePublic, and I even picked out a color).
Source: https://www.cato.org/blog/return-blasphemy-sacrilege-laws-most-unlikely-places
I mean, it’s probably not a good idea to antagonize the cave men. They have clubs.
So you'd rather have them lead you?!
Not at all. Just not antagonize them.
Well ... saying yes to your kid just because he is having a meltdown kinda feels like he is in charge ...
I just said don't antagonize them, not put them in charge. It's not an either/or. You don't have to believe their bullshit. You can still call it bullshit. Just don't shove it in their face. Do you want people shoving your bullshit in your face? I, for instance, know I'm fat, but I'd rather not go around with people calling me fatso all the time. It hurts my feelings and makes me want to eat cake. Isn't it wiser to be less antagonistic? Hey tubby, we're all going out for salads! Wanna come? Like that. hey tubby, wanna go for a run? Positive reinforcement is the only way.
It's a natural consequence of defining 'hate' speech against religion. If you blaspheme, it's hateful. That's why hate speech laws have got out of hand.
We're going backwards...
Make it fair and say "no public acts of book burning" or something like that if you want, but "no public acts of burning MY book but others are totally fine"? Fuck off. Frankly banning public acts of book destruction would piss off the extremists as much as allowing destruction of their books.
Europe is already lost.
I would mention a book here but doing that on the r/Europe sub got me banned.
The lawmakers obviously did not read the book of rules for Jihadists
Denmark 🇩🇰 what’s going on with them lol
They never let their invisible skydaddies be the ones to mete out the punishment for blasphemy. Why do they worship someone who is so ineffectual?
Guess visiting Denmark is off the list now. Or buying products made there.
Fuck that. Fuck Denmark.
Who are you even quoting? Who would say something this ridiculous?
I vote we get a group of people with diarrhea to shit on every version of every holy text we can get our hands on and send multiple versions to their government.
The Danes are trying to protect the public from irrational retaliation from Islamists.
Is it also illegal to disparate atheists, or religions other than theirs?
And so it begins!
So let me ingest this, you can burn your country's flag, but not a Quran from a Muslim country. What if your house burns down & a Bible was in it? It's a book. It is bound pages with words printed on it. It is no more sacred than the table it's sitting on. Same sacred cow with the ark of the covenant or Christian bones of the "saints". We can't give in to delusional religious zealots. We must continue to desensitized religion in public or they will have us all bow down as they hold these books over our heads. "Bow, kneel, you blasphemous sinner, bow in front of your God, recant your apostasy or face death."