To want to burn one of each Religious text today?

[JustMakingAPoint]

Not because I hate or dislike them.

Not because I think burning books is good (I do not)

But because I should be able too. Because we have no Blasphemy laws and mean as it is, it’s not illegal and shouldn’t be.

And I want to do it to all of them to make the point it’s not about Islam, though it is provoked by today’s news.

This country is secular, blasphemy laws do not exist. And they shouldn’t.

if it takes every person burning a single religious book of their choosing to make the point - then I’m up for that.

I will have a look.

A world where you don't do things because they upset people, is a world that the most upset-able rule.

That is not a world any of us should want to live in.

Mature democracies understand this. Being upset does not mean you are right. And, importantly, it does not mean that you or your beliefs are harmless.

Okay, so they still do in NI.
You said in your previous post that Christianity was already protected by law - is it really though if said law is never enforced?
Would someone burning a copy of the Bible be prosecuted in NI? Not that I think that they should be.

Well said.

@CantStopMoving

I agree, at least in certain respects. (I think there are particular morals that pretty much should be objectively true.) Others are, of course, entirely subjective.

I don't think it necessarily needs to be ignored, at least not by everyone who would find it bothersome. I think it should be taken into account that Paganism is an area that is already misunderstood, marginalised to some degree, and has a lot of undeserved prejudice against it, and individual Pagans can be subject to bigotry on the basis of their practice.

Burning texts associated with Pagan traditions could be seen as fuelling/promoting this kind of prejudice.

So, in the interests of counteracting ignorance and prejudice against Paganism, it is reasonable to criticise such actions and those who undertake them unjustly.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm getting the impression that you personally don't care either way about Paganism or individual Pagans? (Which is fine, that's your choice.)

However, those of us that would like to challenge bigotry against Paganism can do well to call out actions that target/brand Paganism unfairly.

Utter tosh. By that thinking I could stand in the High Street naked and pleasure myself. I don't do it because it has been decided by the majority (and written in books) that doing so would land me in trouble.

@hummousnothamas

"or it can be expression of liberation from, or defiance of, a group of people who are trying to oppress you."

I agree. But considering Pagan religions aren't trying to oppress anybody, burning texts associated with Pagan traditions (while perfectly acceptable legally) is a rather dick-ish thing to do, wouldn't you say?

I respect someone's legal right to burn texts associated with the numerous branches of Paganism, but I'm not going to respect their reasons for doing so if those reasons are unjust and/or based on prejudice.

Interesting that you have to go to such extremes to try to make a counter argument. I think that indicates the weakness of your position.

Conducting sexual acts in public are rightly taboo as they are a form of sexual harassment and intimidation. If this were allowed, there would be men who would quickly use this to intimidate women and it would lead to women's ability to use public spaces being curtailed (because yes, it would be men who would almost exclusively take advantage of the ' freedom' to do this). We could also quickly expect it to lead to women being actively sexually assaulted.

That is hardly on a par with someone being 'upset' by someone holding a view they dislike, or holding a peaceful, even if provocative protest. A society cannot function if people are prevented, whether legally or culture, from expressing or discussing ideas because others find them 'upsetting.' There is clear public benefit to allowing people to express and debate views in public and to carrying out political protests. There is no benefit in allowing men to masturbate in public, there is only public harm.

I have nowhere argued that you should respect anyone for burning any texts. I do not think there is, or should be, any expectation on anyone to respect any particular belief or political action. We should all be free to argue against beliefs and ideas. All that we should be required to do is to tolerate the right of others to hold and express views we do not agree with.

I am not quite sure why you are so exercised about people burning pagan texts in political protests ( which is what we are discussing). This is not a thing as far as I am aware. It is not a thing as Pagans are not aggressively imposing their beliefs on other groups, by seeking to control non-pagans' speech or actions. If they were, others would be right to start protesting this.

honestly, I don’t particularly care about anyone else’s beliefs, only my only personally held ones. I believe religion is a deeply personal affair. No one should have any clue what religion another person follows and no one should expect other people to change their lives to fit someone else’s beliefs. It should be an entirely personal relationship between a person and what they believe in. Others may disagree but I don’t personally think beliefs should be protected in law no matter what they are- only immutable characteristics should be legally recognised.

Great idea , OP. I’ll do the New Testament in Shipston on Stour, you can do the Koran in Rotherham.

But publicly insulting people's religion could be a form of harrassment. To be clear: I'm an atheist; I oppose any form of blasphemy laws; and I don't think that we have the right to demand that people never criticize or argue against our religious or non-religious beliefs (e.g. in my case tell me I'm going to Hell for being an atheist!). BUT there are situations where it can move from religious disagreement to inter-group taunting. Burning a Koran outside a mosque, or a Torah outside a synagogue, or shouting out rhymes in a Northern Ireland community including such lines as 'A penn'orth of bread to feed the Pope/ Ang a good old faggot to burn him' can cross the boundary between religious disagreement and the deliberate taunting of 'Bloody P** immigrants'; 'Dirty Jews; 'Irish Popeheads'; etc.Just as religious 'pro-life' people claim that they are being unjustly prevented from 'peaceful silent prayer' outside an abortion-providing clinic; but from the point of view of people using the clinics, this may be done to harrass or even intimidate them.

So things are not always totally simple.

@hummousnothamas

"I have nowhere argued that you should respect anyone for burning any texts".

I know you haven't said that. I never said you did.

"We should all be free to argue against beliefs and ideas. All that we should be required to do is to tolerate the right of others to hold and express views we do not agree with."

Agree.

"I am not quite sure why you are so exercised about people burning pagan texts in political protests"

Because the OP referred to wishing to burn a copy of "each" religious text, which necessarily includes texts associated with Paganism. It's absolutely true that Pagans are not imposing their beliefs on others or trying to control others' speech, as I have pointed out. But the OP referred to "each" religion, thereby drawing Paganism into it.

@CantStopMoving

"Others may disagree but I don’t personally think beliefs should be protected in law no matter what they are"

I think it's necessary to have certain legal protections for religions, because it protects people from unjust discrimination on the basis of the religion that they belong to. If there were no legal protections, then that would mean that a fundamentalist Christian boss, for example, could sack someone because they are a Pagan. That is unacceptable, so there do need to be some protections in law.

The examples of speech you give there are attacking a group of people, not a set of ideas. That is not comparable.

Burning anything outside a religious building, when deliberate in intent, is an act of intimidation to the individuals who use that building. Similarly for any protest outside any religious building. You are not protesting ideas, but the individuals when you do this, and it is clearly an act of intimidation. For these reasons I disagree with the Palestine protestors who march or protest in Jewish areas or outside synagogues.

The issue of Pro-Life people silently standing in the vicinity of abortion clinics is an interesting one and the Free Speech Union held a really interesting debate on this, that you may be able to find on line if this interests you.

Ok, I presumed OP was just trying to be ' equal' in her treatment, but we all know which religion has some adherents who are behaving in a way which has created this debate.

Honestly, if one person burnt a pagan text, I really wouldn't get exercised over this if I were you. I can't even begin to imagine it would lead to widespread hatred or discrimination against pagans. Especially if, as in the example, all religious texts were burnt. I mean, you're not even being singled out in that case. No-one's really bothered about pagans. Some people may find them a bit silly or funny if they think of them, but that's about it.

I can't help thinking you are being a bit red herring-y by keeping on about this.

(forgot to quote you when I replied above)

The examples of speech you give there are attacking a group of people, not a set of ideas. That is not comparable.
Burning anything outside a religious building, when deliberate in intent, is an act of intimidation to the individuals who use that building. Similarly for any protest outside any religious building. You are not protesting ideas, but the individuals when you do this, and it is clearly an act of intimidation. For these reasons I disagree with the Palestine protestors who march or protest in Jewish areas or outside synagogues.
The issue of Pro-Life people silently standing in the vicinity of abortion clinics is an interesting one and the Free Speech Union held a really interesting debate on this, that you may be able to find on line if this interests you.

Thanks @ItWasTheBestOfTimes , I couldn't locate the OP's reference.

Personally, I find it quite worrying that so many PPs are spectacularly missing the point OP was making.

Disrespectful, rude, offensive... none of those things are a crime. And that is the point.

I'd have liked to see the MP who asked the PM to reintroduce blasphemy laws dismissed or at the very least publicly reprimanded. Because he is working directly to destroy a democracy which took bloody aeons to get rid of its medieval and shameful blasphemy laws. 2008 FFS!

Our rights to free speech are being stolen from under our noses. And people worry about being perceived as disrespectful by a bunch of fanatics. Dangerous fanatics some of them, granted. But so what? Good luck to us all.

Fair enough. That's exactly wher I'd make the distinction: between protesting ideas and individuals.

@hummousnothamas

"Ok, I presumed OP was just trying to be ' equal' in her treatment"

Maybe they were, but the specific statement "each" still speaks to a potential injustice, in the context of the reason for the suggested burning.

"I mean, you're not even being singled out in that case."

That's true, but in the context of the reason behind the action, pagan texts shouldn't really be included at all. You're right, it would be very unlikely to result in widespread prejudice or discrimination (although that does exist on a very low level in some circumstances) but the fact that it wouldn't have any significant effect doesn't matter to me: I would still criticise the inclusion of pagan texts as unfair, and I think it is helpful to make the larger point that Pagans don't engage in the oppressive dynamics that certain expressions of religions do.

"I can't help thinking you are being a bit red herring-y by keeping on about this."

I don't intend it to be that way; I think I'm just passionate about the topic because I myself am a Pagan.

I think what's instructive is that people are all for state powers when the state happens to agree with them. They haven't thought through the logical consequences. Tyler Cowen (an economist who I'd say is probably libertarian) had an interesting post today about the fact that trump has achieved most of his most destructive policies by using the same pathway Obama did to bypass Congress and push his agenda - executive orders. I love Obama and think trump is a terrifying menace, but that's kind of the whole point. Trump has too much power because what I think are the good guys inadvertently gave him that power - yes I know exec orders are not new but precedent makes it very easy for Trump.

This is idiotic. Muslims would be offended by the Bible and the Torah being burned as these are past scriptures.

Even if there was a future scripture, it would not be acceptable for it to be burned.

Quite. Struggling to think of a subject where textbooks would be obsolete after 3 or 4 years.

Sums up humanity, I guess. I don’t need it anymore so dump/burn/throw it. Sad.

That was just one of many arguments I could use.

Shouting an obscenity in a jocular fashion to a friend in front of somebody else, could become breach of the peace.

Driving through a red light level crossing despite no pedestrain being there, could see me convicted of a traffic offence.

Politics. You'd need new books pretty often.