France and Belgium acting to stop the Koran burners......

[Altfish]

Wow!
Not in any country around Western Europe........ in fact anywhere in Europe!
Which country do you live in?

UK; I think 'banning' sends things underground, so it exists but under the radar.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Excuse me for saying so, but you seem to step around the issue.
Should demonstrations such as Koran burning in a land where 8 million Muslims live be outlawed?

A muslim can take two paths in this issue.

Getting angry because a non muslim burning the holy book, and the Muslim say bad things or even kill for the burning, that is a very incorrect way to do it.

Second path is to understand it is the non muslim who is doing an harmful action and words when burning the quran, knowing it is them who do the wrong action, one also know that the teaching is not lost if and when the Muslim know the teaching by heart. The teaching is then within the muslim, and the book it self is no longer needed.

The correct way is to contact the Police to tell that problem has arised in the area, and it can become voilence from those who are not pure in heart.

The book is a book, the wrong action of burning it is on those who doing the action. Not on the Muslim who happen to see it.

As long you know and practice the teaching you will remain calm.

 

[Altfish]

Well that's the problem, because the vast majority of demonstrations (like Koran burning), publications (like printing nasty pictures which upset) and other media subject matter about Islam is all driven by people who hate.

And all it takes is for a single unbalanced nutter out of millions of peaceful Muslim to commit a terror act in response and the whole Muslim community gets picked on. I've previously even read posts on RF suggesting 'They do this, or they do that.' as a whole.

And Antisemitism is exactly that as well......... dangerous and outlawed shouldn't be picking on groups just because we don't belong to them.... is my suggestion.

Koran burning protests are very rare - you do realise that 2 (IIRC) of the 'Mohammed' drawings were created by Muslims to up the temperature.

What about other demonstrations? Greenpeace, Black Lives Matter, Anti-Abortion, Anti- new road, etc. - where is the line drawn. You can guarantee at least one nutter in all demonstrations,

 

[oldbadger]

That is not about religion or theology.
That is about people. Religious people....believers who are always a priori persons to defend.

]
I think we need to add Muslims, Bahais, Hindus, Sikhs etc to that list then, and do all we can to live with and amongst them on peace.

 

[oldbadger]

Many European countries, Sweden, Denmark, Holland to a lesser extent Germany - UK was getting there but 10-years of Tory / Brexit Government hasn't helped.

Hey!
Thanks for this.
I had no idea that do many Northern European countries permitted naturism, nudism etc.

Of course it's too bloody cold up here most of the time.
There used to be a naturist beach where I live. But the council withdrew the permission a few years later because some people were spoiling it all by deliberate obscenities.

 

[oldbadger]

UK; I think 'banning' sends things underground, so it exists but under the radar.

I thought you did.... live in UK, from the Brexit debates.

Underground hate pictures etc cannot be stopped, but then, targeted minorities won't have such junk stuffed in front of them.

It's all about community-care imo, we need to take more care with and of all people around us. And we don't.

The UK has certainly taken steps towards this and I support that.

 

[oldbadger]

A muslim can take two paths in this issue.

Getting angry because a non muslim burning the holy book, and the Muslim say bad things or even kill for the burning, that is a very incorrect way to do it.

Second path is to understand it is the non muslim who is doing an harmful action and words when burning the quran, knowing it is them who do the wrong action, one also know that the teaching is not lost if and when the Muslim know the teaching by heart. The teaching is then within the muslim, and the book it self is no longer needed.

The correct way is to contact the Police to tell that problem has arised in the area, and it can become voilence from those who are not pure in heart.

The book is a book, the wrong action of burning it is on those who doing the action. Not on the Muslim who happen to see it.

As long you know and practice the teaching you will remain calm.

That's fine but where eight million Muslims live in a country it's necessary to think of all of them.

I'm any case, France and Belgium have finally acted to try and preserve peace.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's fine but where eight million Muslims live in a country it's necessary to think of all of them.

I'm any case, France and Belgium have finally acted to try and preserve peace.

The way to behave as a righteous muslim ( peacefully) has no border or country, it counts no matter where a muslim goes.

 

[oldbadger]

Koran burning protests are very rare - you do realise that 2 (IIRC) of the 'Mohammed' drawings were created by Muslims to up the temperature.

I've never seen any of the drawings.
Have you seen the pictures that Mr Paty used in his lesson,? I haven't.

What about other demonstrations? Greenpeace, Black Lives Matter, Anti-Abortion, Anti- new road, etc. - where is the line drawn. You can guarantee at least one nutter in all demonstrations,

Hang on..... I was talking about a person deliberately breaking something in public, the above list describes matches, meetings etc.

We are doing our very best to promote peace and calm in our countries and communities and trying to think of reasons why people can deliberately upset local groups isn't my idea of diplomacy or peace at all.

France has always seemed to be more nationalistic than us .... just look at its far right political party, we haven't got any extreme party as big as that. And even France seems to be rethinking it's values now.[/QUOTE]

 

[oldbadger]

The way to behave as a righteous muslim ( peacefully) has no border or country, it counts no matter where a muslim goes.

Are you suggesting that it's ok to upset them with hate actions, hate publications and hate pictures?

.....and then telling them how to respond your way? The Muslims of France might be offended ??

 

[Spirit of Light]

Are you suggesting that it's ok to upset them with hate actions, hate publications and hate pictures?

.....and then telling them how to respond your way? The Muslims of France might be offended ??

Not telling anyone how to react it is only a thought of what good behaviour would look like.
Muslim in France react to it as the way they have understood what is right for each one of them, each muslim is responsible for ther own action and only they know why they act with voilence. If their action, speech and thought are in accordance with the teaching nothing bad would arise, but it seems to be some discussion of how a muslim should behave when "attacked" by a drawing or burning of quran.

If a Muslim do not understand the teaching they will not act according to it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, if you say, "I believe in a flying horse"
I am supposed to say, "Yes that's fine"
I cannot do that and keep a straight face. I favour fact and truth.

I do.

Sleipnir - Wikipedia

 

[oldbadger]

If, like me, you believe god is fake; then saying so is talking truth, not blasphemy.

If, like Christians and other theists one believes that God is real, then that is their truth and insulting their God, faith or religion with actions, pictures or publications is aggressive and hateful.

I'm a Deist, am not a Theist, but e en I can acknowledge that.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you think that the Race hate laws banning such demonstrations, publications and media are there just to reduce offending people?

Should the laws banning Antisemitism be repealed?

Think about it this way: What if some Black civil rights marchers during the 50s were told that they couldn't march because it would anger and upset White people? The White people might even do violence to them, so it's better that the civil rights marchers be prevented from marching. That's a "heckler's veto." That's what you're advocating here.

I don't know of any laws which ban Antisemitism, at least not in the U.S.

 

[oldbadger]

Think about it this way: What if some Black civil rights marchers during the 50s were told that they couldn't march because it would anger and upset White people? The White people might even do violence to them, so it's better that the civil rights marchers be prevented from marching. That's a "heckler's veto." That's what you're advocating here.

Hello again....
No. Can't look at it that way.
By 'demonstration' I mean an action carried out in public intended to delioberately upset, harrass or victimise a minority group of people.

March away, just so long as any banners carried don't incite or provoke crimes, civil unrest, violence, etc.

I don't know of any laws which ban Antisemitism, at least not in the U.S.

Wow....... I will be shocked sideways if that's true. Can I come back on that please....... ?

Ah..... I goofed..... the whole post is shown below this one.....

 

[oldbadger]

Think about it this way: What if some Black civil rights marchers during the 50s were told that they couldn't march because it would anger and upset White people? The White people might even do violence to them, so it's better that the civil rights marchers be prevented from marching. That's a "heckler's veto." That's what you're advocating here.

No..... I can't think of it that way.
I'm thinking of an action carried out in public deliberately intended to upset, harrass or victimise a minority group of people.
March awa, as long as no banners are carried which incite or provoke crimes, violence, etc.

I don't know of any laws which ban Antisemitism, at least not in the U.S.

This from the US Dept of State...........

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL ENVOY TO MONITOR AND COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM
Defining Anti-Semitism




The Department of State has used a working definition, along with examples, of anti-Semitism since 2010. On May 26, 2016, the 31 member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), of which the United States is a member, adopted a non-legally binding “working definition” of anti-Semitism at its plenary in Bucharest. This definition is consistent with and builds upon the information contained in the 2010 State Department definition. As a member of IHRA, the United States now uses this working definition and has encouraged other governments and international organizations to use it as well.

Bucharest, 26 May 2016

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.