Hello, Protestant German here. I’m hearing a lot about the infamous Quran burnings in Sweden, and find it very strange. To me it’s fighting fire with fire, and as Muslims are very religious I can imagine it hurts them a lot.
Can someone help me understand how this makes sense?
Maybe I don’t have the full picture. Thank you!
Det här inlägget arkiverades automatiskt av Leddit-botten. Vill du diskutera tråden? Registrera dig på feddit.nu!
The original was posted on /r/sweden by /u/Haidenai at 2023-07-20 10:33:35+00:00.
broblackheim at 2023-07-20 14:07:00+00:00 ID:
jsqb6zeIf you are poor, have bad education, live your entire life and base all the happiness, family, culture and tradition in your life around the faith. And then the rich, aloof people who live in oppulence are torching the symbol of your faith, because of some rule about freedom they themselves dont care about, they will be upset.
The majority will leave it at upset, but a minority will try to make it our problem as well. And a minority in that minority will try to really hurt us. We know this. All of us. And that makes it our problem too.
Saying its their problem is disregarsing cause and effect entirely. Everyone knows this will happen. And if it continues it will cost lives.
In several functioning democracies there are rules against hatespeech, that forbid these burnings. So I pesonally dont think the burnings themselves protect anything vital to democracy. They abuse it because they know what will happen.
So we end up having to ask ourselves the question, what comes out of these burnings specifically that are more precious than life? How do we tell potential mothers of potential terrorist victims that our freedom of speech is more important?
AttTankaRattArStorre at 2023-07-20 14:19:58+00:00 ID:
jsqd477We cannot permit terrorists to dictate the scope of our legal code, and if other democracies have laws against the burning of holy books then they are wrong. The protection of willful provocation is a core part of the freedom of speech, because a system that only protects those who speak things that are accepted by everyone is a system that protects no one at all.
The ONLY solution to this unrest is for muslims to stop being upset, any other outcome is going to erode our democracy and the basic tenets of our free and tolerant society. It doesn’t matter that we are aware of exactly what problems the burning of the quran will bring - it’s not OUR problem, but THEIR problem. ANY violence that is committed as a result of this is wrong, inherently so, and will be dealt with like any other violence.
broblackheim at 2023-07-20 14:30:49+00:00 ID:
jsqer8oI agreed in part, but mostly I see idealism here. This is not a pragmatic stance for me to say that they must stop being upset. How? How does a wartorn, traumatised and pretty poorly educated people like the working class of Iraq just stop being upset? To be as composed and calculating and idealist as we are in this part of the world you need a living standard and safety, let alone peace.
And how is it not our problem when our laws invite these problems within our borders?
I do not agree that other democracies that eschew these principles are wrong. They have a clause against hatespeech to make sure that cultures more easily can coexist, because they accept our differences and opportunities better.
TaleIll8006 at 2023-07-20 17:29:14+00:00 ID:
jsr7908I actually do think that at some point people will stop being upset. I think the reason the reaction is so strong is because it’s quite shocking it’s shocking because it’s not common, or rather wasn’t common. If they see this happening more, and people keep throwing tantrums, if it becomes clear that tantrums will not change the laws of other countries, the result will likely be that they will stop the violent reactions and pretend that the violence never happened.
I think what will cause this change i attitude is pride, if they realize their reactions are impotent, the reactions themselves become shameful and will further expose their impotence, and in turn, only reflect poorly on the tantrumers.
To save face one will pick some new thing to be upset about and pretend like no one was really upset about the first thing, or at least not as upset as they actually were.
Maybe I am naive, but save for something truly terrible happening I believe this is a feasible outcome, just like we see in the west where for example the “goalpost” has moved from homo marriage to trans issues, as one became an obvious lost cause.
Very few people will today stick to the anti-gay stance that was popular before, and many will not even admit they held it.
AttTankaRattArStorre at 2023-07-20 14:43:20+00:00 ID:
jsqgnfsPragmatism in the face of religious fanaticism is a ticket to a ride that will end up in a society more akin to that of Iraq than that of a free and liberal democracy. Some things we just can’t tolerate, and eroding the scope of our freedom of speech in favor of religious oppression is 100% worse than whatever the poor working class people of Iraq can do unto us.
A single life is not more important than the basic tenets of our society (not even 10 or 20 lives), we fought bloody wars with tens of thousands of casualties in the past in order to not have outside powers dictate what we can and can’t do in our own territory - to meet the potential terrorists halfway is to admit defeat in the face of the most rudimentary adversity.
The job of our government is to safeguard our national sovereignty, and when foreigners attempt to supplant said sovereignty it’s our governments job to stand firm and uphold OUR values. We JUST CANT bow down to this, and if the road to muslim acceptance of quran burnings is paved with violence and blood then so be it - blaming US for that is like blaming women for being assaulted and raped.
broblackheim at 2023-07-20 14:46:25+00:00 ID:
jsqh49uInteresting. While I strongly disagree to parts here I also think we reached the end of the line here. Appreciate your time and responses.
Haidenai (OP) at 2023-07-20 14:26:33+00:00 ID:
jsqk1ehA beacon of light, even-though the motivation is more to not get hurt yourself than the Muslims not being hurt in the first place.
DroolDuck at 2023-07-20 14:23:04+00:00 ID:
jsqe491It’s not hatespeech if you direct your concerns against a religion.
A religion is not a person, it is a belief.
If I don’t agree with that belief/religion for whatever reason I have the right to show my feelings about it because we have the freedom of speech.
Hatespeech has to be directed to people to be valid as hatespeech.
Take Nazism as an example.
We do not have the right to use Nazi-symbols or do the Nazi-heil because Nazism is proved to be an ideology which sets white people above the rest which means that if I do a Nazi-heil or use Nazi-symbols or whatever, it directly points out hate against other races (people) which means it becomes a hatespeech of sorts.
broblackheim at 2023-07-20 14:41:05+00:00 ID:
jsqgb3wAppreciate your response.
I do not agree about religion being exempt from hatespeech as it is so closely embedded with culture, identity and tradition.
The world is shrinking and we must find ways to coexist, and in our part of the world we have all the means and ability. It is easier for us to stop burning books that it is for muslims (at this point in time and history) to stop being insulted and upset about their holy symbol being destroyed for us to prove a point.
I do not think this is pragmatic at all. And as I said, Finland among others are just as free and open a society while also at this point in human history stopping hatespeech against muslims in that manner. Just my thoughts.
Pherion93 at 2023-07-20 15:02:54+00:00 ID:
jsqjnpcThe problem isnt really if this is pragmatic or not. I agree that the burnings is probably not the best strategy to convert extremists. However Im strongly against stopping the burnings even if I think we should do something ells. I dont think we should make laws that only makes kinda sense in one situation in a specific time, especially concidering we have a stupid dance law that I think is still in effect.
broblackheim at 2023-07-20 15:12:31+00:00 ID:
jsql57zPerhaps not hard legislation but I think something has to and will be done now that large businesses and embassies are being thrown out, shut down or threatened. I think it becomes a question of pragmatism and peacefully getting along with business and sharing this tiny moat of dust we live on, to use those winged words
FritzKubrick at 2023-07-20 14:48:59+00:00 ID:
jsqhi3kHave many of the religious will have to get upset for you to wanna ban stuff? Banning gays and shott skirts upsets quite a few. Why not ban that too?
broblackheim at 2023-07-20 14:52:10+00:00 ID:
jsqhzokBurning religious books to prove a point is not the same as free sexuality or dresscode. Freedom to do one thing is not the equivalent of a freedom to do another. I think you know this too.
FritzKubrick at 2023-07-20 15:46:42+00:00 ID:
jsqql4cYou said this:
”I do not agree about religion being exempt from hatespeech as it is so closely embedded with culture, identity and tradition.”
I’m saying:
Where do you draw the line about hate speech towards religion? (We already have laws about hate speech towards muslims) You can’t legislate about actions towards a religion especially when you’re burning your own property.
”The world is shrinking and we must find ways to coexist, and in our part of the world we have all the means and ability. It is easier for us to stop burning books that it is for muslims (at this point in time and history) to stop being insulted and upset about their holy symbol being destroyed for us to prove a point.”
I’m saying that many muslims are mad about certain things that come about as a result of a liberal democracy; why stop at their book?
”I do not think this is pragmatic at all. And as I said, Finland among others are just as free and open a society while also at this point in human history stopping hatespeech against muslims in that manner. Just my thoughts.”
Sweden removed this law in 1970 because we had come a truly secular nation. We didn’t know a few decades later there would be a sizeable minority wanted to change that. Finland never got around removing the law of blasphemy which is a horrible notion.