Burning the Quran in Norway, Sweden - Racism and Islamophobia Rampant in Europe

[lil devils x]

As I've said before, they already are illegal.

Law enforcement discretion is an unavoidable fact of having humans enforce laws. You could change law enforcement liability through legislative action by requiring them to enforce restraining orders on pain of 42 U.S. Code § 1983 lawsuits. I would not be opposed to revisiting qualified immunity.


The courts have sorted it out. True threats are illegal. Racist statements are not. Nor does speech need to have much (or any) value to be protected. See Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).

I've got a few things to take care of, but I will be back in a few hours to respond to any responses

They are not equally illegal in every state or jurisdiction and they are defined different. We have countless cases of " I'm going to kill you N* Racial slur)" that is not prosecuted as a threat. We have countless cases of "I'm going to kill you B*" as not being counted. That is part of the problem here. Some places still rule that as free speech and it should not be. We need to have the law better define it, and the cops better enforce it. It is not defined thoroughly ENOUGH.
In one state they ruled following a girl and calling her racial slurs was against the fighting words doctrine, another similar incident in another state ruled it wasn't. It should be everywhere. We need to make it so. Not having courts ruling every which way as they please. I am saying that the rulings in which they sided with free speech on racial slurs should be overturned with a new definition to the fighting words doctrine that specifically covers it. Fighting words doctrine is overdue for an amendment.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I don't know mostly nonsense, just vent my existential angst into a poor burrito before eating it and knowing that it's existence was probably more miserable than mine.

Immediately thought of this commercial.


Just replace the milky way with a burrito

 

[Dreiko]

I'm gonna go on a limb and say that the worst thing about burning a book (any book) is not the racism that may or may not be found therein but rather the anti-intellectual sentiment expressed in the act. People should just debunk the content, not just do this meaningless symbolic gesture and feel like they defeated their enemy because the wood pulp that their words were carved in is now ash.


I get it with a flag because a flag is also just a symbol and idolatry is low level stuff too but a book has actual ideas it grapples with. It misses the point when you don't engage and just burn it and think you did something.

 

[Houseman]

I'm gonna go on a limb and say that the worst thing about burning a book (any book) is not the racism that may or may not be found therein but rather the anti-intellectual sentiment expressed in the act. People should just debunk the content, not just do this meaningless symbolic gesture and feel like they defeated their enemy because the wood pulp that their words were carved in is now ash.

I get it with a flag because a flag is also just a symbol and idolatry is low level stuff too but a book has actual ideas it grapples with. It misses the point when you don't engage and just burn it and think you did something.

Here's a "good" idea: They should announce a public speech disproving the Koran or Islam or Muhammad or something at a certain location, then sit back and watch as rioters threaten or attack that location and/or the security found there.

Kind of like the bomb threats and other violence that happens whenever someone like Milo is invited to speak at a university.

 

[SilentPony]

Racial slurs, random cuss words.. There is no real purpose for any of it. Besides, you should not legally be allowed to threaten or yell in anyone's face period. In some states that is considered verbal assault. Anything that is considered verbal assault would be covered here.

But things have gotten so paranoid, so aggressive and political. 33% of Republicans think the Democrats are an existential threat to the Democracy and their very lives, whereas 50% of Democrats think the same of Trump.
One could argue just saying 'Trump 2020' or 'Biden 2020' could be considered a threat to the people who think their lives are at danger if either candidate wins.
Same with BLM/BlueLives movements - some in those movements views the other as an active threat, a real on war. That's why the protests are so ugly and police have been stomping down so hard. To the police BLM is an anti-police terrorist group. So why can't police say that saying Black Lives Matter is in fact a threat to police lives? And vice versa BLM to Blue Lives.

 

[Houseman]

But things have gotten so paranoid, so aggressive and political. 33% of Republicans think the Democrats are an existential threat to the Democracy and their very lives, whereas 50% of Democrats think the same of Trump.
One could argue just saying 'Trump 2020' or 'Biden 2020' could be considered a threat to the people who think their lives are at danger if either candidate wins.
Same with BLM/BlueLives movements - some in those movements views the other as an active threat, a real on war. That's why the protests are so ugly and police have been stomping down so hard. To the police BLM is an anti-police terrorist group. So why can't police say that saying Black Lives Matter is in fact a threat to police lives? And vice versa BLM to Blue Lives.

 

[lil devils x]

But things have gotten so paranoid, so aggressive and political. 33% of Republicans think the Democrats are an existential threat to the Democracy and their very lives, whereas 50% of Democrats think the same of Trump.
One could argue just saying 'Trump 2020' or 'Biden 2020' could be considered a threat to the people who think their lives are at danger if either candidate wins.
Same with BLM/BlueLives movements - some in those movements views the other as an active threat, a real on war. That's why the protests are so ugly and police have been stomping down so hard. To the police BLM is an anti-police terrorist group. So why can't police say that saying Black Lives Matter is in fact a threat to police lives? And vice versa BLM to Blue Lives.

If we put a stop to the escalation of violence then a lot of that will calm down too. If Trump is held legally accountable for when he incites violence then the people would fall in line as well. You can't just define threats how you please. That is part of the problem we have already. Instead we need to amend the fighting words doctrine to properly do so. This will help the courts not be so politicized because as it is they can pick and choose at will how they want to enforce it. Not all police See BLM that way, only primarily the police who seem to have the most problems recognizing that black lives actually matter. Some departments handle this better than others.

I’m a White Cop and I Support Black Lives Matter

At this point, I'm emotionally drained from trying to explain how I can be both pro-law enforcement and pro-Black Lives Matter.

www.vice.com

The Long History of Black Officers Reforming Policing From Within

Black Lives Matter and Donald Trump’s agenda are inspiring some police to more vocal advocacy. But their project—ending racial bias in the profession—is a decades-old one.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Dreiko]

Here's a "good" idea: They should announce a public speech disproving the Koran or Islam or Muhammad or something at a certain location, then sit back and watch as rioters threaten or attack that location and/or the security found there.

Kind of like the bomb threats and other violence that happens whenever someone like Milo is invited to speak at a university.

Salmon Rushdy already did that and he has had to live with private security guarding his life from the assassins of peace for decades now so I get why you'd not wanna do that either but burning a book is definitely not the way to go lol.

 

[Revnak]

Have y’all considered that maybe recycling twenty year old new atheism arguments is getting kinda boring?

 

[dreng3]

But the post I was responding to wasn't talking about that, it was talking about how 9/11 led to this with Muslims.

Yeah, and my response was that ultimately it was just muslims because some horrible people, who happened to be muslims, had done something terrible. If those horrible people had done nothing another group would have been targeted for some less horrible transgression. Muslims became a target because attention was drawn to them, not because the hate is or was reasonable.

 

[Hades]

You do realize the first crusade was an attempt to retake Christian land conquered by muslims, right? And that Islam's prophet was the Islamic equivalent of a "crusader"?

That's never really been a convincing argument. The Holy Land was in Muslim hands for over 500 years by the time the Crusades began. If the idea of Jerusalem in heathen hands upset Christians that badly you'd think they would have been in more of a hurry to take it back. That they came rushing to the aid of the Eastern Romans is technically correct but considering the crusaders just took the lands themselves rather than give it to their allies makes it doubtful that Christian kinship was all that important to them.

 

[Generals]

That's never really been a convincing argument. The Holy Land was in Muslim hands for over 500 years by the time the Crusades began. If the idea of Jerusalem in heathen hands upset Christians that badly you'd think they would have been in more of a hurry to take it back. That they came rushing to the aid of the Eastern Romans is technically correct but considering the crusaders just took the lands themselves rather than give it to their allies makes it doubtful that Christian kinship was all that important to them.

I won't disagree that what the crusaders ended up doing was wrong on many accounts due to the ambitions of those leading the crusaders (and that's without taking into account the atrocities commited by the crusaders). But it wouldn't change the fact it was initially started to defend Christian land from Islamic agressors and at the same time take the holy city back which was initially invaded and conquered by Muslims.

But in my opinion this is all quite irrelevant because holding the crusades against Christians in a "Islam vs Christianity" discussion is beyond absurd due to the point made in the second sentence of the quoted part. You simply can't hold religious conquests against people while at the same time believing a conqueror is your prophet.

 

[Revnak]

That's never really been a convincing argument. The Holy Land was in Muslim hands for over 500 years by the time the Crusades began. If the idea of Jerusalem in heathen hands upset Christians that badly you'd think they would have been in more of a hurry to take it back. That they came rushing to the aid of the Eastern Romans is technically correct but considering the crusaders just took the lands themselves rather than give it to their allies makes it doubtful that Christian kinship was all that important to them.

Also the most prominent Crusader had spent around a decade trying to carve a kingdom out of the Eastern Roman Empire along with heathan Bulgarians

 

[Silvanus]

Book burning, like flag burning, is a speech act. It is stating that you hold the words written to be of so little value that they're not worth preserving. And let's be clear: book burning a book with millions of copies isn't remotely the same as book burning by authoritarian regimes to suppress information. It may be a "fuck you", but it's a principled "fuck you"

It's not the same in terms of the level of power the people have to carry it out. But the intention is still to suppress expression: to intimidate people into feeling like they cannot publicly express their faith, and to attempt to pressure them to leave the country or else feel unsafe. I absolutely consider it an attempt to suppress freedom of expression.

 

[Hades]

Also the most prominent Crusader had spent around a decade trying to carve a kingdom out of the Eastern Roman Empire along with heathan Bulgarians

And by the fourth crusade they suceeded in doing just that.

 

[Revnak]

It's not the same in terms of the level of power the people have to carry it out. But the intention is still to suppress expression: to intimidate people into feeling like they cannot publicly express their faith, and to attempt to pressure them to leave the country or else feel unsafe. I absolutely consider it an attempt to suppress freedom of expression.

Trying to argue in circles on the power relations of members of various faiths in various places seems kinda pointless, probably better to just say on a case by case basis burning religious texts can be hateful or liberating in content.

 

[Revnak]

And by the fourth crusade they suceeded in doing just that.

Well those were very different Crusades, and I’m not sure the Venitians actually employed Bulgarians

 

[lil devils x]

I won't disagree that what the crusaders ended up doing was wrong on many accounts due to the ambitions of those leading the crusaders (and that's without taking into account the atrocities commited by the crusaders). But it wouldn't change the fact it was initially started to defend Christian land from Islamic agressors and at the same time take the holy city back which was initially invaded and conquered by Muslims.

But in my opinion this is all quite irrelevant because holding the crusades against Christians in a "Islam vs Christianity" discussion is beyond absurd due to the point made in the second sentence of the quoted part. You simply can't hold religious conquests against people while at the same time believing a conqueror is your prophet.

Them believing Christians are a conqueror somehow relates to Jesus being a conqueror? I thought muslims were just under the impressions that Christians are just mistaken and uninformed, the same way that Christians claim to view jews, Christians =\= Jesus in the minds of muslims. They just see Christians as being mistaken about Jesus, not that Jesus is in any way actually responsible for what Christians are doing. They usually just View Christians actions as misinformed and separate from their prophet.

 

[MrCalavera]

Do you think these Koran burnings have anything to do with this serious problem? If not why are they doing this?

Based on my research and expertise on this particular topic, i came to a conclusion that the reason was to "start shit".

(...)doubtful that Christian kinship was all that important to them.

Three words: Sack of Constantinople. Clears any doubt.

 

[Gergar12]

To be honest, if I was a refugee or immigrated to Norway or Sweden, I wouldn't care that much about learning the language. I mean I get it you need to assimilate, but why should you learn a language that very few people speak. English is where it's at. Even German, how many people speak German in Africa, South America, and Asia, how many countries have a majority of German speakers?

The more countries that speak a language the better, and more likely that I and many other people will be inclined to speak it.

English, Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi, and French, any other language is not worth learning.

And also why are there multiple national sign languages. That's just inefficient.