Sweden raised its terrorism alert level on Thursday one notch to the second-highest, following a recent string of public desecrations of the Qur'an in the Scandinavian country by a handful of anti-Islam activists, sparking angry demonstrations across Muslim countries.
I honestly don’t understand why you’re being downvoted. Book burning is probably one of the worst steps you can take towards being intolerant without directly harming people. There had to be so many more options that could’ve been taken that would’ve de-escalated the situation in a way that didn’t involve destruction.
I think it’s the fact that true tolerance would allow the burning of any book. Not all copies, not banning it from circulation, but the burning of an individual symbol as a means of expressing an idea is perfectly fine in most Americans’ view. I share that view, I understand the nuance of the situation at hand, I’m aware the quaran is a holy book and that it sends a strong message.
But so does burning the American flag, as a symbol, to show that America’s ideals and values are dead or do not apply for the people doing the burning. American flag burning was done with the intent to express that the symbol of freedom and equality that it was pushed as was not at all representative of the America those people were experiencing. America has a problem with nationalism, so much so they tossed “under god” in a “non-mandatory” (socially reinforced) pledge of allegiance you say every day before school starts all the way until you graduate. You can imagine burning the flag pissed those nationalists off too, but their vitriol and frustration is useless and unwarranted.
If you say the culture of Islam, or the culture of the people who see that book as their most holy symbol and use it to justify violence, is unwelcome in your nation, as an individual, that’s completely fine to me. I don’t love the blanket statement, but I do love that you can express it without fear of retaliation from your government and with the knowledge that you are as safe expressing that belief as you are expressing one more widely agreed upon.
If I disagree with you, I should debate you, i should seek to educate you, or be louder than you with my actions and words. That’s not the way of every place in the world, but it is the way of any civilized people. Any who condone violence in response, even provoked violence, are closer to animals than their fellow man.
I want to agree with you but I can’t. The world can’t run by true tolerance; at least not in this day and age. There are too many beliefs, cultures, and ideas that are being eroded away by people that spout hatred. Why? Just because they can? Just because they have the right?
If anything, the closest we can be is intolerant of the intolerant. The people that burned the books were an “anti-Islam activist group”. This sounds exactly like other hate groups like the proud boys, westboro baptist Church, the KKK, the EFF, Islamic extremists… These aren’t people that are celebrating their free speech. They are people that are practicing legal hostility as a tool to oppress others. I’d say hate speech is a good line to draw when allowing people to have public demonstrations.
You don’t believe in freedom of speech.
That’s a pretty broad statement.
You can’t go into an airport and shout “bomb” or use a bullhorn in a residential area at 3 AM without someone calling the cops on you and being detained. You can verbally harass someone to the point of being abusive or lie about someone to defame them but you can face repercussions for it. There’s a lot of lines that intersect with freedom of speech. Just because I’m drawing one at hate speech doesn’t mean I’m against freedom of speech.
Just because there is nuanced on the topic doesn’t mean that you were nuanced.
Is it freedom of speech to deliberately provoke an entire religion just because it is your “right”?
It is my freedom to call you all kind of horrible names and slurs, does it mean I have to do it?
Yes. That is literally the entire premise: the right to say offensive things. The reason this is important is that everything we say is offensive to someone. If we operated under the principle that we may never offend anyone else, we would all have to be silent, all the time. Free speech is the basis for science and democracy, where saying things which offend people is a requirement. We must always be free to challenge the beliefs and values of others, or we’re no better than theocratic dictatorships.
How about we instead respect each other’s beliefs and live happy?
Respecting each other can do great stuff and it won’t prevent your from doing science.
I’m in, but that comes distant second to free speech. If there is a conflict of the two, free speech must always win. Every time.
Yes to the first and no to the second.
Burning the American flag is a different ordeal. When you invade their country in the name of “freedom” don’t expect love and rose.
Imagine the reverse, Iraq invading the US over fake claims of “chemical weapons” and imposing their political regime and destroying your whole way of life, imposing the Shariah Law (just like the US imposed their view of freedom). Would you still hold the same views? I think not.