Blasphemy in Denmark

[erlando]

Recognized (!) … by whom? The state!

Read it again. Carefully this time.

Here, I'll give you a hint:

Et religionssamfund kan principielt være omfattet af straffelovens § 140, selv om
det ikke er godkendt (når blot ”intet læres eller foretages, som strider mod sædeligheden
eller den offentlige orden”, jf. grundlovens § 67)

 

[dann]

Of course it's simply "burning a book". There's nothing mystical about a flag or religious text. People might react differently, but so what? If someone wants to get offended when some book goes up in flames, let em. Maybe they'll start questioning their beliefs.

Obfuscation doesn't help clarify the idea. Nobody claimed that there was anything "mystical" about it. You are free to claim that a holy book isn't holy. And, of course, as far as physics or chemistry go, you are right. All books usually consist of approximately the same molecules - organic and otherwise.
But why do I argue against the point you are trying to make. It's not a point, just words in no particular order …. (If you don't get my point, I can elaborate on this!)

If it's my font in my house, I'll pee in it all I want.

Yes, you can. And you can even do so if it isn't, but it's very unlikely that it is.

 

[dann]

Burning a flag is burning a piece of cloth. Burning a Quaran/Bible/Torah/whatever is just burning a bunch of papers and ink.

"The right not to be offended" is not a thing you know.

Peeing in a font is unhygienic.

No right is a thing, you know! However, you can argue against the existence of rights as much as you please, it doesn't make them disappear. You seem to confuse the laws of physics with social reality. If you kill somebody, physics won't punish you. Somebody else may.

Having pork as a mandatory item on the menu is not "forcing Muslims to eat pork".

Did anybody say so?!

 

[dann]

Read it again. Carefully this time.

Read your own "gist" again. Carefully, this time!

 

[erlando]

No right is a thing, you know! However, you can argue against the existence of rights as much as you please, it doesn't make them disappear. You seem to confuse the laws of physics with social reality. If you kill somebody, physics won't punish you. Somebody else may.

You're not making any sense now.

I'm not arguing against the existance of rights. I'm saying that noone has the right to not be offended (not being the operative word here).

If I burn a flag and you feel offended by it, that is your problem not mine. You can't stop me from doing anything that is not against the law just because it offends you.

Did anybody say so?!

I just commented on the links you provided as support. It was your claim.

 

[erlando]

Read your own "gist" again. Carefully, this time!

You mean this one? The one that you obviously didn't read?

The gist is that this is a comment from an advisory committee on the penal code stating that a religious community is protected by §140 just by adhering to §67 of the constitution. It goes on to state that it is unlikely that such a situation arises as the amount and diversity of recognized religious communities is large.

See where it says "a religious community is protected by §140 just by adhering to §67 of the constitution"? Does it say anything about the religious community needing recognition from the state? No? I thought so.

ETA: Og hvis du vil have den originale tekst så har jeg leveret linket. Både i justitsministeriets oplæg til rådet og i rådets betænkning står der, at et religiøst samfund vil være beskyttet af §140 uanset om det er godkendt af staten eller ej.

ETA2: Translation to adhere to MA: If you want the original text I gave you the link. It is stated both in the justice department's request to the advisory committee and in the committee's paper that a religious community is protected by §140 whether or not it is recognized by the state.

 

[baron]

Obfuscation doesn't help clarify the idea. Nobody claimed that there was anything "mystical" about it. You are free to claim that a holy book isn't holy. And, of course, as far as physics or chemistry go, you are right. All books usually consist of approximately the same molecules - organic and otherwise.

You made the claim that "Burning the Quran is not simply burning a book" so how about you do the justification? If burning the Koran is not burning a book, what is it? And why should the same criteria not be applied to other books-that-are-not-really-books?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Really? Would you do the same for flag burners, or bible burners?

Depends on the circumstances.

If you went to the middle of Alabama and started shouting that NASCAR Fans were all gay and took it up the bum, and then proceeded to burn the US and Confederate flags, then likely yes.

You right to free speech and expression ends when you try and use that right to incite violence.

 

[Giz]

Depends on the circumstances.

If you went to the middle of Alabama and started shouting that NASCAR Fans were all gay and took it up the bum, and then proceeded to burn the US and Confederate flags, then likely yes.

You right to free speech and expression ends when you try and use that right to incite violence.

Do you apply a "reasonable man" standard to that likelihood of violence? Or do you let people shut down debate if they can demonstrate that they will fly out of control at the slightest provocation?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you apply a "reasonable man" standard to that likelihood of violence? Or do you let people shut down debate if they can demonstrate that they will fly out of control at the slightest provocation?

If you know that something will provoke a person, and group of people, and deliberately set out to do so, that's on you, even if it wouldn't provoke a different set of people.

 

[Fudbucker]

If you know that something will provoke a person, and group of people, and deliberately set out to do so, that's on you, even if it wouldn't provoke a different set of people.

Totally disagree with this. Even if I know a certain Trump supporter will fly into a rage, and likely attack me, if I talk about how deranged Trump is, I should be allowed to talk about how deranged Trump is.

 

[erlando]

If you know that something will provoke a person, and group of people, and deliberately set out to do so, that's on you, even if it wouldn't provoke a different set of people.

Absolutely not! If those actions are legal it is on the offended to control their rage.

"The right not to be offended" is not a thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again this is just a legal extension of how religious people and religious apologist have attempted/succeeded in silencing atheist for years.

The religious side has been very good at portraying the very existence of atheist as rude or inflammatory without actually coming out and saying it. A religious person can do a full on fire and brimstone prolitizying (I can never spell that word) speech no problem but the second an atheist directly says "There is no God" without quivering and groveling it's "strident" and "rude" and "bullying."

This is just a legal extension of that argumentative.

Dawkins or Hitchens can't (couldn't) clear their throat without someone pointing at them demanding we adopt them of examples of "Atheist extremist" simply for daring to exist without apologizing for it so I'm not surprised that people that want atheist to just shut up and stay in the closet are trying to paint any public acknowledgement of their base opinion as hate speech or disturbing the public piece or any other piece of meaningless doublespeak which creates a de-facto blasphemy law in everything but name exist.

 

[Planigale]

Burning a flag is burning a piece of cloth. Burning a Quaran/Bible/Torah/whatever is just burning a bunch of papers and ink.

"The right not to be offended" is not a thing you know.

Peeing in a font is unhygienic.



Having pork as a mandatory item on the menu is not "forcing Muslims to eat pork".

You may start off with paper and ink, but you end up with the literal word of God. The attitude towards the Quran is similar to that from religious jews to the Torah. Both the Torah and Quran need to be buried at the end of their life.

For christians the best analogy would be the wine and bread of the sacrament, which religious christians believe becomes the literal blood and flesh of Jesus. (It always seems strange to non-christians this canabalistic element of christianity.) One does not just throw left overs in the bin or down the sink.

A question I would put to people talking about desecrating the Quran would be would they do this to a Torah? Is this an act that one would perceive as anti-semitic and associate with the far right? Remember that this is not a private act, but one that is published. This is more akin to shouting fire is fine in private, but not in a crowded theatre.

It should be remembered that the US will send a drone to kill you and your family for things that you may publish on line if they are thought to incite violence against the US, but it seems like it is OK to broadcast acts intended to incite violence if the target is not the US.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Totally disagree with this. Even if I know a certain Trump supporter will fly into a rage, and likely attack me, if I talk about how deranged Trump is, I should be allowed to talk about how deranged Trump is.

I'm not saying you can't talk about how deranged Trump is, but if you get in the face of said trump supporter and go on about it at him, then what you get back is totally on you, and who knows, if you get the same DA that Bart Sibrel did after getting punched by Buzz Aldrin, you might even get a disturbing the Peace charge to go with your black eye and fat lip.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Absolutely not! If those actions are legal it is on the offended to control their rage.

"The right not to be offended" is not a thing.

There is no "Right to avoid the consequences of your actions" either, and if you go out of your way to get people enraged then you have to suffer the consequences of your actions.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And again this is just a legal extension of how religious people and religious apologist have attempted/succeeded in silencing atheist for years.

The religious side has been very good at portraying the very existence of atheist as rude or inflammatory without actually coming out and saying it. A religious person can do a full on fire and brimstone prolitizying (I can never spell that word) speech no problem but the second an atheist directly says "There is no God" without quivering and groveling it's "strident" and "rude" and "bullying."

This is just a legal extension of that argumentative.

Dawkins or Hitchens can't (couldn't) clear their throat without someone pointing at them demanding we adopt them of examples of "Atheist extremist" simply for daring to exist without apologizing for it so I'm not surprised that people that want atheist to just shut up and stay in the closet are trying to paint any public acknowledgement of their base opinion as hate speech or disturbing the public piece or any other piece of meaningless doublespeak which creates a de-facto blasphemy law in everything but name exist.

There is a small different between declaring no gods exist and publicly burning religious books.

 

[McHrozni]

Although i find such laws objectionable it's incredibly likely that the Danish authorities would treat real and authentic religions and religious community's different from those that are obviously artificial and made up.

Only if by "real" you actually mean "old" and by "artificial and made up" you mean "recent".

In which case the law already makes the distinction I mention it needs for it to work in the first place.

McHrozni

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is a small different between declaring no gods exist and publicly burning religious books.

Perhaps but neither are the government's concern.

There is however zero difference between burning religious books and burning copies of Harry Potter or the owners manual for a 1992 Toyota Celica.

 

[McHrozni]

There is however zero difference between burning religious books and burning copies of Harry Potter or the owners manual for a 1992 Toyota Celica.

A long time ago books that are now considered holy may have served the exact same purpose as Harry Potter does now. I do wonder how things will look like in that respect thousands of years in the future. Suppose Harry Potter becomes the new Bible, and is hailed as the savior of humanity based on fragments of those books.

It would be funny if we were to travel into future and see future humans worshipping The Boy who Lived, convinced there really used to be wizards among us and so on. You'd also have to be careful as not to get burned at the stake for blashpemy ...

McHrozni