They’re taking a symbol

I believe they are buying a copy of a symbol, then burning it. If they’re genuinely stealing Qurans and burning them, I don’t condone that.

Even if there were a factory where religious texts were systematically copied and then immediately burned onsite, the total number of religious texts in the world would remain the same. The number of adherents would remain the same. Nothing would change but CO2 levels.

You can’t call someone ugly and then follow it up with, “It’s nothing personal.”

Is a book burning really a personal attack? Did they write it? Did they personally know the author? Was an original burned or was it property that was purchased?

I think people should be able to express their opinion that an ideology is ugly. Without fear of repercussions, especially from those who can’t control their emotions.

How is the burning of a book a personal attack? It’s criticism of an ideology. If someone wants to take it personally, that’s their problem. Saying a book is garbage is not the same as saying a person is.

Does burning a book delete its fans? Couldn’t they just, I don’t know, print more? Why wouldn’t they just laugh while printing more?! And hell, sell it to the burners. Turn a profit off their opinions. Why would you threaten violence and prove their point?

you cannot understand how someone can get upset, or feel frightened over others publically burning their symbols.

I do not understand why someone would be moved to violence by the destruction of a copy of a symbol that wasn’t theirs. I absolutely understand anger and fear in reaction to libraries, museums, or historical sites’ destruction. I absolutely understand being upset and frightened by organisms burning. But not symbols, no. That seems a breath away from insanity to me.

That isn’t what this is though. The symbol endures, that’s kind of the point of symbols. It’s destruction of a book, yes, but it’s the burner’s copy. They’re not marching through the city, taking Qurans from people’s homes, and burning them. That fool paid for the thing he burned. And the shopkeeper already ordered another one. Again, they could profit from this, and all the while seeming cooler and funnier. That would be the real power move. Not threats of violence.

So how do you expect to argue or debate anything if you don’t even comprehend the issue?

We are still talking about Quran burnings right? Copies of paper and the imaginary friends of adults? Free speech v religious protection? Walking the secular line without leaving room for racist skinheads who abuse liberties like these for their own agenda?

I think if people want to hold on so tightly to and refuse to update an old inflammatory book, they should get used to a certain number being destroyed each year by readers who thought it was as good as ash.

This goes for all ideologies. They are not immune to criticism, however inflammatory it may be. I don’t think public spaces should be policed to restrict expression of criticism of ideologies, so long as there aren’t threats of violence toward people. There can be strong criticism of an ideology without hate, threats, and violence. I think book desecration qualifies as acceptable criticism. I wouldn’t do it, but I wouldn’t jail someone for it either (provided it’s their copy).

Now if someone starts waving a flag of hate, then we have a problem. That is promotion of an ideology of hate not criticism of one. Ideologies that call for violence, deserve criticism and resistance. The criticism and resistance deserve protection, not medieval ideologies.

…you’re not allowed to burn flags.

It may be illegal for some but not for all. I believe people should be allowed to do this (provided they do it safely). Because it isn’t a big deal. It’s not an expression calling for violence. I interpet it as, “I think this flag (or book) is dangerous trash.” I may or may not agree with their opinion, but that doesn’t matter. I believe they have a right to express it, as I have a right to express mine.