The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution to fight Islamophobia with overwhelming support on Friday.
With a vote taking place on the...
Last July, the U.N. adopted a resolution condemning Quran burning, calling attacks on the Muslim holy book “religious hatred.” The same month the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution that deplores all acts of violence against holy books as a violation of international law.
Holy books shouldn’t be protected as some sort of sacred existence especially not globally. Religions should be scrutinised at all levels, putting any religious relic on a pedestal and enshrining protections that seem less focused on protecting followers of that religion and more on the idea of it is absurd. What’s next you can’t call scientology a cult because it hurts people’s feelings.
When a group of people considers a symbol to be special/beloved, it’s bad when someone else destroys that symbol in a performative way. Very often it comes from a place of hate, and it’s done to try and incite a reaction. This would include actions such as vandalizing pride flags, places of worship, places where a group tends to gather, etc.
We don’t need any more of any of that.
This is also different from having good faith discussions about the issues. Having discussions is actually productive, holding burning events does the opposite
Nope. Might apply for any other book, but not for one directly espousing the most barbaric rules, that a braindead but powerful minority screams for.
The tolerant must not tolerate the intolerant lest they be swallowed by them.
It helps if you look at tolerance as a social contract (I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me) rather than as an unbendable principle (I will tolerate you even to the detriment of others)
Replying to the edit, I think you misunderstand what the UN call was for
It’s not saying that we should arbitrarily defend objects globally. It’s not saying that the artifacts or texts are above criticism or academic scrutiny.
It’s recommending that countries take measures to
prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
It’s saying that countries need to update their laws to address when someone does an action in order to incite discrimination, hostility, or violence.
It’s something you recognize when you see it, and it’s about the intent of the person doing the action.
Holy books shouldn’t be protected as some sort of sacred existence especially not globally. Religions should be scrutinised at all levels, putting any religious relic on a pedestal and enshrining protections that seem less focused on protecting followers of that religion and more on the idea of it is absurd. What’s next you can’t call scientology a cult because it hurts people’s feelings.
Edit: adjust phrasing.
Criticism is not the same as public burning rituals.
If someone was burning rainbow flags in public and screaming that they hate gay people that would not advance discourse either.
When a group of people considers a symbol to be special/beloved, it’s bad when someone else destroys that symbol in a performative way. Very often it comes from a place of hate, and it’s done to try and incite a reaction. This would include actions such as vandalizing pride flags, places of worship, places where a group tends to gather, etc.
We don’t need any more of any of that.
This is also different from having good faith discussions about the issues. Having discussions is actually productive, holding burning events does the opposite
As for the UN side, here are some direct links
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147626
https://unric.org/en/human-rights-council-condemns-the-burning-of-the-quran-as-a-religious-hate-act/
So then what are your thoughts on burning an American flag?
Nope. Might apply for any other book, but not for one directly espousing the most barbaric rules, that a braindead but powerful minority screams for.
The tolerant must not tolerate the intolerant lest they be swallowed by them.
It helps if you look at tolerance as a social contract (I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me) rather than as an unbendable principle (I will tolerate you even to the detriment of others)
Replying to the edit, I think you misunderstand what the UN call was for
It’s not saying that we should arbitrarily defend objects globally. It’s not saying that the artifacts or texts are above criticism or academic scrutiny.
It’s recommending that countries take measures to
It’s saying that countries need to update their laws to address when someone does an action in order to incite discrimination, hostility, or violence.
It’s something you recognize when you see it, and it’s about the intent of the person doing the action.
Maybe read the section you yourself quoted more thoroughly?