I saw this post on [email protected]: https://lemmy.world/post/2387220
I got me in a philosophical mood.
Is it okay to burn a Koran?
On one hand, a Koran, a Bible or anything else "sacred" literature is paper and ink. And burning them is just disposing of said book. Children are taught at young age not to get provocated by provocators. Adults should be able to live with this principle.
On the other hand, burning is not the main reason people get upset when sacred literature is burnt. The whole burning ordeal is (usually) a symbol for hate. Hate should not be tolerated, and therefore it is wrong to burn a sacred books. It is imporant to make hateful actions illegal to prevent hate from spreading. If hate is allowed, then we are possibly facing hate crimes and violent actions towards minorities.
Burning a sacred book is not always about hate. It can also be a symbolical protest. In sweden, a few weeks ago, Iraqi man burned a Koran. According to news I read at the time of said event, the man justified his actions as a protest against Iraqi government. He was kept prisoner in his homecountry and tortured during his imprisonment.
Iraq is a theocracy. Amputations and even death sentence are used as forms of punishment. People are not equal and theistic law is above other laws. The country does not follow UN's declaration of human rights. These human rights are recognized all over the globe and should be held as standards for all.
If someone burns a sacred book to protest torture, amputations or death sentences, I think it is not morally wrong, but quite the contrary. Burning a book is a victimless crime. Forementioned actions of Iraqi government however are not.
Thoughts from an European atheist.
Im interested to hear your thoughts on this matter and hoping to understand this question from different perspectives.
Wrong. Paradox of tolerance. Hating the hateful is completely justified
This is resolved when you realise that the tolerance is part of an unspoken social contract.
"I will be tolerant of things you do that don't really effect me. In turn, you will show both me and others the same courtesy."
Those who break this agreement, also lose their right to be covered by it.
It gets more complex when applied to groups. At what point do the actions of a small sub-group of individuals begin to represent the view of the larger group?
In the OP's case, it's a grey area. The Koran is being used as a tool of intolerance by Muslims. On those grounds it's reasonable. Unfortunately, it's actually a smaller subgroup spreading the intolerance. The larger group are not involved. The question is, does the subgroup sufficiently represent the views of the larger group, and so revoke it's protection, or not?
My personal view is that it does not. The subgroup's goal is to shatter the tolerance agreement between the larger group and us. This would force the larger group away from inclusiveness, and so more into alignment with the radicals. Reciprocating the break from our side only reinforces this.
I'm not saying we do nothing. However, ultimately, it is down to the Muslim community to put it's house in order. The how of that, is, unfortunately, the big challenge.
Not to mention, in countries where religion (definitely not just Islam, or abrahamic or monotheistic religions) plays a significant role, populist and/or hardline governments often leverage extremist religious elements - in either official or unofficial capacities - to help maintain power and influence. E.g.: India, Italy, the US.
Yep, and no greater source of hate than the religious texts of these death cults.
"The Bible's blind, the Torah's deaf, the Qu'ran is mute If you burned them all together you'd get close to the truth"
-Bright Eyes
The intolerant can't be tolerated by a free society suggests Popper. Very true but that's still a long ways from hate.
Paradox of tolerance! Interesting! Thank you for your input.
The applicable term is not "paradox", it's "hypocrisy"...
The paradox is that, if you are tolerant of everything, then you are tolerant of intolerance. However, if you are never willing to stand up to intolerance, then you are intolerant by proxy.
The resolution is recognising it as a social contract. When a party breaks that contract, they can't then hide behind it too.
"if you are never willing to stand up to intolerance, then you are intolerant by proxy."
This is an assumption of the individuals beliefs and opinions... you're attributing the "intolerance" to them simply because they don't support you in your intolerance of the intolerance you don't tolerate.
They aren't hating on what you hate, so you declare them to be what you hate, simply because they won't hate what you hate.
It's not a paradox in actuality, it's a paradox because of your assumption.