Protesters angered by the planned burning of a copy of the Quran stormed the Swedish Embassy in Baghdad early Thursday, breaking into the compound and lighting a small fire.
Religion is cancer…. But they are obviously doing this to provoke a specific group of people
as opposed to saying things like ‘religion is cancer’, which isnt intended to provoke anyone
Saying religion is cancer is not quite as provocative as burning a religions holy text on the statehouse…. But me saying religion is cancer is just me expressing my religious belief.
A satanist just existing is provocative to some Christian’s. But if we are going to have freedom of religion, I have to be free to say that your sky daddy is a toxic stain on humanity.
This is an overreaction, but I don’t see the point of the book-burning either. I mean, I’m a pagan who converted from Christianity but you don’t see me out in public burning the bible.
Which is again, not to say that this riot wasn’t an overreaction. You have a bunch of people with this idea that if one thing happens in one country, that country has that thing happening all the time. It wasn’t even a Swedish dude, it was an Iraqi dude although god only knows what the media is saying. Still, come on. I know it’s a sacred text but Christians are going to do that to any sacred text but their own.
The guy shouldn’t have done it, especially since the Muslin world has been shown to be very sensitive on this topic. But I can’t help but think that if Americans stormed an embassy every time someone abroad burned the US flag, the UN would have to move.
Just burn a Bible in front of the Swedish embassy and go on with your lives.
It’s embarrassing for all parties involved.
Removed by mod
Any thoughts on people that break into embassies to start fires?
Removed by mod
What I was doing with that question was trying to ascertain whether you were just making excuses for religious extremists or trying to add more to the conversation. Maybe ask clarifying questions before assuming I’m “schoolyard arguing.”
I am happy to see that you agree that storming an embassy is bad. Seriously because it is NOT obvious by what I replied to.
I read a few of your replies and I think I understand your point of view better. I think just in general we should NOT act in a manner that would be considered offensive to another group just to be (for lack of a better work) a dick. The sad thing is, we already don’t live in that world and this refugee that burned the Quran might have been burning it as a “dick move” or maybe he was burning it because he has a very real and hurtful story of how he became a refugee from Iraq. People burn things (small idols, books, or letters) as ceremonies of release depending on where they are coming from or their culture.
I can tell you I am biased toward any religion trying to tell me how to act. If I want to burn every holy book that I buy/own then I should be able to. Pushing your beliefs on others is wrong. Me burning a book doesn’t effect you unless you decide that it does. You forcing your religious laws on me does actually effect me even if I don’t believe in your religion. What happens if I’m eating an unclean food infront of some extremist religious person? Do you think I’m trying to be offensive because I’m eating pork in public?
I’m not trying to schoolyard argue with you, but I think giving up some acts of freedom of speech to religious extremists is a bad path to follow. Appeasement doesn’t work with extremists because they always push for more.
I don’t think most Muslim are extremists. I do think many of these countries have parts of, if not all of their country run by extremists. That’s why I think it’s worth noting. We shouldn’t push people to violent acts, but one could argue that the refugee himself was pushed to this “violent act” by the extremists in his home country.
I am happy to see that you agree that storming an embassy is bad. Seriously because it is NOT obvious by what I replied to.
its not obvious whether they agree that storming an embassy is bad because they didnt say anything about the matter
I think just in general we should NOT act in a manner that would be considered offensive to another group just to be (for lack of a better work) a dick. The sad thing is, we already don’t live in that world and this refugee that burned the Quran might have been burning it as a “dick move” or maybe he was burning it because he has a very real and hurtful story of how he became a refugee from Iraq.
this does not sound like you think we should NOT act in a manner that would be considered offensive to another group just to be a dick
it sounds like making excuses, especially for someone complaining about folks making excuses
I can tell you I am biased toward any religion trying to tell me how to act. If I want to burn every holy book that I buy/own then I should be able to. Pushing your beliefs on others is wrong. Me burning a book doesn’t effect you unless you decide that it does. You forcing your religious laws on me does actually effect me even if I don’t believe in your religion
someone commenting that burning books to provoke violent outrage is vile falls under none of the above
What happens if I’m eating an unclean food infront of some extremist religious person? Do you think I’m trying to be offensive because I’m eating pork in public?
we arent talking about eating unclean food in front of some extremist person, equating the two is disingenuous
I’m not trying to schoolyard argue with you,
uhuh
I think giving up some acts of freedom of speech to religious extremists is a bad path to follow
someone commenting that burning books to provoke violent outrage is vile falls under none of the above
We shouldn’t push people to violent acts, but one could argue that the refugee himself was pushed to this “violent act” by the extremists in his home country
the man in sweden was not pushed to burn a book because of the political climate in another country a continent away
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in this. I will not try to explain everything, because I feel I’m not using the correct words to explain my thoughts.
I will reply to
we arent talking about eating unclean food in front of some extremist person, equating the two is disingenuous>
I was mentioning this example in order to try to explain how appeasement doesn’t work with extremists. If burning a book is so offensive that they have a call to arms then I am against them. I don’t care what book. It’s all paper.
the man in sweden was not pushed to burn a book because of the political climate in another country a continent away>
Oh cool. I just assumed that the political climate of his country of origin had something to do with why he was a refugee, but I guess not?
I’m not familiar with all the details of why he was granted refugee status. I just agreed with him on principle. I’m not an edgelord, and I respect everyone’s religion in practice. Which is why I am attempting to advocate for his personal creed. Religion is personal and I respect it until someone tries to push their religious laws on someone else.
Copied my comment response from another post because I think it’s relevant to nuance the debate and combat disinformation:
I personally don’t think it should be allowed to actively provoke and incite hatred against an ethnic group. Sweden already has a law specifically against this (incitement against ethnic group), which lists religious belief as a group covered by the law. However, there has only been one case that went to the courts trying specifically a Quran burning, and the context was a bit different so it was dismissed. The Quran burning previous to the one in the article has been reported to the police, and imo it should go to trial so we can test the limits of the incitement law. That Quran was burned directly as a statement outside a mosque, during Eid, which is a context that could be illegal under that law.
To clarify, people should be able to burn whatever books and symbols they want and express whatever vile or justified opinions they have under freedom of speech in Sweden- but not in every context and forum everywhere, as direct provovation and incitement. This is actually the majority opinion of Swedes (source in Swedish).
But we’ll see what happens. I discussed this with a lawyer I know, who agreed that it should be prosecuted and go to trial so we can see how it fares in court.
Define religion. Because everything and anything can be claimed to be protected under religion, i.e. the satanic temple. There is no reason ‘traditional’ religions should get special treatment
I agree. You shouldn’t be persecuted or harassed regardless of your religious beliefs, you should be equally protected regardless of if you are a Satanist, Wiccan, or whatever.
The actual wording of the law when translated from Swedish is closest to the English word “creed” I think, not “religious belief” as I wrote in my original comment, but I thought religious belief was a smidge clearer. I’m obviously not a native English speaker so I do my best.
And to further adress the “but what if I believe in My Little Pony would that count”, I mean… the spirit of the law does matter to the judges, you’d have to make a very strong case as to why you and your three friends should count as a protected “group” and why dismembering My Little Pony figurines is necessarily incitement against your group. I’m 99% sure no prosecutor would take you seriously. But I don’t know, I am not a legal practitioner. It’s up to the prosecutors to decide if a case seems to have merit, and then it’s up to the court to try what should and shouldn’t count as incitement under the law.
And to further adress the “but what if I believe in My Little Pony would that count”, I mean… the spirit of the law does matter to the judges, you’d have to make a very strong case as to why you and your three friends should count as a protected “group” and why dismembering My Little Pony figurines is necessarily incitement against your group. I’m 99% sure no prosecutor would take you seriously. But I don’t know, I am not a legal practitioner. It’s up to the prosecutors to decide if a case seems to have merit, and then it’s up to the court to try what should and shouldn’t count as incitement under the law.
That’s the issue. You now have a very vague law that is entirely up to interpretation by the judge on a case to case basis. Three people might not a religion make, but what about 300? 3000? Those numbers are easy to reach if you have any sort of decent organiser behind a cause. It’s just extremely open to abuse. There is no reason why religions should be granted any sort of protected status under the law.
Sure, that’s technically an issue, but not something that will probably ever become an issue in practice. Prosecutors who get a police report on their table evaluate the merit of the case and choose whether to dismiss it or prosecute it. So while this law could be abused because of a fuzzy definition of “creed”… It would have to be a very elaborate scheme where you’d have to fool both the public and the police that your case is within the spirit of the law, a prosecutor, and then finally a judge and five jurors (Sweden doesn’t have a jury system with regular citizens), for extremely little gain? Swedish courts tend to be conservative with punishments and fines. Just wildly guessing here, but a normal fine amount for this type of crime could probably range from $500 to $5000, and this is not awarded to the defendant. There can be damages awarded as well, though damages are generally very unimpressive in Sweden and of similar amounts to fines. There are other problems with the wording of this law that I think are more egregious, I’m not under any illusion that it’s a perfect law even though I agree with the sentiment and spirit.
The full law run through Google Translate:
Chapter 16, 8 § Anyone who, in a statement or in another message that is disseminated, threatens or expresses contempt for a national group or another such group of persons with allusions to race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender-transcending identity or expression, is sentenced for incitement against a national group to imprisonment for a maximum of two years or, if the crime is minor, to a fine.
Remember that, while the translation is actually very accurate imo, there are words that have a slightly different nuance in Swedish, and some words here that exist in Swedish but don’t have a full equivalent in English. “National group” isn’t very correct here as a translation of folkgrupp, and “creed” is an ok but not 100% translation of trosuppfattning. “Contempt” is close, but the nuance is a bit different in the original missaktning.
Some other issues: What is a “message”? What does “expresses contempt” mean here, what constitutes expressing contempt? Is a Quran burning a message, or does the context of the Quran burnings imply a message in this case? Where is the line drawn for “expressing contempt”?
Courts are very protective of the Swedish constitutional right to free speech, which is why the recent Quran burnings are characterized by many legal experts as legal and valid religious critique. But others instead argue that the main intent here was not to critique religion, it was to incite, provoke and disrespect.
It’s a fuzzy line to walk, but there is a pretty high bar for sentencing something as incitement under the cited law, when it stands in opposition to the constitutional right to free speech.
Doesn’t Sweden have anti-discrimination/anti-Nazi laws or something like that? Why is a demonstration like that legal?
It’s just a book. It’s legal due to freedom of speach etc. Is it stupid and in bad taste and only done to provoke? Sure, but it’s within their rights.
I would say it is worse than simply in bad taste. It is reminiscent of Nazis burning books of Jewish authors in the Third Reich.
Burning the Quran is an act of hate towards certain ethnic groups, not a contribution towards political discourse or an expression of a constructive opinion.
lol the religious burn way more books than the non-religous, but if someone burns their favorite book then it’s an act of hate
Removed by mod
I’m not going out and burning any books because I think it’s unnecessary and I have no desire to, but I also feel like there are only 2 fair and even somewhat reasonable positions to take on this:
A - No one is allowed to burn any books for any reason.
B- Anyone is allowed to burn any books for any reason.Anything else is preferential treatment for religion legally, and there are secular books that hold just as much meaning to people on a personal level as religous texts. I think A would be a violation of people’s rights, so I support B.
Removed by mod
Who cares if it’s a sacrilege? Excommunicate them from the religion then, that’s your recourse. Sleep soundly knowing they’re going to your version of Hell or whatever. Religious ideaology should not affect law or public policy.
Religious book burners are also hate spreaders.
Harry Potter fans don’t storm an embassy if you light up the chamber of secrets.
It is just a book. If the book burning triggers a group maybe the problem is not the book burning maybe the problem is the group
Sweden doesn’t have free speech. Thats pretty much an America only thing at this point.
Where do you have that from, Breitbart?
Same reason it’s legal in most western democracies. Freedom of speech, it’s not against the law to burn a book. Similar demonstrations (Quran burnings) happen just as often in e.g. Denmark and Norway, seriously loon it up, the reason I suspect Sweden suddenly gets a lot of attention for it is mainly political, with them trying to join NATO.
Having said that, there are laws against incitement against ethical groups. The reason this is not treated as such is that its considered religious critique which is always legal.
I’d personally argue that this has very little to do with religious critique. These people haven’t read a single page of the Quran in their lives. This is clearly to provoke an ethnical minority. So I could definitely argue that it shouldn’t really be allowed. Not because you shouldn’t critique Islam or any other religion, but simply because this is nothing but a provocation actively trying to hurt/offend an ethnic group and get a reaction of out of it, but that’s not how the courts interpret the law.
That’s how I see it as well.
Two reasons:
The law regulating what the police are allowed to forbid is very limited. They can deny permission for a demonstration due to traffic disruption, but not threats of terrorism or international relations. It’s currently being debated in the Riksdag (the supreme legislative body).
Secondly, the police are in their rights to deny permission for protests/demonstrations that are clearly illegal for some reason. The legislation regulating incitement against ethnic groups (which Muslims are covered under) is fuzzy however, and this is mostly uncharted territory. Context matters for the letter of that law, in legalese the law forbids certain “verbal statements or messages” with a purpose to incite ethnic groups. But is burning the Quran a “message”? Arguably yes (imo) in this context, but it hasn’t been tried.
There was a dismissed case tried in court with a Quran burning, but the context there was different. There have also been some police reports regarding other Quran burnings that were never prosecuted, because the prosecutors only put forth cases to trial that they are convinced that they can win (this is how the system is designed).
What we are waiting for is a case that fulfills, or seems to fulfill, the letter of the incitement law with regards to context, that will be prosecuted and tried in courts all the way up to the supreme court.
The previous Quran burning might fulfill those criteria (burned Quran outside a mosque during Eid). It has been reported to the police and we are waiting to see if the case will be brought to trial.
