Denmark charges man with blasphemy

[ronburgundy]

And the grotesque inhumane brutality of imprisoning a man for his non-violent form of denouncing one of the most immoral, pro-violent, bigoted books ever published is infinitely more uncivilized than that man's method of speech.

I never argued that anyone should be charged or tried or imprisoned for blasphemy. But your statement leads me to ask - if he had burned the Origin of the Species would you change your tune at all?

No. Burning a single book is no more meaningful and has no more impact than a person saying "I don't like this book."
IOW, it is essentially nothing but a book review as performance art.

The only thing that would change is the same thing that would change when reading negative written reviews of those books, namely my personal opinion about the reviewer themselves. I would view a burner of the Origin of Species like I view other anti-science idiots like Trump. I view someone that burns the Koran the same as I would view someone that burned Mein Kampf or the latest edition of the KKK Quarterly, which means somewhere between neutral and positively depending on why they view these texts negatively.

Destroying every copy of any of these would be harmful to the general principle of the free exchange of ideas. However, the Koran itself is in opposition to that very principle and all other forms of liberty and reasoned thought. Thus, the effect of the loss of the ideas in those texts would be very different depending on if it were Origin of Species vs. the Koran (or Mein Kampf, etc.).

 

[laughing dog]

I never argued that anyone should be charged or tried or imprisoned for blasphemy. But your statement leads me to ask - if he had burned the Origin of the Species would you change your tune at all?

No. Burning a single book is no more meaningful and has no more impact than a person saying "I don't like this book."

We disagree.

The only thing that would change is the same thing that would change when reading negative written reviews of those books, namely my personal opinion about the reviewer themselves. I would view a burner of the Origin of Species like I view other anti-science idiots like Trump. I view someone that burns the Koran the same as I would view someone that burned Mein Kampf or the latest edition of the KKK Quarterly, which means somewhere between neutral and positively depending on why they view these texts negatively.

Destroying every copy of any of these would be harmful to the general principle of the free exchange of ideas. However, the Koran itself is in opposition to that very principle and all other forms of liberty and reasoned thought. Thus, the loss of the ideas in those texts woudl be from equivalent if it were Origin of Species vs. the Koran (or Mein Kampf, etc.).

If you are referring to the literal interpretation of the contents of the Koran, I agree. But as with all books, there are multiple interpretations of the text. So, I disagree with your view about the value of the Koran.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Uncivilized actions harm civilization.

I said it was stupid in the context of burning books for their content as a political or ideological statement.

They're not burning it because of the content of the book, they're burning it because the book is a representation of an ideology they find repulsive. They're burning the Koran because of the symbolism of the Koran, not because of the content of the Koran.

Also, uncivilized acts do not necessarily harm civilization. All forms of protest, rebellion, etc tend to be uncivilized acts and they're often to the benefit of civilization. Acting in a civilized manner tends to be the sort of thing which helps prop up the status quo.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Uncivilized actions harm civilization.

Sure. But I think things like watching television qualifies for this. Or, you know, not getting a higher education. Or even just eating fatty deserts. Or blowing what little cash you have on a trip to tropical paradise. To me civilisation rests on our ability to put off short term rewards in favour of building capital and reaping higher long term rewards.

I think book burning is quite far down on that list.

 

[ronburgundy]

No. Burning a single book is no more meaningful and has no more impact than a person saying "I don't like this book."

We disagree.

It isn't a just matter of opinion. Your assertion that burning a single copy out of billions of harms and victimizes civilization is an factual claim for which you have no evidence or viable theory to support.

The only thing that would change is the same thing that would change when reading negative written reviews of those books, namely my personal opinion about the reviewer themselves. I would view a burner of the Origin of Species like I view other anti-science idiots like Trump. I view someone that burns the Koran the same as I would view someone that burned Mein Kampf or the latest edition of the KKK Quarterly, which means somewhere between neutral and positively depending on why they view these texts negatively.


Destroying every copy of any of these would be harmful to the general principle of the free exchange of ideas. However, the Koran itself is in opposition to that very principle and all other forms of liberty and reasoned thought. Thus, the loss of the ideas in those texts woudl be from equivalent if it were Origin of Species vs. the Koran (or Mein Kampf, etc.).

If you are referring to the literal interpretation of the contents of the Koran, I agree. But as with all books, there are multiple interpretations of the text. So, I disagree with your view about the value of the Koran.

No, even the metaphorical interpretation of the Koran makes it a promotion of irrationality, authoritarianism, and bigotry. Just as much or more than Mein Kampf it was written specifically to promoted these values that are at direct odds with any defensible modern ethics and politics.
You are adopting the kind of extremist post-modern stance that has eroded much of the intellectual value of work done in the Humanities. Books only have any value at because they are NOT a random collection of squiggles with unlimited meanings. It is the very finite and limited meanings of the words and their reference to particular ideas that give them whatever value they have. This greatly constrains the ideas and sentiments that are actually evoked by those texts themselves. The fact that a person can pass their eyes over a text and then impose a "meaning" that they actually got from somewhere else and then inaccurately attribute it to that text doesn't count as an "interpretation" of that text. It doesn't reflect the actual impact that the words in that text have on the prevalence of various ideas and values in a society.

It is an objective fact that the words and actions of the God of Abraham described in those texts are as authoritarian, anti-liberty, and violently bigoted as the words and actions of the most heinous persons in actual history. The fact that this entity was invented by the book's author and presented by them as the protagonist that the reader should support doesn't change this fact, it only further promotes these values because it means these words and actions are not merely being described but endorsed. Mein Kampf could just as easily be read in a non-literal fashion as though it author is a fictional narrator. Doing so would not notably alter the kind of moral, political, and philosophical ideas it promotes. Likewise, treating the Koran or Bible as literal or allegorical does not fundamentally alter their inherent authoritarian, fear-based, anti-liberty, and bigoted messages.

There is overwhelming evidence of this. Numerous studies show a strong and reliable corelation between being an anti-liberty authoritarian bigot and how much value people place on these texts, how often they read them, how much they defer to them as the source of their beliefs and values. This relation holds up regardless of whether it is evaluated by comparing individuals within a community, comparing different communities (from states, to regions, to nations), or comparing communities to themselves over time. It doesn't matter whether reading these texts cause these values or having such values makes people attracted to these texts, because both those relations speak to what ideas and values are most inherent to those texts.

The greatest value of the Koran is to be pointed to as the epitome of the worldview that decent societies should strive to reject and be the opposite of. So, burning a single copy of it as way to make this point actually has more positive value to society than having it on the shelf of a library or bookstore where some naive person might read it and actually derive their ideas and ethics from it.

Let's put it this way. A person who reads the Koran and says it's their favorite book and gives a copy to all the kids in their extended family is far far more likely to be a negative impact on society than another person who reads it, then throws it in the fireplace because its such immoral trash that they feel bad even having it in their home and don't want to harm others by gifting it away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the immortal words of Emil Faber: "knowledge is good".

So, presumably knowledge of what a Koran looks like when it burns should not be banned from the public arena.

Interesting argument. Presumably knowledge of what a person looks like when he or she burns alive should not be banned from the public arena. Hence, it should be legal to burn people alive.

Perhaps you could keep things straight?

There are two separate issues here: The burning and the sharing of the images of the burning.

He's being prosecuted for sharing the images of the burning, not for the burning itself.

You would not be punished for sharing the images of someone being burned alive. While I am not aware of any floating around there are some pretty horrific images from disasters and wars about. The only case I'm aware of where you could possibly be prosecuted is if you filmed a child being raped as we consider child pornography to be a statutory offense.

Now, doing those acts would warrant major jail time or even the death penalty, but if you simply happen upon the scene you're free to film it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Uncivilized actions harm civilization.

I said it was stupid in the context of burning books for their content as a political or ideological statement.

They're not burning it because of the content of the book, they're burning it because the book is a representation of an ideology they find repulsive. They're burning the Koran because of the symbolism of the Koran, not because of the content of the Koran.
.

Why does the Koran have that symbolism and why do the vast majority of those that hold it up as sacred have such an ideology? It is because the book's contents were specifically created to convey that symbolism and ideology. It is because the authors were effective at achieving that purpose, and that the more people read it and derive their ideas and values from it, the more likely they are to endorse ideas and values that are at direct odds with modern secular democracy.

However, that harmful ideology it promotes cannot be destroyed by destroying the books that promote it. Which is why trying to actually destroy all such books is at best pointless and counter-productive in the long-run protection of modern secularism. But burning a single copy is a way of speaking out against the ideology it was designed to and does promote via its contents. It probably is not a highly effective way to send that message. Although, it can also convey the message that bullshit and immorality should not be allowed to hide under the skirt of being "sacred" and something that one must pretend to "respect". Physically destroying a book that promotes such things can symbolize that it's contents and assumptions ought to attacked and doing so isn't off limits just because they are dressed in the guise of religious belief.

Regardless, it is ultimately just a speech act in opposition to ideas and actions they promote, no different than most non-violent acts of protest.

 

[ronburgundy]

Interesting argument. Presumably knowledge of what a person looks like when he or she burns alive should not be banned from the public arena. Hence, it should be legal to burn people alive.

Perhaps you could keep things straight?

There are two separate issues here: The burning and the sharing of the images of the burning.

He's being prosecuted for sharing the images of the burning, not for the burning itself.

You would not be punished for sharing the images of someone being burned alive. While I am not aware of any floating around there are some pretty horrific images from disasters and wars about. The only case I'm aware of where you could possibly be prosecuted is if you filmed a child being raped as we consider child pornography to be a statutory offense.

Now, doing those acts would warrant major jail time or even the death penalty, but if you simply happen upon the scene you're free to film it.

Eh, that is kinda a distinction without a difference.
IF some other stranger had taken and shared the images, that person would not be charged. It isn't the sharing the images itself. It is engaging in a public speech act that is critical of religion. The only reason that sharing the images is part of the charges is that they are the only thing that made his speech act public. Had he burned the book in public view, he would have been charged even without any images being distributed.

 

[laughing dog]

Interesting argument. Presumably knowledge of what a person looks like when he or she burns alive should not be banned from the public arena. Hence, it should be legal to burn people alive.

Perhaps you could keep things straight?..

Stop projecting your MO onto others. Read post 51 and you will see your entire argument is based on a straw man.

 

[laughing dog]

We disagree.

It isn't a just matter of opinion. Your assertion that burning a single copy out of billions of harms and victimizes civilization is an factual claim for which you have no evidence or viable theory to support.

No, it is an opinion. Just like you have no factual claims or viable theory to support your assertion of " Burning a single book is no more meaningful and has no more impact than a person saying "I don't like this book."

No, even the metaphorical interpretation of the Koran makes it a promotion of irrationality, authoritarianism, and bigotry.....

There are many literary and religious interpretation of the Koran. There are many rational and humane people who value the Koran. So your entire argument is based on an observably false premise.

 

[J842P]

There are many literary and religious interpretation of the Koran. There are many rational and humane people who value the Koran. So your entire argument is based on an observably false premise.

Nonsense. The claim that rational and humane people can value the Koran doesn't refute the claim that the Koran, allegorically or literally, promotes irrationality, authoritarianism, and bigotry.

 

[laughing dog]

There are many literary and religious interpretation of the Koran. There are many rational and humane people who value the Koran. So your entire argument is based on an observably false premise.

Nonsense. The claim that rational and humane people can value the Koran doesn't refute the claim that the Koran, allegorically or literally, promotes irrationality, authoritarianism, and bigotry.

The premise was "even the metaphorical interpretation of the Koran makes it a promotion of irrationality, authoritarianism, and bigotry....." That requires that no matter what the interpretation, the Koran promotes irrationality, authoritarianism and bigotry. I think that is observably false.

 

[J842P]

Nonsense. The claim that rational and humane people can value the Koran doesn't refute the claim that the Koran, allegorically or literally, promotes irrationality, authoritarianism, and bigotry.

The premise was "even the metaphorical interpretation of the Koran makes it a promotion of irrationality, authoritarianism, and bigotry....." That requires that no matter what the interpretation, the Koran promotes irrationality, authoritarianism and bigotry. I think that is observably false.

Only in the most pedantic way possible. Yes, I could conceivably interpret the Koran as exactly the same as My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, and in that case, it would be great. But if we have to hedge everything we say against weird, unreasonable corner cases then we could never have a productive discussion. The point you were making is that you have a friend who is humane and not authoritarian. Presumably, you are claiming that his interpretation of the Koran then, doesn't promote authoritarianism. But that doesn't follow - it could just be that your friend is eminently humane and anti-authoritarian, despite what even their interpretation may promote. And that is generally the case when it comes to religion. This reminds me of a quote by Steven Weinberg:

Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

 

[laughing dog]

The premise was "even the metaphorical interpretation of the Koran makes it a promotion of irrationality, authoritarianism, and bigotry....." That requires that no matter what the interpretation, the Koran promotes irrationality, authoritarianism and bigotry. I think that is observably false.

Only in the most pedantic way possible......

No. There are religious scholars whose interpretation of the Koran does involve bigotry, irrationality and authoritarianism. There are social historians who use the Koran to help analyze the culture and history of the Middle East. There are people who read the Koran for its literary value.

 

[J842P]

Only in the most pedantic way possible......

No. There are religious scholars whose interpretation of the Koran does involve bigotry, irrationality and authoritarianism. There are social historians who use the Koran to help analyze the culture and history of the Middle East. There are people who read the Koran for its literary value.

OK, I can agree that reading the Koran as a historical/literary text doesn't necessarily promote bigotry, irrationality, and authoritarianism, but certainly there are no religious interpretations of such, where the Koran is taken as a religious text, i.e. the word of the Prophet Mohammed, speaking for God. Unless your interpretation is such as I said, something totally academic and nonsensical.

 

[laughing dog]

No. There are religious scholars whose interpretation of the Koran does involve bigotry, irrationality and authoritarianism. There are social historians who use the Koran to help analyze the culture and history of the Middle East. There are people who read the Koran for its literary value.

OK, I can agree that reading the Koran as a historical/literary text doesn't necessarily promote bigotry, irrationality, and authoritarianism, but certainly there are no religious interpretations of such, where the Koran is taken as a religious text, i.e. the word of the Prophet Mohammed, speaking for God. Unless your interpretation is such as I said, something totally academic and nonsensical.

While I am not an expert on schools of Islam and Islamic scholars, I am under the impression there is a wide diversity of Koranic interpretations. While most fall under the promotion of bigotry, irrationality, etc...., I believe (perhaps mistakenly) there are some very liberal and religious interpretations of the Koran which do not fall under that category.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps you could keep things straight?

There are two separate issues here: The burning and the sharing of the images of the burning.

He's being prosecuted for sharing the images of the burning, not for the burning itself.

You would not be punished for sharing the images of someone being burned alive. While I am not aware of any floating around there are some pretty horrific images from disasters and wars about. The only case I'm aware of where you could possibly be prosecuted is if you filmed a child being raped as we consider child pornography to be a statutory offense.

Now, doing those acts would warrant major jail time or even the death penalty, but if you simply happen upon the scene you're free to film it.

Eh, that is kinda a distinction without a difference.
IF some other stranger had taken and shared the images, that person would not be charged. It isn't the sharing the images itself. It is engaging in a public speech act that is critical of religion. The only reason that sharing the images is part of the charges is that they are the only thing that made his speech act public. Had he burned the book in public view, he would have been charged even without any images being distributed.

No--I'm pointing out the problem with laughing dog's argument. It's based on equating two things which are distinct.

I'm not talking about the actions of the Koran-burner, he obviously did both.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps you could keep things straight?..

Stop projecting your MO onto others. Read post 51 and you will see your entire argument is based on a straw man.

I was attacking your argument, not post #51.

 

[laughing dog]

Stop projecting your MO onto others. Read post 51 and you will see your entire argument is based on a straw man.

I was attacking your argument, not post #51.

No, you were attacking a straw man. Here is the relevant part from post 51 in the hopes that you will address what is actually posted: "My point was that the argument that
"Knowledge is good. So, presumably what ______ (you fill in the blank) looks like when ____ burns is knowledge should not be banned from the public arena." requires more many conditions in order for it to resemble a cogent argument. "

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was attacking your argument, not post #51.

No, you were attacking a straw man. Here is the relevant part from post 51 in the hopes that you will address what is actually posted: "My point was that the argument that
"Knowledge is good. So, presumably what ______ (you fill in the blank) looks like when ____ burns is knowledge should not be banned from the public arena." requires more many conditions in order for it to resemble a cogent argument. "

So you're admitting you used a strawman argument.