this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Europe

8488 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bacondragonoverlord@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wanted to say that this is a hot take but it seems a lot of people in this comment section agree, It doesn't matter what kind of book it is. Destroying books is and should very much be a big no no.

I feel bad every time I have to throw out a book. Because it's not only a Symbol of wisdom and knowledge, it is also a testament to a world view, a thought process and identity.

Burning books is the very antithesis of what we consider a modern Society. It directly attacks fundamental rights, if only Symbolically. The right to think freely, to have a different opinion, the pursuit of knowledge to better ourselves and our Surroundings in pursuit of these world views.

To quote Heinrich Heine: "dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen" (Where one begins by burning books, one will end up burning people. )

PS: In search of the correct Quote I stumbled upon this quote by Arnold Zweig: "Wer Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt auch Bibliotheken, bombardiert offene Städte, schießt mit Ferngeschützen oder Fliegerbomben Gotteshäuser ein. Die Drohung, mit der die Fackel in den Bücherstapel fliegt, gilt nicht dem Juden Freud, Marx oder Einstein, sie gilt der europäischen Kultur, sie gilt den Werten, die die Menschheit mühsam hervorgebracht und die der Barbar anhaßt, weil er halt barbarisch ist, unterlegen, roh, infantil"

Roughly translated: "Whoever burns books also burns libraries, bombs open cities, shoots down places of worship with long-range guns or aerial bombs. The threat with which the torch flies into the pile of books is not aimed at the Jew Freud, Marx or Einstein, it is aimed at European culture, it is aimed at the values that humanity has laboriously created and which the barbarian hates because he is just barbaric, inferior, raw, infantile"

[–] 0rly@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s just a fucking book. In todays day and age a printed book means shit. Burn as many as you want. You wouldn’t change anything.

[–] ErwinLottemann@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

is this the same for flags?

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It depends on intent, context and scale.

Burning books to eradicate their content is bad, yes.

Burning a book which you just made yourself is completely harmless. Or single, mass-produced copies.

Some Muslims will take offense when you destroy a hard drive on which you copied the Quran.

This has nothing to do with the book burnings done by the Nazis. Their intent, context and scale was all about eradicating the books' content.

Or if you want, the totalitarians this time are those who play victim. They seek to oppose their value system and rules onto others, if necessary by deadly force. You better obey Islamic rule and respect the Quran as holy, or else.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

yes it has very much to do with the book burnings of the Nazis.

If one person is murdered in a hate crime it is not less of a hate crime because it lacked the scale.

The intent and the targeted escalation is the same. Also it is no coincidence that there is a islamic terrorist group called Boko Haram - books are sin. It is the same idea and the same motivitation and it is always outside of democratic discourse, where criticism of a religion or its institutions is of course permitted. But burning books is not motivated to be part of the democratic discourse, but to harm democracy.

[–] Send_me_nude_girls@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Can they still draw Mohammed though?

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There seems to be deep misunderstanding why this is troublesome.

The Government burning any book is bad.

A private citizen should be allowed to burn any book he/she wants.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A private citizen will still be allowed and protected to burn any book he or she wishes, in private.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Like you can be gay in muslim country, just in private.

[–] Hubi@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

You can still burn the Quran at home according to the law.

[–] Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You just can't do it as a form of protest, which should be protected under free speech

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hate speech is not protected speech and people advocating for hate speech as "freeze peaches" usually want to abolish the actual freedom of speech

[–] Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it "hate speech" when people are protesting against an oppressive, evil ideology? Would it still be hate speech if someone burned a Bible?

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it depends on the form of protest and yes burning the bible in public is hate speech and not a constructive criticism of christianity or the churches, were i'd be happy to join in as there is a lot to criticise. But that criticism can and should be voiced without burning bibles.

[–] Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Should criticism be able to be voiced without burning literature? Yes. Do I think climate activists should be able to be heard without disrupting people's commutes by blocking traffic? Yes.

Unfortunately, sometimes activists are ignored without an unusual act of protest, and protests should not be considered hate speech unless they're directly calling for violence towards a group. I don't think burning a book falls under that category.

With all that being said, the government should not be responsible for deciding what a person can or cannot do unless they're actively hurting another person.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Sending clear message that violence is an acceptable and working political tool. Climate protesters need to up their game.

[–] pizzazz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fuck religion. Time and time again eroding our rights. Shame on the Danish government who is bending down to violence and superstition.

[–] FlamingHot@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that applies here. Why would you ever burn a Quran IN PUBLIC? If you are not religious, or subscribe to other religions, why would you even own a quran? Quran burning in public has only one purpose, to provoke hate. Same as burning flags in public. Or hating certain groups of people in public. None of it is allowed or ok to do.

If you burn that thing at home or throw it in the trash, nobody will care. Otherwise it just falls into the "incite violence" category of things, because that is exactly the thing you are doing.

If moslems then go into a rage and be violent themselves, that isn't ok either, that should be clear.

[–] moldimolt@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should be allowed to display your beliefs in public, regardless of how enraged they might make others. You shouldn't be allowed to make direct threats, but anything else should be fair game.

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I completely agree with you and @pizzazz@lemmy.world. Keep in mind though that in most European countries some harmless displays of belief are already banned, for example burning the national flag.

Then in Germany and Austria you can be arrested just for looking at a swastika on your phone.

[–] zipfelwurster@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is simply false. In Germany, the swastika may be used in the context of education, art and some other places.

You are simply not allowed to march up and down the street with a swastika flag, which seems very reasonable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zipfelwurster@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Democracy means letting people with other world views exist in peace.

Please consider how you want to be treated by this world and how you can make your own positive impact on humans around you.

I am an atheist myself and will vehemently defend secularism but your comment boils down to hate and demanding others have the exact same beliefs as you do.

[–] seejur@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You cannot honestly say you support both secularism and this law at the same time. Either you do, or you dont.

And this law does exactly what you said: impose a belief upon others

[–] zipfelwurster@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

No, it stops you from burning a religious symbol in public. Secularity means that state and church are separate, which is a different matter. A lack of secularity would mean you can go on trial for not following the word of some god e.g. for loving someone from the same sex.

These are terrible and should be fought.

Bu this particular law is stopping assholes from being assholes.

Book-burnings also had a severely terrible history in the 3rd reich and are nothing but demonstrations of power, hate and close-mindedness.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sooo... other countries burning flags of other nations in public is okay, but this is not?

Even if this has whataboutism-character and I appreciate the take of "making it better, even if others don't", I can't deny there is some irony to that.

[–] derFensterputzer@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, burning other countries flags is prohibited in denmark, burning the danish flag is ok

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fucking Assholes, Apologists and Democracy Enemies.

Fuck that and them.

[–] sugarcake@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
  • it has to be passed in a democratically elected parlament. It may not get passed.
  • it is an extension of an existing law that forbid burning of flags (except the Danish flag Dannebrog)
  • book burnings are for morons
  • fuck you
[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  • fuck you
  • fuck you
  • fuck you
  • fuck you
  • burning the fucking Quoran is the right way to dispose of it according to itself
  • a democratically elected government can do undemocratic things (and they often do)
  • the existing law is idiotic
[–] sugarcake@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

burning the fucking Quoran is the right way to dispose of it according to itself

Please link to the verse of the Quran you refer to. I don't believe you.

Why is the existing law idiotic? What problems do you have with it?

[–] Ramvorg@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

https://www.learnreligions.com/disposal-of-quran-2004546

Not a link to a Quran quote, but it mentions the 3 main ways Islamic teachings state to dispose of old/broken Qurans.

1.burying 2.placing in flowing water 3.burning

Also a fun fact, these only pertain to The Quran in Arabic. Any other language is not considered to be literally Allah’s words and does not have to be discarded in those ways.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

old/broken

that is a very important differentiator here.

load more comments
view more: next ›