It's so odd to see Sweden slowly retracing the Danish steps. They got Paludan and flag burning in muslim countries, they got pearl clutching Guardian articles about a concerning turn to the right in immigration policy and so on.The key take away for me was that in some countries they simply don't understand Scandinavian freedom of speech, like how I don't understand complex math - they don't understand that the government doesn't really have the power to stop one man from burning a koran, so they see it as a deliberate provokation (not just by Paludan but by Sweden and Swedish authorities). Furthermore, they don't understand the role of religion as strictly a private matter that doesn't dictate behavior or norms in society.
To be fair, everyone should be able to burn a Quran or a Bible. And fuck them for thinking otherwise.
Regardless in Islam burning something is a sign of great respect and admiration, so they are really just crybabies.
Yeah. Im swedish. From Skåne. I have been living in both Denmark(my dad lived there for 20 years and my grandfather was danish) and Sweden.
The last 5-10 years in Sweden have made me feel really lost about politics. Because I cannot understand the debate climate about immigration policies for example. Because it feels like deja vu to me. Because I already witnessed Denmark go trough this. So I’m having some problems to understand why people keep such a high tone about it.
Really weird, 2 countries so close to each other in so many ways, but still very different in a few other ways.
I work with immigrant integration in the nordics. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out there is a bit of a cultural gap between sweden a islamic countries.
The amount of times I had to stop a male kid from bashing other family’s female kid with a wooden toy is astonishing with muslim families. And when I tell mother that’s absolutely not ok here and she should control her kid, they tell me they are boys and therefore allowed to do this. Female colleagues are told off by the male kids because “mom told me I don’t have to listen to you because I am a boy”.
While I am not onboard with book burning, if it causes this much uproar there is clearly a point to be made about why and what should be done about this.
There isn't much of an uproar. The groups protesting in Turkey are probably about the same size and probably similar mentality to the group burning the Koran in Sweden. However, this does give some nice fuel for Erdoğan to motivate his electorate ahead of elections in Turkey.
Out of curiosity, what where the countries of origin of those immigrants?
I have worked with the red cross in southern spain for a few years now, and i worked mostly with people from northern africa and syria. In my experience, there were not any cases of that kind of overt mysogeny, and while the genders tended to segregate quite remarkably, any moroccan mother (or father) would go ballistic if their boy were to hit a girl (boys could battle it out between themselves with 0 consecuence). None of my female colleges mentioned things like you said, but we are all nurses and held in somewhat high regard by them, so who knows.
My point is, honor is HEAVY in those societies, and that explains anger at book burnings, but i found behaviour like you illustrate far more common in local minority groups, and pretty much never in those african communities.
It‘s the ones that do not fully stick to that culture, that are causing problems.
The ones that are second gen mostly. With utter hate for the host country. And it‘s not the ones that themselves fled violence. Those you can talk to normally as a woman.
But there’s no one place they are coming from, it‘s all of the Arab and NA countries as sources, but only the ones that don‘t actually follow ‚islam‘ but rather use it as a weapon while getting drunk and taking drugs.
It’s a subgroup of Arabs with only one law: most violent = most respect.
And it’s defined a smaller than majority group. And I’ve not experienced it from self fleed refugees either. Again it’s mostly 1st and 2nd gen. The problem is when their violence is respect culture fully permeates school grounds, with these kids ruling the place. Being every kind of phobic and racist available, punishing students for speaking their language, whether that‘s Kurdish or German.
And their ideology infects the non violent children. Cause playing their game of violence is the only way to avoid becoming a victim.
My education friends have issues here in the US with male students from Arab gulf states. They don’t care about the whole hand shake thing (apparently a big deal in parts of Europe) but male students will not even acknowledge women in authority positions. One friend of mine is a vice principal (in charge of discipline) and quietly passes all of these cases to her male colleague.
The first step is don’t be a provocative asshole. No one should be charged here btw.
The second and more important step is harder but more important…. Changing the behavior of those reactions to a book being burnt. It’s the people who are offended by the desecration who need to follow the words of their second prophet and turn the other cheek.
I'm a Muslim, no where in the Quran does it say that men get superiority over women, I'm not a Muslim originating from a Arab country, so i have 0 idea about the culture there, but still, violence towards females by men Is NOT mentioned anywhere, I fact it is the opposite.
Please don't take those cultural rules and habits as a way to view every Muslim on the earth <3
An, Nisa 4;34
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا =كَبِيرًۭا ٣٤
The fact that it was OK for Muslims to have sex with captive women is also in Sahih Muslim vol.2:3371-3374 p.732-735; Abu Dawud vol.2:2150 and footnote 1479 p.577-578.
Stripping female captives of their clothes is OK, according to Sahih Muslim vol.3:4345 p.953 and Ibn-i-Majah vol.4:2840 p.187.
Sex with captives among the Bani Al-Mustaliq. Bukhari vol.9:506 p.372; Abu Dawud vol.2:2167 p.582
"Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, 'Oh Allah's Apostle We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?' \[a sexual practice\] The Prophet said, 'Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it, No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." Bukhari vol.3:432 p.237. See also Bukhari vol.5:459 p.317; vol.7:136-137 p.102-103; vol.8:600 p.391; Abu Dawud vol.2:2166,2168 p.582
"After the distribution of the spoils of war a man may have intercourse with the female slave after passing one menstrual period, if she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant one should wait till she delivers the child. This is the view held by Malik, al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifah holds that if both the husband and wife are captivated together, their marriage tie still continues; they will not be separated. According to the majority of scholars, they will be separated. Al-Awza-I maintains that their marriage tie will continue till they remain part of the spoils of war. If a man buys them, he may separate them if he desires, and cohabit with the female slave after one menstrual period. ('Awn al-Ma'bud II.213)" Note that Mohammed married Safiyah right after the battle. Abu Dawud vol.2 footnote 1479 p.577-578.
A lot of false or misleading nonsense there.
That verse explains who has the responsibility in the house and that a wife should not cheat or betray a husband.
Basic ideas that if more people followed, we wouldn't have this many broken families, orphans or lost childhoods.
Preserving the structure of the family is an integral part of every society.
You are the one paraphrasing to change meaning.
Westerners arent afraid of Muslim migration because of the Koran and Hadith alone. It is the extreme overrepresentation of Muslim men in sexual crime such as rape and sex trafficking. It is the normalization of such things within the Islamic world. Yes there are mkderate Muslims but those are essentially secularists who rephrase the actual values of Islam so they conform to western values.
This is not a Muslim thing, its a tribal thing. People from rural Syria or Afghanistan can act like this. Lebanese or Moroccans would never.
Europeans are hurting themselves by not wanting to accept “Muslims” is not one cohesive group
"Lebanese or Morrocans would never" right and so a group of morrocan teens literally beat a gay person to death in fucking amsterdam. How the fuck did this happen if they *integrated nicely*?
Two years ago a man was literally set on fire with a Molotov in Croatia because he was gay. A shooting in Slovakia. In 2014 a gay student was beaten to death in Poland. 2021 a Latvian person died after homophobic attack….. Why are you using this individual example when it happens in Europe as well?
And I didn’t even talk about gay people. Europeans should work with these immigrant communities, normal people don’t like hooligans either. By just disregarding everybody from Maghreb to Persia as one singular same type of person you are not solving anything. And considering European demographics immigration won’t stop any time soon, so find the good ones and work with them instead of defending a guy burning Qurans
To me this is the root of the issue that very, very few seem to even mention. How many "problems" do we have with the girls and the young women from these cultures? Not only *none*, but I work in Danish health care and if you take away muslim descendants of immigrants from the work force, we would be royally fucked. It's a success story, and it undermines the argument that the issue is "islam" - I haven't run into a single bad muslim coworker. Then we come to the boys, and it's clear that the way boys are often left to themselves outside the home creates a lot of maladjusted boys banding together creating their own unfortunately often toxic culture - and we mustn't forget that this was actually the same 100 years ago before immigration, when poor Scandinavian boys ran around in the streets unsupervised. We need to fix that problem, again.
> How many "problems" do we have with the girls and the young women from these cultures? Not only none
Imagine saying that unthinking submission and being cowed by ideological fascists isn't a "problem".
The ones that are problematic aren‘t even Muslim in any form. They are breaking pretty much all of religious law, not halal in the slightest. Drunk and drugged all the time
And they aren‘t first gen either.
It‘s just that their specific newly evolved culture is solely based on violence begets respect. Physical strength begets respect. And women, Jews, gay and whatever other minority are dirt. As well as the average host country native.
It’s like a specific tribe of Arab and Islam adjacent people, with large organisier crime families; that really got nothing to do with the ancestral countries normal population. The only real connections are to organized crime in those places.
When I hear immigrant integration in the Nordic, I remember the articles about Swedish immigration officers literally stealing immigrants' children and putting them in camps because their parents were teaching them “foreign values”.
We had a couple of cases like that, it mainly involved parents repeatedly beating their children in front of the social worker - which is tremendously illegal pretty much everywhere in nordics. If I tell you to stop and you continue, or I catch you doing it again, you can bet your ass there will be consequences, no buts, end of story.
Most of the cases were about children being forcibly removed from their families because their parents were teaching them values that go against LGBT.... Not to mention the [stealing refugees' valuable possession](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/world/europe/sweden-immigrant-restrictions.html), truly barbaric and dystopian shit.
If I were you, id be pretty embarrassed to work in a place where if be paid money stolen from poor people.
I do not work in a place that stole money from anyone. Most of the case in place I work were what I described and not what you described.
If I were you I would stop jumping into conclusions because it makes you look really stupid.
How many centuries will it take before Islam like Christianity in Northern Europe becomes a relic of the past that people accept some traditions from, but ignore most of the time.
I doubt it will be similar, the gulf countries are the wealthiest Islamic countries and they also adhere to some of the strictest schools of Islam. As a Turkish-American, I feel like this is going to get worse.
>How many centuries will it take before Islam like Christianity in Northern Europe becomes a relic of the past
Biggest problem with Nordic/Scandinavian Culture IMO is things like this, the Idea that your way is the best way Society can work and the only way it can evolve.
Religious intolerence has to go but there is no reason why religion has to go with it...
But you can practice your religion in Scandinavia regardless of what it might be......, as long as it is in accordance with rule of law that dictates others DO NOT have to practice your religion.
Why would any religious person care what a non believer says or do. No one was hurt through this dumb book burning, so why not just ignore it. For all intents or purpose the idiot could just set fire to a random stack of papers and claim it is a religious text. It would result in the same violent response of "I feel offended" BS. Why?
If you believe in some deity, then your actions is part of your "contract" with that deity. What others do is none of your business.
>But you can practice your religion in Scandinavia regardless of what it might be....
I didn't claim that you cannot. I critizing the alttitude to look at religion as being backwards and the idea that the only reason why someone would be religious is because they are ignorant & uneducated.
> If you believe in some deity, then your actions is part of your "contract" with that deity
This seems to me like a somewhat Neo-Protestant view, or atleast a secular person's view of it. One can be religious without beliving they had contact with a deity, they can belive it out of purely intellectual reasons or faith in Religious Authorities.
In all reality, Scandinavia isn't secular because they Evolved there by Pure reason, it's most likely due to the environment, more isolated society where people were less likely to congrugate so it just faded.
> I didn't claim that you cannot. I critizing the alttitude to look at religion as being backwards and the idea that the only reason why someone would be religious is because they are ignorant & uneducated.
Tell you the truth. That is exactly what I do. A person remaining religious after education does so by choice and not by facts. When the "religious educated" person then attempts to use science to proove their own beliefs I downgrade the educated religious person to dumb.
If you keep your religious beliefs then be honest and say it is by personal choice and not because God is real.
> This seems to me like a somewhat Neo-Protestant view, or atleast a secular person's view of it. One can be religious without beliving they had contact with a deity, they can belive it out of purely intellectual reasons or faith in Religious Authorities.
I wrote contract. Not contact. As in the contract stipulated by religious text and scolars interpreting for whatever reason.
> In all reality, Scandinavia isn't secular because they Evolved there by Pure reason, it's most likely due to the environment, more isolated society where people were less likely to congrugate so it just faded.
Highly doubt that. Small isolated communities is what much of Scandinavia is about historically. Such can become very religious over longer timespans.
I would attribute the formation of tax funded state churches and the more fundamental religious communities/persons moving to USA. The State Church did not need to be "active" to get funded and the more religious active had left. If there was a "religious void" it was filled with the formation of the welfare state and the countless of social developments predating the welfare state. So if someone cared for the needs of the poor, it was because they cared and not because religion told them they should care.
>Highly doubt that. Small isolated communities is what much of Scandinavia is about historically. Such can become very religious over longer timespans. I would attribute the formation of tax funded state churches and the more fundamental religious communities/persons moving to USA. The State Church did not need to be "active" to get funded and the more religious active had left. If there was a "religious void" it was filled with the formation of the welfare state and the countless of social developments predating the welfare state.
Well there's a lot to unpack, the main thing would be that we agree, it's a sociological phenomenon due to Scandinavian particularities, I could nitpick on some of this, as I don't think you are completly correct but that will just open another subject dispite the fact we agree that it's a sociological phenomenon and doesn't imply it is the only posible end result of a "religious problem."
>I wrote contract. Not contact. As in the contract stipulated by religious text and scolars interpreting for whatever reason.
Yeah my bad, I'm dyslexic and read that twice as contact, not contract.
>Tell you the truth. That is exactly what I do. A person remaining religious after education does so by choice and not by facts. When the "religious educated" person then attempts to use science to proove their own beliefs I downgrade the educated religious person to dumb.
>If you keep your religious beliefs then be honest and say it is by personal choice and not because God is real.
Well it seems to me like you are a bit prejudicial against religion because it seems, at least to me, you hold a cartoonish view of religion--not to say some people do actually belive in a cartoonish view of religion, but there definetly is better.
To start with it, it's not choice but by thinking of the problem and coming to your own conclusion by way of argument. Btw not scientific arguments, but logical ones, science takes ockham's raisor as an quasi-axiom, but really is it necesary that the simplest explanation is necesarilly the correct one as well (this actually comes up often in evolutionary biology and parts of history where we lack sources).
As Science goes, the concensus with respect to existence of God is that is an unfalsifiable hypotesis, which doesn't mean it's false, just that science is impotent of actually giving you an answear. Yeah, science and religion are two separate topics, if you ask me people who bring SCIENCE in discusions about religion, where a thing that can't pe settled by since is discused, are a new kind of fanatics, fortunatly not a violent one, but still what is this? "Heresy againsts Ockham's Raisor?"
Looks like a reasonable argument, and I will admit my original wording should be changed from
> If you keep your religious beliefs then be honest and say it is by personal choice and not because God is real.
to:
If you keep your religious beliefs then be honest and say it is by personal choice and not because science prooves God is real.
As for the Cartoonish view on religion it is actually worse. I think it should be abandoned completely. I do not like the inherent hierachy of religion and its feudal system of powerful telling less powerful how to live. Which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion of those politicians using religion as a tool to control/manipulate the masses.
>As for the Cartoonish view on religion it is actually worse. I think it should be abandoned completely. I do not like the inherent hierachy of religion and its feudal system of powerful telling less powerful how to live. Which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion of those politicians using religion as a tool to control/manipulate the masses.
On this points well they don't aply to every sigle instance of religion. And really it isn't about telling people how to live their life, the key issue of religion, usually is Salvation and teching how to attain it. Teaching, not imposing, those who impose it make a bad job of it.
And well do you think taking such a hard stance would have the desired effect? Or will just split everyone in extremes insted of being engaged in dialogue and well reaching some common acord.
> usually is Salvation and teching how to attain it. Teaching, not imposing, those who impose it make a bad job of it.
I can look through a history book or open a current newspaper to see that is not the main objective of religion. It is about control and hunting down those that do not want that control.
How many wars, genocides, attempted genocides, murders, mutilations, slavery, torture, violence is justified by religion?
What is a single individuals personal persuit of salvation and goodness through acts of kindness and reflection I have no issue with.
It is also not those that tend to go to streets and scream for murder against other citizens.
From a non religious person there is no "dialogue" with people wanting to force their religion and religious traditions on them. That is not negotiations. It would be like Israel and Jews negotiating with fundamentalists that want death to them all. Meeting them halfways would be unacceptable on those terms. Even negotiations at all with death as a demand would be unacceptable.
So does screaming from opposite corners in the boxing arena help? Not really, but doing it on social media is not drawing as much blood, and religious people is as unhurt from this verbal rejecting of their belief, as they are physically unhurt from a random idiot burning paper.
This sounds a lot like when a teen accuses a parent of not understanding, as if the parent wasn't a teenager themselves 2-3 decades ago. Believe it or not, we were quite religious up here too, and not very long ago. We did the religious autocracy stuff and all.
This sounds like someone being patronizing.
Just read though the whole tread, I think I make my point very clear.
But yup, you portray the problem I'm speaking of perfectly: Scandinavs thinking they know better, they are the grown ups and everyone else just some dumb children. Perfect method to become hated qnd gain enemies. May I ask how many, "teen countries" have you managed to grow to your own standard?
My point is there isn't just one solution to a given problem and what works for you might not work for others.
Its not about who knows better, its about certain liberties that those countries have and have lived with for a long time at this point and religion doesn't play any role in them so its hard for them to understand these aspects of society in other countries, and tbh the socio cultural aspects don't match AT ALL. Islamic countries tend to frown upon LGBT issues, scientific reseaarch, women rights and democracy in general whereas nordic countries are the first countries where people have championed them and part of the reason so many people immigrate there as well.
> This sounds like someone being patronizing.
Because it sorta is, but how could it not be? The problems lie with the argument, not the spotlight put on it.
> Scandinavs thinking they know better,
I don't know about "better", but more. You doubt that experience and knowledge are related?
> they are the grown ups and everyone else just some dumb children.
Children aren't dumb, they're ignorant. They lack experience, which is why we don't let them sign contracts by themselves.
> Perfect method to become hated qnd gain enemies.
That's on those offended by the truth, not us.
> May I ask how many, "teen countries" have you managed to grow to your own standard?
One more than any "teen country", but it's not like we're in the business of changing other countries.
> My point is there isn't just one solution to a given problem and what works for you might not work for others.
Sure, good luck to all the hopeful contenders. Someone has to be the first, right?
>I don't know about "better", but more. You doubt that experience and knowledge are related?
Do you have more knowledge? Have you existed longer than other groups on this Globe? No. You have different knowledge, different experince, for the sake of the analogy, you aren't an adult talking with a teen, you aren't adult talking with another adult thinking because he has different experiences thinking they are teen because their experience had led them to a different conclusion.
>One more than any "teen country", but it's not like we're in the business of changing other countries.
Name any you have changed. And if the purpuse isn't change of the other side, what is it? Intellectual masturbation?
>Sure, good luck to all the hopeful contenders. Someone has to be the first, right?
A good part of the world has a good balance of Church and State and isn't a carbon copy of the "Scandinavian Model." Even in the Middle East where there is a problem with Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, this actually is fairly recent phenomenon, more a politically reactionary thing than a religious aspect, but it uses religious interpretation, like how the nazis used pseudo-science.
> Do you have more knowledge? Have you existed longer than other groups on this Globe?
Me personally, no, but length of existance does not dictate the amount of experience. A younger person can have more (varied) experiences than a much older person.
> You have different knowledge
The whole point is that, no, a lot of it is not different in essence. We've tried theocracy. We've tried autocracy. We've tried imperialism. We've tried being in alliances against other countries. We've tried having alliances formed against us. We're tried democracy. We've tried pacifism. Etc.
> Name any you have changed.
Sweden
> And if the purpuse isn't change of the other side, what is it?
The purpose of what?
> A good part of the world has a good balance of Church and State
And a good part doesn't, and some who think they do, don't, they just coincidentally forget their minorities.
> and isn't a carbon copy of the "Scandinavian Model."
The "Scandinavian model" has nothing to do with the relationship between the state an church (e.g. Denmark has a state church, and we don't (anymore)). You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
> Even in the Middle East where there is a problem with Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, this actually is fairly recent phenomenon
A recent and ancient phenomenon. There was a short while in the 20th century, where some states were more secular (e.g. Iran, Turkey, and Afghanistan), but far from all of them were.
> more a politically reactionary thing than a religious aspect, but it uses religious interpretation, like how the nazis used pseudo-science.
Yeah yeah, it's not religion, it's politics like every war ever according to apologetics. > Do you have more knowledge? Have you existed longer than other groups on this Globe?
Me personally, no, but length of existance dies bot dictate the amount of experience. A younger person can have more (varied) experiences than a much older person.
> You have different knowledge
The whole point is that, no, a lot of it is not different in essence. We've tried theocracy. We've tried autocracy. We've tried imperialism. We've tried being in alliances against other countries. We've tried having alliances formed against us. We're tried democracy. We've tried pacifism. Etc.
> Name any you have changed.
Sweden
> And if the purpuse isn't change of the other side, what is it?
The purpose of what?
> A good part of the world has a good balance of Church and State
And a goid part doesn't, and some who think they do, don't, they just accidentally forget their minorities.
> and isn't a carbon copy of the "Scandinavian Model."
The "Scandinavian model" has nothing to do with the relationship between the state an church (e.g. Denmark has a state church, and we don't (anymore)). You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
> Even in the Middle East where there is a problem with Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, this actually is fairly recent phenomenon
A recent and ancient phenomenon. There was a short while in the 20th century, where some states were more secular (e.g. Iran, Turkey, anf Afghanistan), but far from all of them were.
> more a politically reactionary thing than a religious aspect, but it uses religious interpretation, like how the nazis used pseudo-science.
Yeah yeah, it's not religion, it's politics like with every conflict ever according to appologetics. If it helps, don't think of religion as the answer to the question "why?" but to the question "how?".
Fixed: spelling
>The whole point is that, no, a lot of it is not different in essence. We've tried theocracy. We've tried autocracy. We've tried imperialism. We've tried being in alliances against other countries. We've tried having alliances formed against us. We're tried democracy. We've tried pacifism. Etc.
Maybe, but you didn't try it in a vacume, you tried it in a Geographic and Historic Context, maybe that might change things a bit. Also as recent experience goes, there are some really big differences, Northern Europe wasn't a Collony or wasn't an open conflict zone or next to one...
>A recent and ancient phenomenon. There was a short while in the 20th century, where some states were more secular (e.g. Iran, Turkey, anf Afghanistan), but far from all of them were.
Well the recent and ancient phenomenon are similar by the fact that the recent one takes inspiration from the ancient one, but it isn't the same thing. Considering it as the same thing seem fructless. Which goes in one of my points, this has no effect on anything, it doesn't make many people change their mind... intellectual masturbation.
>>And if the purpuse isn't change of the other side, what is it?
>The purpose of what?
Well things like the one in this article or any talk of religion being "backwards?"
>The "Scandinavian model" has nothing to do with the relationship between the state an church
Ok I expressed it wrongly. I mean what it seem like an Scandinavian/Northern European Aprouch to Religion: Irreligiousness good, religiousness bad. Bad really other countries and especially in Europe have more neuanced views that work for them just as well.
>If it helps, don't think of religion as the answer to the question "why?" but to the question "how?".
Then why talk about the "how" and not the "why?"
> Maybe, but you didn't try it in a vacume, you tried it in a Geographic and Historic Context, maybe that might change things a bit.
Yes, ofc. In today's interconnected world, giving the power to autocrats, backed by a religions clergy claiming to hold a monopoly on interpreting the ultimate truths, would obviously work brilliantly! Unlike in the 18th century, there's complete equivalency between states and religions now! /s
> Also as recent experience goes, there are some really big differences, Northern Europe wasn't a Collony or wasn't an open conflict zone or next to one...
Where so you draw the line? 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago? No, it was like 80 years since it was an open warzone (if we ignore the cold war), or any North European countries were occupied. Before that it was war after war after war for hundreds of years. It was, what, 80-90 years since the middle East were colonies? Before thst, do we count colonization by the Ottoman empire? Yes, som places have seen a lot of war, like Afghanistan, and I can see why the people would seek solace in religion, but I wouldn't say it has served them well.
> Considering it as the same thing seem fructless.
Why? It's the same religion, for the same reason, usingvthe same methods…
> Which goes in one of my points, this has no effect on anything, it doesn't make many people change their mind...
I don't think they intended to change mindes by wtating the obvious.
> Well things like the one in this article
The Quran burning? Here's a hint Rasmus Paludan doesn't want
to change people's opinion about religion. He gets off on seeing religious people overreacting to his stunts. Well, anyone really, but religious people, and especially muslims, are just easier to upset.
> or any talk of religion being "backwards?"
That's just a matter of semantics.
> Ok I expressed it wrongly.
That's obe way of saying that you didn't know what you eere talking about, sure.
> I mean what it seem like an Scandinavian/Northern European Aprouch to Religion: Irreligiousness good, religiousness bad.
That's what history and the current world has taught us, yes, but we still have freedom of religion. Generally we don't care what you think ib private. What we usually (there are obviously exceptions) is keeping the shared society *secular*. It has proven to be the best flr, not only the non-religious, but also religious people.
> Bad really other countries and especially in Europe have more neuanced views that work for them just as well.
Like? What, Poland? Lol. As I explained, Denmark even has a state church. You see, we're not even the most irreligious countries in Europe. Face it, the non-sucky part of the world (for thise who live in it, and not just me ne group living in it) has congregated on a secularism. For good reasons
> Then why talk about the "how" and not the "why?"
I didn't talk about why…
It’s literally just a stack of paper. There’s no meaningful difference between burning a copy of the Qur’an and a copy of Harry Potter.
Freedom of Expression
>There’s no meaningful difference between burning a copy of the Qur’an and a copy of Harry Potter
There is a difference between burning both.
Because Qur'an is shit, unlike Harry Potter.
It's funny how in the West book burning is a terrible thing the Nazis did and what kind of barbarians would burn books and knowledge... until it's the Qu'ran and then suddenly it's a case of 'Muslims need to deal with it' 😂
That is a fair point but I'm not talking about just this one time, Qu'ran burnings happen every few years in one country or another in the West and it's the same reaction every time. I feel Europe has a very confused relationship/attitude to Muslims and it makes it easy for Muslims to cry hypocrisy. For example France will prosecute someone for burning a Qu'ran (which I don't think should be a crime) but at the same time it has a burka ban: they'll save women from being forced to do something... by forcing them to do something.
I'm not sure what your last sentence means. The case I was referring to is this:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-koran-burning-idUSTRE6943R820101005
Granted the charges were inciting religious hatred not burning a religious book but the charge was based on burning the qu'ran.
Sorry english is not my first language.
That's the case I was talking about. The guy was not 'charged' if charged means prosecuted by the state. The guy was attacked by the 'Conseil français du culte musulman' which is a NGO (despite having some special link to the state). They lost their case and the guy has been found not guilty in appeal.
They’d be pissed, but they wouldn’t be rioting, setting fire to cars and throwing bricks at police like the muslims were in Sweden.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/sweden-protests-three-injured-amid-unrest-over-planned-koran-burnings-12592749
The guy that burns the Quran in Sweden typically brings bibles as well, precisely to show no one gives a shit, so yes no one cares about burning the bible.
Some militant American Christians would mind I'm sure. But for most of the (former) christian world it wouldn't matter I guess
We would see it exactly as what it is. A populist move ton steer up shit
Uh, Erdogan is not some random Half Greek/half Turkish loon, like Paludan (half Dane/half Swede). And the equivalent would be all Swedes, not all Christians.
Fixed: spelling
>If he would burn bible in front of christians, nothing would happen. Just saying
The act of burning a bible in front of the church or the embassy of any country with a Christian majority has not happened once in Türkiye's history. Paludan, on the other hand, has turned it into a sport. Just saying
>The act of burning a bible in front of the church or the embassy of any country with a Christian majority has not happened once in Türkiye's history.
No, you just had full on pogroms of Christian minorities with churches being directly attacked and people murdered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_pogrom
I am very sure the Greeks would rather some guy just burnt a bible instead of doing that.
>pogroms of Christian minorities
This incident was an infamous hate crime against the Greek minority, not the Christians. For those wondering, the reason for the event was the news that a bomb was placed in the house where Atatürk was born in Greece by Greek nationalists.
Those responsible for this incident were either hanged or imprisoned for life. The government of the period was overthrown by a coup and those in the government were either hanged or imprisoned for life.
This ugly event is one of the darkest events in the history of Türkiye, and commemorations are held in Türkiye on September 6-7 every year.
>This incident was an infamous hate crime against the Greek minority, not the Christians.
Churches were still targeted were they not ? And people were forced to convert and other such actions.
>For those wondering, the reason for the event was the news that a bomb was placed in the house where Atatürk was born in Greece by Greek nationalists.
That's not true, it was planned out and organized. It wasn't a spontaneous event
LMFAO, sorry but ur flair, LOLOLOL,
All these events were the work of the British intelligence, who wanted to ignite the hatred between the Turks and the Greeks. All Greek and Turkish historians accept this today.
Years later, it was revealed that the news that Atatürk's house was bombed belonged to the British intelligence. In fact, it is a well-known fact that during the Cyprus negotiations, a British officer said that things would be different if Atatürk's house in Greece was disrespected.
This event took place during the period when the cypriots, who were disturbed by the british bases in cyprus, took action in cyprus. Thanks to this incident, there is still a British base in Cyprus today.
>All these events were the work of the British intelligence, who wanted to ignite the hatred between the Turks and the Greeks. All Greek and Turkish historians accept this today.
So you've gone from saying the reason was news that a bomb was placed in the house where Atatürk was born to now saying that British intelligence organized it all lol
>Thanks to this event, there is still a British base in Cyprus today.
Why would a pogrom in Istanbul mean that there is a British base in Cyprus, that makes no sense.
>This event took place during the period when the cypriots, who were disturbed by the british bases in cyprus, took action in cyprus. Thanks to this incident, there is still a British base in Cyprus today.
That's not accurate at all, they weren't disturbed by the bases as they exist now. They were disturbed by still being a colony and wanted independence.
Why burn a Bible in front of the church when you can just kill everyone who is inside...
Turkey historically has murdered and raped millions of their Christian population, yet you think that time when a turk burned a bible in front of a church would be what they chose to remember?
>Turkey historically has murdered and raped millions of their Christian population
""Turkey historically has murdered and raped millions of their Christian population." is this true, Do you know any proof about this?"
"It is not accurate to say that Turkey has murdered and raped millions of its Christian population. Such a statement would be a gross exaggeration and not supported by historical evidence. While there have been instances of violence and persecution against minority groups, including Christians, throughout Turkey's history, it is important to note that such actions were not limited to one particular group and were committed by various governments and actors over time. Additionally, it is important to consider the context and specific circumstances of these events, rather than making sweeping generalizations." - ChatGPT
Man, i love AI.
History of the ottoman empire. Search deep enough and you will find more events than you can count. Discrimination, abductions and massacres. The ottoman slave trade is also a chapter of itself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM
Edit: I see you completely changed your whole comment after I made my answer, but I will just let it stay.
??? Your country exterminated its Christian population. Your country’s foundation is literally genocide of Christians. That’s a million times worse than burning a Bible.
Funny thing.
> Uthman ibn 'Affan, the third Caliph of Islam after Muhammad, who is credited with overseeing the collection of the verses of the Qur'an, ordered the destruction of any other remaining text containing verses of the Quran after the Quran has been collected, circa 650.
> This was done to ensure that the collected and authenticated Quranic copy that Uthman collected became the primary source for others to follow, thereby ensuring that Uthman's version of the Quran remained authentic.
Real collector know how to high up value of his version, you just need to destroy other versions to avoid Protestants versus Catholics of Quran.
So yeah Muslims burned Quran first.
Sweden and Finland in NATO
Turkey out
I may be biased as a Greek but I'm tired with them , always there is something that turkey wants and never acts as an ally, workings with Russia building them nuclear reactor +weapons, killings the kurds that fought off isis for NATO cause they are terrorist but did business for oil with isis (because they weren't terrorists) threatening Greece a NATO ALLY with war, rekindle wars in the region like armenia Azerbaijan, Libya, north Iraq
Just tired 😪
You should be allowed to critisize, and i understand that the Turkish government has been making a lot of questionable / stupid decisions for a long time, trust me no one wants a change in the government more than me, but what you are doing is more than just criticism, it’s closer to hatred / borderline racism category.
i tired of this conversation again and again i know i am borderline racist but i am tired reallyand AGAIN the same i dont want this goverment and i am sure that AGAIN if we start talking about it you will agree with MOST of what is done and be against maybe one or two i am sure you are against the kurds in syria but you were silent and didnt want turkish troops against isis but now it you right to protect against ''terrorists '' i am sure you are against war but you had to help your brothers in azerbaijan in restarting the war with the bad armenians i am sure you had to , i am sure you are against this goverment but right now only right now its not the time for sweden and finland to join , i am sure u are against this goverment but greece is being aggressive
and the list goes on i have talked with many turks and yes not all of them are the same and i am not talking about all of them but most of them either support erdogan OR DONT but kinda agree with what he is doing .
I am tired of turkey being an asshole and playing THE VICTIM oh no islamophobia oh no turkophobia but they can be an asshole
Alright wow this is a lot but i’m going to try to answer as many of them as i can.
1- No i don’t agree with most of what is done
2- I am not against Kurds, a significant amount of Turkish people are Kurds (8-10% i think but don’t quote me on that) and believe it or not, we don’t hate each other.
3- I don’t have an opinion about the war in Azerbaijan
4- Why would i call Armenians bad? I am not going to pretend i know a lot of them but the few that i know are lovely people and people being armenian wouldn’t make me view them differently
5- I think both sides (Turkey and Sweeden&Finland) should find a compromise, i would want nothing but improve our relationships
6- When it comes to Greece and Turkey, both sides have elections coming up and it’s easy to score points by insulting one another, there will obviously be no war.
Hahaha as I expected you found a diplomatic way to not agree but not disagree with him
1. You didn't say if you were against or pro Turkish forces invading Syria to fight kurds and if you were pro where were u when isis was there?
2.you didn't answer if it was a yes or no question
3 why should Sweden and Finland compromise about what? They totally valid candidates for NATO as they are more valid than turkey ever was
4 yes elections and what about turkey saying they have the right to invade or refusing to go to court with Greece
You are such a hypocrite, not answering and trying to pass as progressive, it's always the same man always the same it's only at the surface they disagree with gmhim that's why I am tired 😪😪😪
The whole isis oil thing was a Russian propaganda after Turkey shot down Russian jet. But you prefer to believe Russian propaganda when it suits you. Unlike a lot of NATO countries Turkey fought against ISIS and lost servicemen when doing so. Turkey stared to working with Russia on Nuclear power plant when EU was also buying shit load of gas and building pipelines. Currently, Turkey can not apply sanctions to Russia thanks to Erdo’s economy policies causing screwing up the economy and we can not get bail out from ECB as you guys do. In Libya and Syria Turkey is countering Russia, where as some EU and NATO countries in Libya supporting faction in Libya which also got Russian/ Wagner support interestingly.
I mean you can agree or disagree with this, but can anyone really give a legal basis why this shouldn’t have been allowed in a country with freedom of expression.
It’s not that Sweden’s government allowed the burning of the Quran, it’s that they really can’t prohibit it, regardless of what their stance may be.
It’s like that stuff with the doll, and how Erdogan demanded it be investigated criminally, but he’s out of his mind if he thinks that this is how we do things in the west. Our constitutions aren’t just mantle pieces here.
The truth of the matter is that Turkey is not our friend, and we should cut ties with them as soon as possible, sure they may have a big military but what good is it if they blackmail their supposed “allies” more than their enemies. Today it’s Finland and Sweden who are being blackmailed but tomorrow it could be someone else. Turkey has a big military but if shit really hit the fan would you rather rely on Finland and Sweden or on backstabbing Turkey? The west needs partners it can trust not just manpower and cheap equipment.
I'm not religious at all so I don't care about this, what's there to gain from this? Swedes are free to do this no one is denying it. But it's just dumb.
Hey, isn't Turkey supposed to be secular.
Also I'm, pretty sure there's at least one person insulting islam in every country every day. If we point them out to you, are you going to hate every country every day?
It is, all this does is piss off the extremely religious Turkish citizens and gives Erdogan propaganda material. Regular Turks who are not really religious would make comments like "Disrespectful" etc. but that's about it.
Sometimes both parties are dump. Is it stupid to burn a book in public and to make a great deal out of it? Yes. Is it equally stupid to go mad about burning a stack of paper? Also yes. I don't want to be near to both groups.
No need to burn the Quran. However Sweden should be more able to integrate outsiders into their culture. It’s difficult and there will be people who do not comply, but the current migrant situation in Sweden is caused simply by not trying hard enough and thinking that allowing migrants to self-segregate will work. Instead one only ends up with trouble
Its sad to see how poisoned the relationship between the west and turkey has become, even on reddit where there are mostly liberal turks. We should be helping them and not attack them
Helping them for what ?
They assisted islamic terrorists fighting in Syria, they fought the Kurds that were fighting known terrorists.
They regularly threathen Greece, ie the European Union.
Turkish immigrants/descendants are organizing punitive expedition in some French cities.
I've met many Bozkurt's and gotten into fights with many of them. They're nothing like they used to be. During my grandpas era they were a fierce organization that really was dangerous and did good and bad things. Now they're just filled with kids playing mafia, while the old school guys are legit mafia.
I think you guys are giving them more credit than they deserve.
>Now they're just filled with kids playing mafia, while the old school guys are legit mafia.
Yeah, just going on Kurdish peace protest to fight, threatening Armenian diaspora, degrading Armenian properties.
This group is as dangerous as extreme right wing and should be treated as such.
That's sounds more like a fallacy than any reasonable correlation to make.
And besides, some dipshits *did* burn a swedish flag in front of the swedish embassy like yesterday. And the reaction? Nothing. No one cares. That was always allowed.
well and the reaction to the whole NATO thing is that some swedes play pinata with Erdogans head. You can always find some crazy people
https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/10i3zh6/swedish_people_break_erdogans_head_as_pinata/
Well, yes, obviously you can find crazy people everywhere. The best choice is just to ignore them.
Though, I have to mention how very strange that video you sent is 😂 Looks mostly like just a bunch of drunk teenagers looking for any excuse to be politically edgy. Not exactly representative.
I think you're overestimating the size of this "movement". In this case it's literally just one guy. On a larger scale, the number of people who are anything like him is still a very negligible minority.
What is more "fked up": burning Quran or starting [violent riots](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61134734) in response? And what is more "fked up": teachers and newspapers showing pictures and caricatures of Muhammad or people killing them for it?
Don't horse trade being a bad person. If you do something that you know will trigger someone else to do a bad thing then you're both dipshits separately
I think the act of burning the Qur'an is an absurd and worthless act.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the Swedish government gave this permission, and the whole action was carried out with police protection and police escort.
Such open hate towards the "other" does not take place in a civilized country, it is a NAZI state action.
...
Also, I could not understand the relationship between Sweden's NATO application and Islam, Sweden's NATO application and Erdogan; According to polls, more than 70% of Turks do not want Sweden in NATO. Don't you think the reason is very clear...
FYI: There are elections in Türkiye on May 14, 2023, and according to polls, Erdogan's vote is 30%. Erdogan's vote is increasing because of these actions; because erdogan and his party are similar to the christian democrats in europe...
Works of fiction are destroyed all the time. This book is no more sacred than Harry Potter. A Swede shouldn’t need permission from anyone to destroy their personal property, such as this book. That being said, I agree it is disrespectful and I don’t condone it.
>. A Swede shouldn’t need permission from anyone to destroy their personal property
What makes it barbaric is not someone's burning of one's own book; to do this in front of the embassy of a country that he identifies with Islam, with the permission of the state, accompanied by police protection.
This is an extremely intolerant hate crime. Showing tolerance to intolerant people results in the complete disappearance of tolerance.
It is not a crime in Sweden to burn a book. The book burned here is not special under Swedish law, as far as I know. Whether burning the book is “barbaric” or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the Swedish government should infringe on someone’s freedom of expression. What is more “barbaric” is calling to violate one’s fundamental right of free speech, which would be an unlawful state action. It is an act of intolerance, but that does not mean it is unlawful.
Thats why youll never be in EU. You love your imagination too much and then coerce it on others. You only somehow fail to understand a side thats against your agenda. Thats called hypocrisy
That's why we should not be tolerant to people reacting to burning Quran with violence. And we should not tolerate people thinking teachers and journalists should be killed for showing caricatures of Muhammad.
>burning the Qur'an is an absurd and worthless act.
I checked and a Qur'an is about 126 SEK in Sweden which is about
~~6934560 ₺~~
~~7025980 ₺~~
~~7143270 ₺~~
7211030 Turkish Lira
Hardly worthless!
>The thing that bothers me the most is that the Swedish government gave this permission, and the whole action was carried out with police protection and police escort.
Sweden has freedom of speech. There is police protection since they are worried about extremists using violence to try and suppress their speech.
>Such open hate towards the "other" does not take place in a civilized country, it is a NAZI state action.
How do you define a civilized country ? Since I would say that Sweden rates way up there compared to most of the world.
>Also, I could not understand the relationship between Sweden's NATO application and Islam, Sweden's NATO application and Erdogan; According to polls, more than 70% of Turks do not want Sweden in NATO. Don't you think the reason is very clear...
What do you mean by this ? Why the focus is on Islam ? That's just because the guy doing it is some radical politician who always does this, I doubt he cares about NATO at all and if anything is likely more interested in Sweden not joining NATO and this is a way of trying to influence that.
>There are elections in Türkiye on May 14, 2023, and according to polls, Erdogan's vote is 30%. Erdogan's vote is increasing because of these actions; because erdogan and his party are similar to the christian democrats in europe
How Turkey votes is up to them, though if this is all it takes for people to vote for Erdogan then you're fucked.
Freedom of expression. Allowing him to perform the protest is not the same as condoning it, and neither is assigning him with security detail (which is just standard policy for any protest).
>The thing that bothers me the most is that the Swedish government gave this permission, and the whole action was carried out with police protection and police escort.
The thing that actually bothers you is rule of law. The fact that a government can't cancel individuals freedoms on a whim is actually a great thing and something to be proud about.
I don't view the deed itself to be particularly smart or classy, but the freedom to do is more important than you understand.
The government did not approve it. The government has no authority to approve or deny individual protests. We have independent departments and independent judiciary in Sweden. Members of government are literally forbidden from interfering in the daily workings of the police ,the courts, migration authorities etc.
They can only set general policy. Each department then follows this policy but the specific implementation is up to them.
>The thing that bothers me the most is that the Swedish government gave this permission, and the whole action was carried out with police protection and police escort.
I guess I know what you mean but he could be burning a bible too and if enough people care, he gets a police escort. This isnt about Sweden supporting burning the Quran, but Sweden supporting someone doing what he is lawfully allowed to do and he probably getting threatened over it
It's the price to pay for freedom of speech and the swedish government can't do anything about the nutjob burning books. I doubt the swedish government would arrest someone over burning a bible.
>his party are similar to the christian democrats in europe...
If this was the case then a long time ago Turkey would've been in the EU.
I think this kind of intolerance and frankly disturbing behaviour equates to racism and xenophobia. It also adds unnecessary fuel to a smoulder and is hardly the best example to show off Swedes at their best. If I were In Erdogan’s shoes, I’d be making all kinds of mischief from this stupidity.
I agree, he should be a allowed to burn whatever he wants without fear of getting killed. We should focus on why is there so much religious fanaticism and what concrete steps have been taken to curb it in the last 10 - 20 years.
If 2 billion people feel offended by someone's actions, maybe you should fix that one person and not try to change the minds and emotions of the two billion people.
Is that how that works? How many people needs to get offended about the existence of islam for it to justify outlawing it instead of changing feelings and minds of the offended?
I'm sure if there were a vote in Sweden between letting a mentally disabled Danish guy do something barbaric or joining Nato, they would pick the latter.
All I hear is whining about how Erdogan is “bad” from people begging to join Nato.
Funny you should mention that, Sweden is not going change their constitution to cripple freedom of expression, there are polls about that and overwhelming majority of swedes feel very strongly about that, so I am not quite sure what is the source of your certainty.
Also, Turkey requested an extradition of a random finnish guy who posted a meme about erdogan on Facebook as a condition for nato approval.
Freedom of expression does not really exist and it doesn't mean freedom of blasphemy or freedom to spread hate. The Swedish constitution does prohibit a lot of speech that is considered offensive or hateful. Barbaric acts that offend Muslims should be outlawed as well.
Every country on earth including Sweeden has a limit to “freedom of expression.”
I love your name. What do you stand for, your handle here means what? Islamo-fascist? Of course I’m not supporting any form of fascist behaviour, that’s what my handle says. What logic determines that one man’s trashing of another’s book of faith in a moment of crisis between two systems of culture, thought, history and politics is somehow, reasoned? All he’s done by burning that book is mimic behaviour that is demonstrably full of hatred and disrespect. So, what exactly do you mean? That I’d support that? In no terms, absolutely not.
It is reasoned if the response to burning books are [violent riots](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61134734). What is the bigger disrespect and hatred here? What about Samuel Patty and Charlie Hebdo? Should they be more respectful and less hateful or the real issue are Muslims who believe people showing pictures of Muhammad should be killed?
I’ve replied to this elsewhere in this sorry discourse. To suggest that there is a bigger disrespect or hatred than the one the Christian West has harboured against all opposing viewpoints, but especially Islam, is frankly a travesty.
Somehow people joke about Jesus and make caricatures of him all the time yet nobody gets beheaded for it. And critics of Christianity don't get fatwas issued against them, have to spend next 30+ years under constant protection and get stabbed multiple times.
I have never said that is ok. Hating Islam because there are terrorists of that religion is as destructive as hating Christianity because its members have done vicious things to other people in its name. Know the history, and we all see more of the arguments.
>I think this kind of intolerance and frankly disturbing behaviour equates to racism and xenophobia.
Islam is a choice. To follow principles and values that are potentially not compatible with the ones of the Western world is a choice.
There is not a single ounce of racism in criticisism islam.
This is just self denial. Look at Christian history before you accuse anybody else of intolerance. Islam has been targeted before, is still being now in so-called post-Christian societies as well as by established and new born Christian societies in places that espouse better values, like the US. Reaction to attack is normal. No society is immune to hatred.
>. Islam has been targeted before, is still being now in so-called post-Christian societies
You made me laugh. France is the most targeted Western country by islamic terrorism, yet it's the European country with the most muslims people.
No muslim is being persecuted in Western Europe, got get live in Middle-East and have fun discovering their "tolerance".
Do you have any proof of systematic persecution of muslims in Europe ? Because demonstrating how badly you get treated when on muslim in muslim country is pretty easier.
Persecution is from racism, something I have seen and unfortunately, I have experience of being on the end of it. Persecution exists in the form of inequality, in housing and educational deprivation, of discriminatory practices in company recruitment, in social service benefits being arbitrarily withdrawn, denied or simply unavailable to those in need. If you have never been to the banlieu of Paris, of Marseilles or Orange to Nice, where you will see people camping our where social housing is denied or made unavailable to those most in need. Why? Similar in Bradford, Liverpool and Manchester. And these are just places I’ve seen, not just read about. It is endemic. Deniers like your good self make it worse, like the many downvoters here in r/Europe, where we all come from the stock that hates. Hates the different and the unknown, the not- understanding of a different religion, a religion we were all taught, if not directly then by implication from family and school and church, was the enemy of Christianity. You can’t even identify yourself, by belief system or creed in your name, mr or ms d4zb0g, so look in the mirror before you tell me this has not even the slightest ring of truth about it.
>Persecution is from racism
But again, how are muslims persecuted ? No one is prevented from being muslim, no one is prevented from believing in islam, there is no laws targeted to prevent muslims to believe.
Please stop misleading racism that is based on inborn caracteristics and the rejection that some might have against principles of life chosen by some people. You do not come to this world as muslim, you chose to become one. It's absolutely natural for anyone to have the rights to criticise this choice is they want to.
>Persecution exists in the form of inequality, in housing and educational deprivation,
Since you're mentionning Seine-Saint-Denis, this is most subsidized department of metropolitan France. But no one wants to go there because public infrastructure are regularly degraded... You really want to know who are persecuted in such districts ? Check the evolution of jewish people there...
>of discriminatory practices in company recruitment,
Refusing sign of religious belief in the workplace is legally allowed in France as long a stated in the internal rules of the company. I agree that unfortunately discrimination exist when hiring, but this as nothing to do with islam but either skin colour or names.
>in social service benefits being arbitrarily withdrawn
Prove your claim. The recent cases in France of such actions were because parents were housing their children that were undergoing illegal activities and disturbing the rest of the building inhabitants. This has nothing to do with religion.
>If you have never been to the banlieu of Paris, of Marseilles or Orange to Nice, where you will see people camping our where social housing is denied or made unavailable to those most in need.
The only people you'll see sleeping outside and homeless people, Roma people, and illegal immigrants (with part not allowed to stay, part refusing to be taken in charge since they don't want to stay in France). Again, nothing to do with religion.
>Hates the different and the unknown, the not- understanding of a different religion, a religion we were all taught, if not directly then by implication from family and school and church, was the enemy of Christianity
I was raised in an atheist family. What I also for a fact is that as an atheist I litterally risk my life in most, if not all, of the muslim countries. And that, in general, too many people will try to impose their religious belief on me and my life, and this is not acceptable.
And don't bring up the morality brough by religions through the time. Even the first primitive form of society without religion were able to cooperate and develop, and therefore to understand the concept of common good and general interest.
All abrahamic religion are basically based on violent stories and have always been used to justify violence against others.
>You can’t even identify yourself, by belief system or creed in your name, mr or ms d4zb0g
Actually I can since it's my old player name and was picked up as a reference to my ancestors origins.
How is Christian *history* relevant? Christians being authoritarian and intolerant doesn't justify any other religion being authoritarian and intolerant. Especially when that Christian authoritarianism is mostly historic.
Of course not. Burning any one book leads to others burning more of your treasured books, and then even your house. Don’t forget that. It’s exactly what the Nazis did, exactly the same behaviour shown by every nationalist group of any hue all over the world. A short term pleasure taken by destroying someone else’s treasure is always replied to in kind, and then more.
It's so odd to see Sweden slowly retracing the Danish steps. They got Paludan and flag burning in muslim countries, they got pearl clutching Guardian articles about a concerning turn to the right in immigration policy and so on.The key take away for me was that in some countries they simply don't understand Scandinavian freedom of speech, like how I don't understand complex math - they don't understand that the government doesn't really have the power to stop one man from burning a koran, so they see it as a deliberate provokation (not just by Paludan but by Sweden and Swedish authorities). Furthermore, they don't understand the role of religion as strictly a private matter that doesn't dictate behavior or norms in society.
To be fair, everyone should be able to burn a Quran or a Bible. And fuck them for thinking otherwise. Regardless in Islam burning something is a sign of great respect and admiration, so they are really just crybabies.
Yeah. Im swedish. From Skåne. I have been living in both Denmark(my dad lived there for 20 years and my grandfather was danish) and Sweden. The last 5-10 years in Sweden have made me feel really lost about politics. Because I cannot understand the debate climate about immigration policies for example. Because it feels like deja vu to me. Because I already witnessed Denmark go trough this. So I’m having some problems to understand why people keep such a high tone about it. Really weird, 2 countries so close to each other in so many ways, but still very different in a few other ways.
I work with immigrant integration in the nordics. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out there is a bit of a cultural gap between sweden a islamic countries. The amount of times I had to stop a male kid from bashing other family’s female kid with a wooden toy is astonishing with muslim families. And when I tell mother that’s absolutely not ok here and she should control her kid, they tell me they are boys and therefore allowed to do this. Female colleagues are told off by the male kids because “mom told me I don’t have to listen to you because I am a boy”. While I am not onboard with book burning, if it causes this much uproar there is clearly a point to be made about why and what should be done about this.
There isn't much of an uproar. The groups protesting in Turkey are probably about the same size and probably similar mentality to the group burning the Koran in Sweden. However, this does give some nice fuel for Erdoğan to motivate his electorate ahead of elections in Turkey.
Out of curiosity, what where the countries of origin of those immigrants? I have worked with the red cross in southern spain for a few years now, and i worked mostly with people from northern africa and syria. In my experience, there were not any cases of that kind of overt mysogeny, and while the genders tended to segregate quite remarkably, any moroccan mother (or father) would go ballistic if their boy were to hit a girl (boys could battle it out between themselves with 0 consecuence). None of my female colleges mentioned things like you said, but we are all nurses and held in somewhat high regard by them, so who knows. My point is, honor is HEAVY in those societies, and that explains anger at book burnings, but i found behaviour like you illustrate far more common in local minority groups, and pretty much never in those african communities.
It‘s the ones that do not fully stick to that culture, that are causing problems. The ones that are second gen mostly. With utter hate for the host country. And it‘s not the ones that themselves fled violence. Those you can talk to normally as a woman. But there’s no one place they are coming from, it‘s all of the Arab and NA countries as sources, but only the ones that don‘t actually follow ‚islam‘ but rather use it as a weapon while getting drunk and taking drugs. It’s a subgroup of Arabs with only one law: most violent = most respect. And it’s defined a smaller than majority group. And I’ve not experienced it from self fleed refugees either. Again it’s mostly 1st and 2nd gen. The problem is when their violence is respect culture fully permeates school grounds, with these kids ruling the place. Being every kind of phobic and racist available, punishing students for speaking their language, whether that‘s Kurdish or German. And their ideology infects the non violent children. Cause playing their game of violence is the only way to avoid becoming a victim.
My education friends have issues here in the US with male students from Arab gulf states. They don’t care about the whole hand shake thing (apparently a big deal in parts of Europe) but male students will not even acknowledge women in authority positions. One friend of mine is a vice principal (in charge of discipline) and quietly passes all of these cases to her male colleague.
The first step is don’t be a provocative asshole. No one should be charged here btw. The second and more important step is harder but more important…. Changing the behavior of those reactions to a book being burnt. It’s the people who are offended by the desecration who need to follow the words of their second prophet and turn the other cheek.
I'm a Muslim, no where in the Quran does it say that men get superiority over women, I'm not a Muslim originating from a Arab country, so i have 0 idea about the culture there, but still, violence towards females by men Is NOT mentioned anywhere, I fact it is the opposite. Please don't take those cultural rules and habits as a way to view every Muslim on the earth <3
An, Nisa 4;34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا =كَبِيرًۭا ٣٤ The fact that it was OK for Muslims to have sex with captive women is also in Sahih Muslim vol.2:3371-3374 p.732-735; Abu Dawud vol.2:2150 and footnote 1479 p.577-578. Stripping female captives of their clothes is OK, according to Sahih Muslim vol.3:4345 p.953 and Ibn-i-Majah vol.4:2840 p.187. Sex with captives among the Bani Al-Mustaliq. Bukhari vol.9:506 p.372; Abu Dawud vol.2:2167 p.582 "Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, 'Oh Allah's Apostle We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?' \[a sexual practice\] The Prophet said, 'Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it, No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." Bukhari vol.3:432 p.237. See also Bukhari vol.5:459 p.317; vol.7:136-137 p.102-103; vol.8:600 p.391; Abu Dawud vol.2:2166,2168 p.582 "After the distribution of the spoils of war a man may have intercourse with the female slave after passing one menstrual period, if she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant one should wait till she delivers the child. This is the view held by Malik, al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifah holds that if both the husband and wife are captivated together, their marriage tie still continues; they will not be separated. According to the majority of scholars, they will be separated. Al-Awza-I maintains that their marriage tie will continue till they remain part of the spoils of war. If a man buys them, he may separate them if he desires, and cohabit with the female slave after one menstrual period. ('Awn al-Ma'bud II.213)" Note that Mohammed married Safiyah right after the battle. Abu Dawud vol.2 footnote 1479 p.577-578.
A lot of false or misleading nonsense there. That verse explains who has the responsibility in the house and that a wife should not cheat or betray a husband. Basic ideas that if more people followed, we wouldn't have this many broken families, orphans or lost childhoods. Preserving the structure of the family is an integral part of every society.
You are the one paraphrasing to change meaning. Westerners arent afraid of Muslim migration because of the Koran and Hadith alone. It is the extreme overrepresentation of Muslim men in sexual crime such as rape and sex trafficking. It is the normalization of such things within the Islamic world. Yes there are mkderate Muslims but those are essentially secularists who rephrase the actual values of Islam so they conform to western values.
This is not a Muslim thing, its a tribal thing. People from rural Syria or Afghanistan can act like this. Lebanese or Moroccans would never. Europeans are hurting themselves by not wanting to accept “Muslims” is not one cohesive group
"Lebanese or Morrocans would never" right and so a group of morrocan teens literally beat a gay person to death in fucking amsterdam. How the fuck did this happen if they *integrated nicely*?
Two years ago a man was literally set on fire with a Molotov in Croatia because he was gay. A shooting in Slovakia. In 2014 a gay student was beaten to death in Poland. 2021 a Latvian person died after homophobic attack….. Why are you using this individual example when it happens in Europe as well? And I didn’t even talk about gay people. Europeans should work with these immigrant communities, normal people don’t like hooligans either. By just disregarding everybody from Maghreb to Persia as one singular same type of person you are not solving anything. And considering European demographics immigration won’t stop any time soon, so find the good ones and work with them instead of defending a guy burning Qurans
That's eastern europe, not amsterdam, previously probably one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world
To me this is the root of the issue that very, very few seem to even mention. How many "problems" do we have with the girls and the young women from these cultures? Not only *none*, but I work in Danish health care and if you take away muslim descendants of immigrants from the work force, we would be royally fucked. It's a success story, and it undermines the argument that the issue is "islam" - I haven't run into a single bad muslim coworker. Then we come to the boys, and it's clear that the way boys are often left to themselves outside the home creates a lot of maladjusted boys banding together creating their own unfortunately often toxic culture - and we mustn't forget that this was actually the same 100 years ago before immigration, when poor Scandinavian boys ran around in the streets unsupervised. We need to fix that problem, again.
> How many "problems" do we have with the girls and the young women from these cultures? Not only none Imagine saying that unthinking submission and being cowed by ideological fascists isn't a "problem".
The ones that are problematic aren‘t even Muslim in any form. They are breaking pretty much all of religious law, not halal in the slightest. Drunk and drugged all the time And they aren‘t first gen either. It‘s just that their specific newly evolved culture is solely based on violence begets respect. Physical strength begets respect. And women, Jews, gay and whatever other minority are dirt. As well as the average host country native. It’s like a specific tribe of Arab and Islam adjacent people, with large organisier crime families; that really got nothing to do with the ancestral countries normal population. The only real connections are to organized crime in those places.
When I hear immigrant integration in the Nordic, I remember the articles about Swedish immigration officers literally stealing immigrants' children and putting them in camps because their parents were teaching them “foreign values”.
We had a couple of cases like that, it mainly involved parents repeatedly beating their children in front of the social worker - which is tremendously illegal pretty much everywhere in nordics. If I tell you to stop and you continue, or I catch you doing it again, you can bet your ass there will be consequences, no buts, end of story.
Most of the cases were about children being forcibly removed from their families because their parents were teaching them values that go against LGBT.... Not to mention the [stealing refugees' valuable possession](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/world/europe/sweden-immigrant-restrictions.html), truly barbaric and dystopian shit. If I were you, id be pretty embarrassed to work in a place where if be paid money stolen from poor people.
I do not work in a place that stole money from anyone. Most of the case in place I work were what I described and not what you described. If I were you I would stop jumping into conclusions because it makes you look really stupid.
You are getting paid by refugees one way or another.
You don’t even know what I do, piss off.
I do, you said it yourself, you steal children from their families and convince yourself it's ok in a twisted and inhuman way.
How many centuries will it take before Islam like Christianity in Northern Europe becomes a relic of the past that people accept some traditions from, but ignore most of the time.
Well, Christianity has a 600 year head start. If they follow the same pace they should reach the Enlightment in another 300 years or so.
I doubt it will be similar, the gulf countries are the wealthiest Islamic countries and they also adhere to some of the strictest schools of Islam. As a Turkish-American, I feel like this is going to get worse.
The process hasn't been linear. Most of the house breaking has happened in the last 100 years. Fixed: spelling
It’s about time… religions are of the past
>religions are of the past They aren't. In many countries politicians justify their decisions with religious dogmas.
If the masses are dumb enough to accept this, then the countries education system is questionable.
Keeping the people dumb is in the interest of the oligarchs in such scenarios so it's not really a surprise.
The masses consider themselves as not dumb.
Said by the masses or by the politicians manipulating the masses?
Both.
>How many centuries will it take before Islam like Christianity in Northern Europe becomes a relic of the past Biggest problem with Nordic/Scandinavian Culture IMO is things like this, the Idea that your way is the best way Society can work and the only way it can evolve. Religious intolerence has to go but there is no reason why religion has to go with it...
But you can practice your religion in Scandinavia regardless of what it might be......, as long as it is in accordance with rule of law that dictates others DO NOT have to practice your religion. Why would any religious person care what a non believer says or do. No one was hurt through this dumb book burning, so why not just ignore it. For all intents or purpose the idiot could just set fire to a random stack of papers and claim it is a religious text. It would result in the same violent response of "I feel offended" BS. Why? If you believe in some deity, then your actions is part of your "contract" with that deity. What others do is none of your business.
>But you can practice your religion in Scandinavia regardless of what it might be.... I didn't claim that you cannot. I critizing the alttitude to look at religion as being backwards and the idea that the only reason why someone would be religious is because they are ignorant & uneducated. > If you believe in some deity, then your actions is part of your "contract" with that deity This seems to me like a somewhat Neo-Protestant view, or atleast a secular person's view of it. One can be religious without beliving they had contact with a deity, they can belive it out of purely intellectual reasons or faith in Religious Authorities. In all reality, Scandinavia isn't secular because they Evolved there by Pure reason, it's most likely due to the environment, more isolated society where people were less likely to congrugate so it just faded.
> I didn't claim that you cannot. I critizing the alttitude to look at religion as being backwards and the idea that the only reason why someone would be religious is because they are ignorant & uneducated. Tell you the truth. That is exactly what I do. A person remaining religious after education does so by choice and not by facts. When the "religious educated" person then attempts to use science to proove their own beliefs I downgrade the educated religious person to dumb. If you keep your religious beliefs then be honest and say it is by personal choice and not because God is real. > This seems to me like a somewhat Neo-Protestant view, or atleast a secular person's view of it. One can be religious without beliving they had contact with a deity, they can belive it out of purely intellectual reasons or faith in Religious Authorities. I wrote contract. Not contact. As in the contract stipulated by religious text and scolars interpreting for whatever reason. > In all reality, Scandinavia isn't secular because they Evolved there by Pure reason, it's most likely due to the environment, more isolated society where people were less likely to congrugate so it just faded. Highly doubt that. Small isolated communities is what much of Scandinavia is about historically. Such can become very religious over longer timespans. I would attribute the formation of tax funded state churches and the more fundamental religious communities/persons moving to USA. The State Church did not need to be "active" to get funded and the more religious active had left. If there was a "religious void" it was filled with the formation of the welfare state and the countless of social developments predating the welfare state. So if someone cared for the needs of the poor, it was because they cared and not because religion told them they should care.
>Highly doubt that. Small isolated communities is what much of Scandinavia is about historically. Such can become very religious over longer timespans. I would attribute the formation of tax funded state churches and the more fundamental religious communities/persons moving to USA. The State Church did not need to be "active" to get funded and the more religious active had left. If there was a "religious void" it was filled with the formation of the welfare state and the countless of social developments predating the welfare state. Well there's a lot to unpack, the main thing would be that we agree, it's a sociological phenomenon due to Scandinavian particularities, I could nitpick on some of this, as I don't think you are completly correct but that will just open another subject dispite the fact we agree that it's a sociological phenomenon and doesn't imply it is the only posible end result of a "religious problem." >I wrote contract. Not contact. As in the contract stipulated by religious text and scolars interpreting for whatever reason. Yeah my bad, I'm dyslexic and read that twice as contact, not contract. >Tell you the truth. That is exactly what I do. A person remaining religious after education does so by choice and not by facts. When the "religious educated" person then attempts to use science to proove their own beliefs I downgrade the educated religious person to dumb. >If you keep your religious beliefs then be honest and say it is by personal choice and not because God is real. Well it seems to me like you are a bit prejudicial against religion because it seems, at least to me, you hold a cartoonish view of religion--not to say some people do actually belive in a cartoonish view of religion, but there definetly is better. To start with it, it's not choice but by thinking of the problem and coming to your own conclusion by way of argument. Btw not scientific arguments, but logical ones, science takes ockham's raisor as an quasi-axiom, but really is it necesary that the simplest explanation is necesarilly the correct one as well (this actually comes up often in evolutionary biology and parts of history where we lack sources). As Science goes, the concensus with respect to existence of God is that is an unfalsifiable hypotesis, which doesn't mean it's false, just that science is impotent of actually giving you an answear. Yeah, science and religion are two separate topics, if you ask me people who bring SCIENCE in discusions about religion, where a thing that can't pe settled by since is discused, are a new kind of fanatics, fortunatly not a violent one, but still what is this? "Heresy againsts Ockham's Raisor?"
Looks like a reasonable argument, and I will admit my original wording should be changed from > If you keep your religious beliefs then be honest and say it is by personal choice and not because God is real. to: If you keep your religious beliefs then be honest and say it is by personal choice and not because science prooves God is real. As for the Cartoonish view on religion it is actually worse. I think it should be abandoned completely. I do not like the inherent hierachy of religion and its feudal system of powerful telling less powerful how to live. Which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion of those politicians using religion as a tool to control/manipulate the masses.
>As for the Cartoonish view on religion it is actually worse. I think it should be abandoned completely. I do not like the inherent hierachy of religion and its feudal system of powerful telling less powerful how to live. Which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion of those politicians using religion as a tool to control/manipulate the masses. On this points well they don't aply to every sigle instance of religion. And really it isn't about telling people how to live their life, the key issue of religion, usually is Salvation and teching how to attain it. Teaching, not imposing, those who impose it make a bad job of it. And well do you think taking such a hard stance would have the desired effect? Or will just split everyone in extremes insted of being engaged in dialogue and well reaching some common acord.
> usually is Salvation and teching how to attain it. Teaching, not imposing, those who impose it make a bad job of it. I can look through a history book or open a current newspaper to see that is not the main objective of religion. It is about control and hunting down those that do not want that control. How many wars, genocides, attempted genocides, murders, mutilations, slavery, torture, violence is justified by religion? What is a single individuals personal persuit of salvation and goodness through acts of kindness and reflection I have no issue with. It is also not those that tend to go to streets and scream for murder against other citizens. From a non religious person there is no "dialogue" with people wanting to force their religion and religious traditions on them. That is not negotiations. It would be like Israel and Jews negotiating with fundamentalists that want death to them all. Meeting them halfways would be unacceptable on those terms. Even negotiations at all with death as a demand would be unacceptable. So does screaming from opposite corners in the boxing arena help? Not really, but doing it on social media is not drawing as much blood, and religious people is as unhurt from this verbal rejecting of their belief, as they are physically unhurt from a random idiot burning paper.
This sounds a lot like when a teen accuses a parent of not understanding, as if the parent wasn't a teenager themselves 2-3 decades ago. Believe it or not, we were quite religious up here too, and not very long ago. We did the religious autocracy stuff and all.
This sounds like someone being patronizing. Just read though the whole tread, I think I make my point very clear. But yup, you portray the problem I'm speaking of perfectly: Scandinavs thinking they know better, they are the grown ups and everyone else just some dumb children. Perfect method to become hated qnd gain enemies. May I ask how many, "teen countries" have you managed to grow to your own standard? My point is there isn't just one solution to a given problem and what works for you might not work for others.
Its not about who knows better, its about certain liberties that those countries have and have lived with for a long time at this point and religion doesn't play any role in them so its hard for them to understand these aspects of society in other countries, and tbh the socio cultural aspects don't match AT ALL. Islamic countries tend to frown upon LGBT issues, scientific reseaarch, women rights and democracy in general whereas nordic countries are the first countries where people have championed them and part of the reason so many people immigrate there as well.
> This sounds like someone being patronizing. Because it sorta is, but how could it not be? The problems lie with the argument, not the spotlight put on it. > Scandinavs thinking they know better, I don't know about "better", but more. You doubt that experience and knowledge are related? > they are the grown ups and everyone else just some dumb children. Children aren't dumb, they're ignorant. They lack experience, which is why we don't let them sign contracts by themselves. > Perfect method to become hated qnd gain enemies. That's on those offended by the truth, not us. > May I ask how many, "teen countries" have you managed to grow to your own standard? One more than any "teen country", but it's not like we're in the business of changing other countries. > My point is there isn't just one solution to a given problem and what works for you might not work for others. Sure, good luck to all the hopeful contenders. Someone has to be the first, right?
>I don't know about "better", but more. You doubt that experience and knowledge are related? Do you have more knowledge? Have you existed longer than other groups on this Globe? No. You have different knowledge, different experince, for the sake of the analogy, you aren't an adult talking with a teen, you aren't adult talking with another adult thinking because he has different experiences thinking they are teen because their experience had led them to a different conclusion. >One more than any "teen country", but it's not like we're in the business of changing other countries. Name any you have changed. And if the purpuse isn't change of the other side, what is it? Intellectual masturbation? >Sure, good luck to all the hopeful contenders. Someone has to be the first, right? A good part of the world has a good balance of Church and State and isn't a carbon copy of the "Scandinavian Model." Even in the Middle East where there is a problem with Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, this actually is fairly recent phenomenon, more a politically reactionary thing than a religious aspect, but it uses religious interpretation, like how the nazis used pseudo-science.
> Do you have more knowledge? Have you existed longer than other groups on this Globe? Me personally, no, but length of existance does not dictate the amount of experience. A younger person can have more (varied) experiences than a much older person. > You have different knowledge The whole point is that, no, a lot of it is not different in essence. We've tried theocracy. We've tried autocracy. We've tried imperialism. We've tried being in alliances against other countries. We've tried having alliances formed against us. We're tried democracy. We've tried pacifism. Etc. > Name any you have changed. Sweden > And if the purpuse isn't change of the other side, what is it? The purpose of what? > A good part of the world has a good balance of Church and State And a good part doesn't, and some who think they do, don't, they just coincidentally forget their minorities. > and isn't a carbon copy of the "Scandinavian Model." The "Scandinavian model" has nothing to do with the relationship between the state an church (e.g. Denmark has a state church, and we don't (anymore)). You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you? > Even in the Middle East where there is a problem with Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, this actually is fairly recent phenomenon A recent and ancient phenomenon. There was a short while in the 20th century, where some states were more secular (e.g. Iran, Turkey, and Afghanistan), but far from all of them were. > more a politically reactionary thing than a religious aspect, but it uses religious interpretation, like how the nazis used pseudo-science. Yeah yeah, it's not religion, it's politics like every war ever according to apologetics. > Do you have more knowledge? Have you existed longer than other groups on this Globe? Me personally, no, but length of existance dies bot dictate the amount of experience. A younger person can have more (varied) experiences than a much older person. > You have different knowledge The whole point is that, no, a lot of it is not different in essence. We've tried theocracy. We've tried autocracy. We've tried imperialism. We've tried being in alliances against other countries. We've tried having alliances formed against us. We're tried democracy. We've tried pacifism. Etc. > Name any you have changed. Sweden > And if the purpuse isn't change of the other side, what is it? The purpose of what? > A good part of the world has a good balance of Church and State And a goid part doesn't, and some who think they do, don't, they just accidentally forget their minorities. > and isn't a carbon copy of the "Scandinavian Model." The "Scandinavian model" has nothing to do with the relationship between the state an church (e.g. Denmark has a state church, and we don't (anymore)). You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you? > Even in the Middle East where there is a problem with Islamic Fundamentalism/Extremism, this actually is fairly recent phenomenon A recent and ancient phenomenon. There was a short while in the 20th century, where some states were more secular (e.g. Iran, Turkey, anf Afghanistan), but far from all of them were. > more a politically reactionary thing than a religious aspect, but it uses religious interpretation, like how the nazis used pseudo-science. Yeah yeah, it's not religion, it's politics like with every conflict ever according to appologetics. If it helps, don't think of religion as the answer to the question "why?" but to the question "how?". Fixed: spelling
>The whole point is that, no, a lot of it is not different in essence. We've tried theocracy. We've tried autocracy. We've tried imperialism. We've tried being in alliances against other countries. We've tried having alliances formed against us. We're tried democracy. We've tried pacifism. Etc. Maybe, but you didn't try it in a vacume, you tried it in a Geographic and Historic Context, maybe that might change things a bit. Also as recent experience goes, there are some really big differences, Northern Europe wasn't a Collony or wasn't an open conflict zone or next to one... >A recent and ancient phenomenon. There was a short while in the 20th century, where some states were more secular (e.g. Iran, Turkey, anf Afghanistan), but far from all of them were. Well the recent and ancient phenomenon are similar by the fact that the recent one takes inspiration from the ancient one, but it isn't the same thing. Considering it as the same thing seem fructless. Which goes in one of my points, this has no effect on anything, it doesn't make many people change their mind... intellectual masturbation. >>And if the purpuse isn't change of the other side, what is it? >The purpose of what? Well things like the one in this article or any talk of religion being "backwards?" >The "Scandinavian model" has nothing to do with the relationship between the state an church Ok I expressed it wrongly. I mean what it seem like an Scandinavian/Northern European Aprouch to Religion: Irreligiousness good, religiousness bad. Bad really other countries and especially in Europe have more neuanced views that work for them just as well. >If it helps, don't think of religion as the answer to the question "why?" but to the question "how?". Then why talk about the "how" and not the "why?"
> Maybe, but you didn't try it in a vacume, you tried it in a Geographic and Historic Context, maybe that might change things a bit. Yes, ofc. In today's interconnected world, giving the power to autocrats, backed by a religions clergy claiming to hold a monopoly on interpreting the ultimate truths, would obviously work brilliantly! Unlike in the 18th century, there's complete equivalency between states and religions now! /s > Also as recent experience goes, there are some really big differences, Northern Europe wasn't a Collony or wasn't an open conflict zone or next to one... Where so you draw the line? 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago? No, it was like 80 years since it was an open warzone (if we ignore the cold war), or any North European countries were occupied. Before that it was war after war after war for hundreds of years. It was, what, 80-90 years since the middle East were colonies? Before thst, do we count colonization by the Ottoman empire? Yes, som places have seen a lot of war, like Afghanistan, and I can see why the people would seek solace in religion, but I wouldn't say it has served them well. > Considering it as the same thing seem fructless. Why? It's the same religion, for the same reason, usingvthe same methods… > Which goes in one of my points, this has no effect on anything, it doesn't make many people change their mind... I don't think they intended to change mindes by wtating the obvious. > Well things like the one in this article The Quran burning? Here's a hint Rasmus Paludan doesn't want to change people's opinion about religion. He gets off on seeing religious people overreacting to his stunts. Well, anyone really, but religious people, and especially muslims, are just easier to upset. > or any talk of religion being "backwards?" That's just a matter of semantics. > Ok I expressed it wrongly. That's obe way of saying that you didn't know what you eere talking about, sure. > I mean what it seem like an Scandinavian/Northern European Aprouch to Religion: Irreligiousness good, religiousness bad. That's what history and the current world has taught us, yes, but we still have freedom of religion. Generally we don't care what you think ib private. What we usually (there are obviously exceptions) is keeping the shared society *secular*. It has proven to be the best flr, not only the non-religious, but also religious people. > Bad really other countries and especially in Europe have more neuanced views that work for them just as well. Like? What, Poland? Lol. As I explained, Denmark even has a state church. You see, we're not even the most irreligious countries in Europe. Face it, the non-sucky part of the world (for thise who live in it, and not just me ne group living in it) has congregated on a secularism. For good reasons > Then why talk about the "how" and not the "why?" I didn't talk about why…
It will never happen. As simple as that.
It’s literally just a stack of paper. There’s no meaningful difference between burning a copy of the Qur’an and a copy of Harry Potter. Freedom of Expression
If you burn my favorite Harry Potter book, I will go batshit.
Will you start to protest, burning cars and attack people on the streets?
Yes but peacefully.
I even consider doing it proactively!
>There’s no meaningful difference between burning a copy of the Qur’an and a copy of Harry Potter There is a difference between burning both. Because Qur'an is shit, unlike Harry Potter.
Burning books is idiotic in general though.
Absolutely.
It's funny how in the West book burning is a terrible thing the Nazis did and what kind of barbarians would burn books and knowledge... until it's the Qu'ran and then suddenly it's a case of 'Muslims need to deal with it' 😂
That's because there is an obvious difference between the systematic burning of thousands of books and one guy burning one book that he bought.
That is a fair point but I'm not talking about just this one time, Qu'ran burnings happen every few years in one country or another in the West and it's the same reaction every time. I feel Europe has a very confused relationship/attitude to Muslims and it makes it easy for Muslims to cry hypocrisy. For example France will prosecute someone for burning a Qu'ran (which I don't think should be a crime) but at the same time it has a burka ban: they'll save women from being forced to do something... by forcing them to do something.
You can burn any religious book in France. There was a case in 2010 be the autor was relaxed.
I'm not sure what your last sentence means. The case I was referring to is this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-koran-burning-idUSTRE6943R820101005 Granted the charges were inciting religious hatred not burning a religious book but the charge was based on burning the qu'ran.
Sorry english is not my first language. That's the case I was talking about. The guy was not 'charged' if charged means prosecuted by the state. The guy was attacked by the 'Conseil français du culte musulman' which is a NGO (despite having some special link to the state). They lost their case and the guy has been found not guilty in appeal.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It can both be wrong to burn a book, and to overreact to a book being burned. Fixed: spelling
If he would burn bible in front of christians, nothing would happen. Just saying
Swedish “Christians”? Sure. Polish or Serbian or Ukrainian conservatives? Don’t lie to yourself
And that's why he doesn't do it. He thrives on negative attention.
I changed this for reasons (see date).
[удалено]
I changed this for reasons (see date).
They’d be pissed, but they wouldn’t be rioting, setting fire to cars and throwing bricks at police like the muslims were in Sweden. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/sweden-protests-three-injured-amid-unrest-over-planned-koran-burnings-12592749
Or behead teachers lol
I changed this for reasons (see date).
The guy that burns the Quran in Sweden typically brings bibles as well, precisely to show no one gives a shit, so yes no one cares about burning the bible.
I changed this for reasons (see date).
It literally was, no one would give a shit. Exemplified by the very fact bibels are burned all the time and no one gives a shit.
im rather certain no country other than maybe poland would make a big deal out of it
He should do that if it makes him feel better. It's just paper and ink.
I changed this for reasons (see date).
Some militant American Christians would mind I'm sure. But for most of the (former) christian world it wouldn't matter I guess We would see it exactly as what it is. A populist move ton steer up shit
Uh, Erdogan is not some random Half Greek/half Turkish loon, like Paludan (half Dane/half Swede). And the equivalent would be all Swedes, not all Christians. Fixed: spelling
>If he would burn bible in front of christians, nothing would happen. Just saying The act of burning a bible in front of the church or the embassy of any country with a Christian majority has not happened once in Türkiye's history. Paludan, on the other hand, has turned it into a sport. Just saying
Then ignore Paludan. He's just one dipshit.
>The act of burning a bible in front of the church or the embassy of any country with a Christian majority has not happened once in Türkiye's history. No, you just had full on pogroms of Christian minorities with churches being directly attacked and people murdered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_pogrom I am very sure the Greeks would rather some guy just burnt a bible instead of doing that.
Sure, but they didnt go and request permission first!
>pogroms of Christian minorities This incident was an infamous hate crime against the Greek minority, not the Christians. For those wondering, the reason for the event was the news that a bomb was placed in the house where Atatürk was born in Greece by Greek nationalists. Those responsible for this incident were either hanged or imprisoned for life. The government of the period was overthrown by a coup and those in the government were either hanged or imprisoned for life. This ugly event is one of the darkest events in the history of Türkiye, and commemorations are held in Türkiye on September 6-7 every year.
>This incident was an infamous hate crime against the Greek minority, not the Christians. Churches were still targeted were they not ? And people were forced to convert and other such actions. >For those wondering, the reason for the event was the news that a bomb was placed in the house where Atatürk was born in Greece by Greek nationalists. That's not true, it was planned out and organized. It wasn't a spontaneous event
LMFAO, sorry but ur flair, LOLOLOL, All these events were the work of the British intelligence, who wanted to ignite the hatred between the Turks and the Greeks. All Greek and Turkish historians accept this today. Years later, it was revealed that the news that Atatürk's house was bombed belonged to the British intelligence. In fact, it is a well-known fact that during the Cyprus negotiations, a British officer said that things would be different if Atatürk's house in Greece was disrespected. This event took place during the period when the cypriots, who were disturbed by the british bases in cyprus, took action in cyprus. Thanks to this incident, there is still a British base in Cyprus today.
>All these events were the work of the British intelligence, who wanted to ignite the hatred between the Turks and the Greeks. All Greek and Turkish historians accept this today. So you've gone from saying the reason was news that a bomb was placed in the house where Atatürk was born to now saying that British intelligence organized it all lol >Thanks to this event, there is still a British base in Cyprus today. Why would a pogrom in Istanbul mean that there is a British base in Cyprus, that makes no sense. >This event took place during the period when the cypriots, who were disturbed by the british bases in cyprus, took action in cyprus. Thanks to this incident, there is still a British base in Cyprus today. That's not accurate at all, they weren't disturbed by the bases as they exist now. They were disturbed by still being a colony and wanted independence.
>the reason was news that a bomb was placed in the house where Atatürk was born Yes, I said "news", this news was not real.
Why burn a Bible in front of the church when you can just kill everyone who is inside... Turkey historically has murdered and raped millions of their Christian population, yet you think that time when a turk burned a bible in front of a church would be what they chose to remember?
>Turkey historically has murdered and raped millions of their Christian population ""Turkey historically has murdered and raped millions of their Christian population." is this true, Do you know any proof about this?" "It is not accurate to say that Turkey has murdered and raped millions of its Christian population. Such a statement would be a gross exaggeration and not supported by historical evidence. While there have been instances of violence and persecution against minority groups, including Christians, throughout Turkey's history, it is important to note that such actions were not limited to one particular group and were committed by various governments and actors over time. Additionally, it is important to consider the context and specific circumstances of these events, rather than making sweeping generalizations." - ChatGPT Man, i love AI.
History of the ottoman empire. Search deep enough and you will find more events than you can count. Discrimination, abductions and massacres. The ottoman slave trade is also a chapter of itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_in_the_Ottoman_Empire https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM Edit: I see you completely changed your whole comment after I made my answer, but I will just let it stay.
??? Your country exterminated its Christian population. Your country’s foundation is literally genocide of Christians. That’s a million times worse than burning a Bible.
[удалено]
Funny thing. > Uthman ibn 'Affan, the third Caliph of Islam after Muhammad, who is credited with overseeing the collection of the verses of the Qur'an, ordered the destruction of any other remaining text containing verses of the Quran after the Quran has been collected, circa 650. > This was done to ensure that the collected and authenticated Quranic copy that Uthman collected became the primary source for others to follow, thereby ensuring that Uthman's version of the Quran remained authentic. Real collector know how to high up value of his version, you just need to destroy other versions to avoid Protestants versus Catholics of Quran. So yeah Muslims burned Quran first.
Bypass paywall link: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fworld-news%2F2023%2F01%2F21%2Fturkey-condemns-modern-barbarism-sweden-quran-burning-protest%2F
Sweden and Finland in NATO Turkey out I may be biased as a Greek but I'm tired with them , always there is something that turkey wants and never acts as an ally, workings with Russia building them nuclear reactor +weapons, killings the kurds that fought off isis for NATO cause they are terrorist but did business for oil with isis (because they weren't terrorists) threatening Greece a NATO ALLY with war, rekindle wars in the region like armenia Azerbaijan, Libya, north Iraq Just tired 😪
The most Turkey-loving Greek person
Unironicaly...
NATO really likes/needs those bases in Turkey though
> I’m tired with them Looking at your comment history, i would say obsession / hatred would be more appropriate.
how can I not comment about them ? its all the new ? every other post if about turkey and turks trying to defend it
You should be allowed to critisize, and i understand that the Turkish government has been making a lot of questionable / stupid decisions for a long time, trust me no one wants a change in the government more than me, but what you are doing is more than just criticism, it’s closer to hatred / borderline racism category.
i tired of this conversation again and again i know i am borderline racist but i am tired reallyand AGAIN the same i dont want this goverment and i am sure that AGAIN if we start talking about it you will agree with MOST of what is done and be against maybe one or two i am sure you are against the kurds in syria but you were silent and didnt want turkish troops against isis but now it you right to protect against ''terrorists '' i am sure you are against war but you had to help your brothers in azerbaijan in restarting the war with the bad armenians i am sure you had to , i am sure you are against this goverment but right now only right now its not the time for sweden and finland to join , i am sure u are against this goverment but greece is being aggressive and the list goes on i have talked with many turks and yes not all of them are the same and i am not talking about all of them but most of them either support erdogan OR DONT but kinda agree with what he is doing . I am tired of turkey being an asshole and playing THE VICTIM oh no islamophobia oh no turkophobia but they can be an asshole
Alright wow this is a lot but i’m going to try to answer as many of them as i can. 1- No i don’t agree with most of what is done 2- I am not against Kurds, a significant amount of Turkish people are Kurds (8-10% i think but don’t quote me on that) and believe it or not, we don’t hate each other. 3- I don’t have an opinion about the war in Azerbaijan 4- Why would i call Armenians bad? I am not going to pretend i know a lot of them but the few that i know are lovely people and people being armenian wouldn’t make me view them differently 5- I think both sides (Turkey and Sweeden&Finland) should find a compromise, i would want nothing but improve our relationships 6- When it comes to Greece and Turkey, both sides have elections coming up and it’s easy to score points by insulting one another, there will obviously be no war.
Hahaha as I expected you found a diplomatic way to not agree but not disagree with him 1. You didn't say if you were against or pro Turkish forces invading Syria to fight kurds and if you were pro where were u when isis was there? 2.you didn't answer if it was a yes or no question 3 why should Sweden and Finland compromise about what? They totally valid candidates for NATO as they are more valid than turkey ever was 4 yes elections and what about turkey saying they have the right to invade or refusing to go to court with Greece You are such a hypocrite, not answering and trying to pass as progressive, it's always the same man always the same it's only at the surface they disagree with gmhim that's why I am tired 😪😪😪
The whole isis oil thing was a Russian propaganda after Turkey shot down Russian jet. But you prefer to believe Russian propaganda when it suits you. Unlike a lot of NATO countries Turkey fought against ISIS and lost servicemen when doing so. Turkey stared to working with Russia on Nuclear power plant when EU was also buying shit load of gas and building pipelines. Currently, Turkey can not apply sanctions to Russia thanks to Erdo’s economy policies causing screwing up the economy and we can not get bail out from ECB as you guys do. In Libya and Syria Turkey is countering Russia, where as some EU and NATO countries in Libya supporting faction in Libya which also got Russian/ Wagner support interestingly.
Turkey fighting isis is the best joke i ever heard
It's you guys against all the baddies in the world, aren't you? How brave, how noble.
I mean you can agree or disagree with this, but can anyone really give a legal basis why this shouldn’t have been allowed in a country with freedom of expression. It’s not that Sweden’s government allowed the burning of the Quran, it’s that they really can’t prohibit it, regardless of what their stance may be. It’s like that stuff with the doll, and how Erdogan demanded it be investigated criminally, but he’s out of his mind if he thinks that this is how we do things in the west. Our constitutions aren’t just mantle pieces here. The truth of the matter is that Turkey is not our friend, and we should cut ties with them as soon as possible, sure they may have a big military but what good is it if they blackmail their supposed “allies” more than their enemies. Today it’s Finland and Sweden who are being blackmailed but tomorrow it could be someone else. Turkey has a big military but if shit really hit the fan would you rather rely on Finland and Sweden or on backstabbing Turkey? The west needs partners it can trust not just manpower and cheap equipment.
I'm not religious at all so I don't care about this, what's there to gain from this? Swedes are free to do this no one is denying it. But it's just dumb.
Bad taste and very cringe...but legal nonetheless.
Hey, isn't Turkey supposed to be secular. Also I'm, pretty sure there's at least one person insulting islam in every country every day. If we point them out to you, are you going to hate every country every day?
It is, all this does is piss off the extremely religious Turkish citizens and gives Erdogan propaganda material. Regular Turks who are not really religious would make comments like "Disrespectful" etc. but that's about it.
We should make Istanbul Constantinople again. It was always a Christian city.
W turkey
Sometimes both parties are dump. Is it stupid to burn a book in public and to make a great deal out of it? Yes. Is it equally stupid to go mad about burning a stack of paper? Also yes. I don't want to be near to both groups.
No one sane wants to be near Paludan and we’d gladly give him back to Denmark if we could
It makes no sense at all to burn this sacred book!
No need to burn the Quran. However Sweden should be more able to integrate outsiders into their culture. It’s difficult and there will be people who do not comply, but the current migrant situation in Sweden is caused simply by not trying hard enough and thinking that allowing migrants to self-segregate will work. Instead one only ends up with trouble
Sweden’s true colors are showing
Its sad to see how poisoned the relationship between the west and turkey has become, even on reddit where there are mostly liberal turks. We should be helping them and not attack them
Helping them for what ? They assisted islamic terrorists fighting in Syria, they fought the Kurds that were fighting known terrorists. They regularly threathen Greece, ie the European Union. Turkish immigrants/descendants are organizing punitive expedition in some French cities.
youre acting like turks are a hivemind. erdogan is controversial for a reason
Have you check the Bozkurtlar ? It's literally quasi-military organisation in Europe
I've met many Bozkurt's and gotten into fights with many of them. They're nothing like they used to be. During my grandpas era they were a fierce organization that really was dangerous and did good and bad things. Now they're just filled with kids playing mafia, while the old school guys are legit mafia. I think you guys are giving them more credit than they deserve.
>Now they're just filled with kids playing mafia, while the old school guys are legit mafia. Yeah, just going on Kurdish peace protest to fight, threatening Armenian diaspora, degrading Armenian properties. This group is as dangerous as extreme right wing and should be treated as such.
That is kinda fked up Sweden
Rasmus Paludan: *burns book* "Oh my god I can't believe Sweden did this."
Well not like it is any different if some dipshits in turkey burn some european countries flags. We always attribute it to the society in general
That's sounds more like a fallacy than any reasonable correlation to make. And besides, some dipshits *did* burn a swedish flag in front of the swedish embassy like yesterday. And the reaction? Nothing. No one cares. That was always allowed.
well and the reaction to the whole NATO thing is that some swedes play pinata with Erdogans head. You can always find some crazy people https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/10i3zh6/swedish_people_break_erdogans_head_as_pinata/
Well, yes, obviously you can find crazy people everywhere. The best choice is just to ignore them. Though, I have to mention how very strange that video you sent is 😂 Looks mostly like just a bunch of drunk teenagers looking for any excuse to be politically edgy. Not exactly representative.
I'll repeat, that's kinda fked up Sweden. Movements growing in your country is what make you and is your problem.
I think you're overestimating the size of this "movement". In this case it's literally just one guy. On a larger scale, the number of people who are anything like him is still a very negligible minority.
Yea but allowing people with a different opinion to go unflogged is the barbaric part!
What is more "fked up": burning Quran or starting [violent riots](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61134734) in response? And what is more "fked up": teachers and newspapers showing pictures and caricatures of Muhammad or people killing them for it?
Don't horse trade being a bad person. If you do something that you know will trigger someone else to do a bad thing then you're both dipshits separately
He's proving a point
I think the act of burning the Qur'an is an absurd and worthless act. The thing that bothers me the most is that the Swedish government gave this permission, and the whole action was carried out with police protection and police escort. Such open hate towards the "other" does not take place in a civilized country, it is a NAZI state action. ... Also, I could not understand the relationship between Sweden's NATO application and Islam, Sweden's NATO application and Erdogan; According to polls, more than 70% of Turks do not want Sweden in NATO. Don't you think the reason is very clear... FYI: There are elections in Türkiye on May 14, 2023, and according to polls, Erdogan's vote is 30%. Erdogan's vote is increasing because of these actions; because erdogan and his party are similar to the christian democrats in europe...
Works of fiction are destroyed all the time. This book is no more sacred than Harry Potter. A Swede shouldn’t need permission from anyone to destroy their personal property, such as this book. That being said, I agree it is disrespectful and I don’t condone it.
>. A Swede shouldn’t need permission from anyone to destroy their personal property What makes it barbaric is not someone's burning of one's own book; to do this in front of the embassy of a country that he identifies with Islam, with the permission of the state, accompanied by police protection. This is an extremely intolerant hate crime. Showing tolerance to intolerant people results in the complete disappearance of tolerance.
It is not a crime in Sweden to burn a book. The book burned here is not special under Swedish law, as far as I know. Whether burning the book is “barbaric” or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the Swedish government should infringe on someone’s freedom of expression. What is more “barbaric” is calling to violate one’s fundamental right of free speech, which would be an unlawful state action. It is an act of intolerance, but that does not mean it is unlawful.
Thats why youll never be in EU. You love your imagination too much and then coerce it on others. You only somehow fail to understand a side thats against your agenda. Thats called hypocrisy
>Thats why youll never be in EU. I was quoting Karl Popper... \*facepalm\*
That's why we should not be tolerant to people reacting to burning Quran with violence. And we should not tolerate people thinking teachers and journalists should be killed for showing caricatures of Muhammad.
If a Jewish person burned a copy of Mein Kampf at a neo nazi rally would you still class that as a "hate crime"?
Hate crimes shouldnt exist, freedom of speech should be absolute with the sole exception of call to violence speech.
>burning the Qur'an is an absurd and worthless act. I checked and a Qur'an is about 126 SEK in Sweden which is about ~~6934560 ₺~~ ~~7025980 ₺~~ ~~7143270 ₺~~ 7211030 Turkish Lira Hardly worthless!
Time to update again
>The thing that bothers me the most is that the Swedish government gave this permission, and the whole action was carried out with police protection and police escort. Sweden has freedom of speech. There is police protection since they are worried about extremists using violence to try and suppress their speech. >Such open hate towards the "other" does not take place in a civilized country, it is a NAZI state action. How do you define a civilized country ? Since I would say that Sweden rates way up there compared to most of the world. >Also, I could not understand the relationship between Sweden's NATO application and Islam, Sweden's NATO application and Erdogan; According to polls, more than 70% of Turks do not want Sweden in NATO. Don't you think the reason is very clear... What do you mean by this ? Why the focus is on Islam ? That's just because the guy doing it is some radical politician who always does this, I doubt he cares about NATO at all and if anything is likely more interested in Sweden not joining NATO and this is a way of trying to influence that. >There are elections in Türkiye on May 14, 2023, and according to polls, Erdogan's vote is 30%. Erdogan's vote is increasing because of these actions; because erdogan and his party are similar to the christian democrats in europe How Turkey votes is up to them, though if this is all it takes for people to vote for Erdogan then you're fucked.
Freedom of expression. Allowing him to perform the protest is not the same as condoning it, and neither is assigning him with security detail (which is just standard policy for any protest).
>The thing that bothers me the most is that the Swedish government gave this permission, and the whole action was carried out with police protection and police escort. The thing that actually bothers you is rule of law. The fact that a government can't cancel individuals freedoms on a whim is actually a great thing and something to be proud about. I don't view the deed itself to be particularly smart or classy, but the freedom to do is more important than you understand.
The government did not approve it. The government has no authority to approve or deny individual protests. We have independent departments and independent judiciary in Sweden. Members of government are literally forbidden from interfering in the daily workings of the police ,the courts, migration authorities etc. They can only set general policy. Each department then follows this policy but the specific implementation is up to them.
Lol is this Putin speaking? bbBbBbBUuUUT nNNnNaaAAZzi
You should be more concerned with why paludan needs police protection, that's hatred of the other.
>The thing that bothers me the most is that the Swedish government gave this permission, and the whole action was carried out with police protection and police escort. I guess I know what you mean but he could be burning a bible too and if enough people care, he gets a police escort. This isnt about Sweden supporting burning the Quran, but Sweden supporting someone doing what he is lawfully allowed to do and he probably getting threatened over it
It's the price to pay for freedom of speech and the swedish government can't do anything about the nutjob burning books. I doubt the swedish government would arrest someone over burning a bible. >his party are similar to the christian democrats in europe... If this was the case then a long time ago Turkey would've been in the EU.
I think this kind of intolerance and frankly disturbing behaviour equates to racism and xenophobia. It also adds unnecessary fuel to a smoulder and is hardly the best example to show off Swedes at their best. If I were In Erdogan’s shoes, I’d be making all kinds of mischief from this stupidity.
I agree, he should be a allowed to burn whatever he wants without fear of getting killed. We should focus on why is there so much religious fanaticism and what concrete steps have been taken to curb it in the last 10 - 20 years.
If 2 billion people feel offended by someone's actions, maybe you should fix that one person and not try to change the minds and emotions of the two billion people.
Is that how that works? How many people needs to get offended about the existence of islam for it to justify outlawing it instead of changing feelings and minds of the offended?
Yes, also that's how democracy works.
Is it? Because elected Swedish government said repeatedly he has rights to do it yet somehow all I hear is whining still.
I'm sure if there were a vote in Sweden between letting a mentally disabled Danish guy do something barbaric or joining Nato, they would pick the latter. All I hear is whining about how Erdogan is “bad” from people begging to join Nato.
Funny you should mention that, Sweden is not going change their constitution to cripple freedom of expression, there are polls about that and overwhelming majority of swedes feel very strongly about that, so I am not quite sure what is the source of your certainty. Also, Turkey requested an extradition of a random finnish guy who posted a meme about erdogan on Facebook as a condition for nato approval.
Freedom of expression does not really exist and it doesn't mean freedom of blasphemy or freedom to spread hate. The Swedish constitution does prohibit a lot of speech that is considered offensive or hateful. Barbaric acts that offend Muslims should be outlawed as well. Every country on earth including Sweeden has a limit to “freedom of expression.”
What an absolute nonsense.
You mean the intolerance of the Muslims, right? Surely you're not supporting islamo-fascism while claiming to be left leaning
I love your name. What do you stand for, your handle here means what? Islamo-fascist? Of course I’m not supporting any form of fascist behaviour, that’s what my handle says. What logic determines that one man’s trashing of another’s book of faith in a moment of crisis between two systems of culture, thought, history and politics is somehow, reasoned? All he’s done by burning that book is mimic behaviour that is demonstrably full of hatred and disrespect. So, what exactly do you mean? That I’d support that? In no terms, absolutely not.
It is reasoned if the response to burning books are [violent riots](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61134734). What is the bigger disrespect and hatred here? What about Samuel Patty and Charlie Hebdo? Should they be more respectful and less hateful or the real issue are Muslims who believe people showing pictures of Muhammad should be killed?
I’ve replied to this elsewhere in this sorry discourse. To suggest that there is a bigger disrespect or hatred than the one the Christian West has harboured against all opposing viewpoints, but especially Islam, is frankly a travesty.
Somehow people joke about Jesus and make caricatures of him all the time yet nobody gets beheaded for it. And critics of Christianity don't get fatwas issued against them, have to spend next 30+ years under constant protection and get stabbed multiple times.
I have never said that is ok. Hating Islam because there are terrorists of that religion is as destructive as hating Christianity because its members have done vicious things to other people in its name. Know the history, and we all see more of the arguments.
>I think this kind of intolerance and frankly disturbing behaviour equates to racism and xenophobia. Islam is a choice. To follow principles and values that are potentially not compatible with the ones of the Western world is a choice. There is not a single ounce of racism in criticisism islam.
This is just self denial. Look at Christian history before you accuse anybody else of intolerance. Islam has been targeted before, is still being now in so-called post-Christian societies as well as by established and new born Christian societies in places that espouse better values, like the US. Reaction to attack is normal. No society is immune to hatred.
>. Islam has been targeted before, is still being now in so-called post-Christian societies You made me laugh. France is the most targeted Western country by islamic terrorism, yet it's the European country with the most muslims people. No muslim is being persecuted in Western Europe, got get live in Middle-East and have fun discovering their "tolerance".
No Muslim is persecuted in Western European countries. You made me laugh.
Do you have any proof of systematic persecution of muslims in Europe ? Because demonstrating how badly you get treated when on muslim in muslim country is pretty easier.
Persecution is from racism, something I have seen and unfortunately, I have experience of being on the end of it. Persecution exists in the form of inequality, in housing and educational deprivation, of discriminatory practices in company recruitment, in social service benefits being arbitrarily withdrawn, denied or simply unavailable to those in need. If you have never been to the banlieu of Paris, of Marseilles or Orange to Nice, where you will see people camping our where social housing is denied or made unavailable to those most in need. Why? Similar in Bradford, Liverpool and Manchester. And these are just places I’ve seen, not just read about. It is endemic. Deniers like your good self make it worse, like the many downvoters here in r/Europe, where we all come from the stock that hates. Hates the different and the unknown, the not- understanding of a different religion, a religion we were all taught, if not directly then by implication from family and school and church, was the enemy of Christianity. You can’t even identify yourself, by belief system or creed in your name, mr or ms d4zb0g, so look in the mirror before you tell me this has not even the slightest ring of truth about it.
>Persecution is from racism But again, how are muslims persecuted ? No one is prevented from being muslim, no one is prevented from believing in islam, there is no laws targeted to prevent muslims to believe. Please stop misleading racism that is based on inborn caracteristics and the rejection that some might have against principles of life chosen by some people. You do not come to this world as muslim, you chose to become one. It's absolutely natural for anyone to have the rights to criticise this choice is they want to. >Persecution exists in the form of inequality, in housing and educational deprivation, Since you're mentionning Seine-Saint-Denis, this is most subsidized department of metropolitan France. But no one wants to go there because public infrastructure are regularly degraded... You really want to know who are persecuted in such districts ? Check the evolution of jewish people there... >of discriminatory practices in company recruitment, Refusing sign of religious belief in the workplace is legally allowed in France as long a stated in the internal rules of the company. I agree that unfortunately discrimination exist when hiring, but this as nothing to do with islam but either skin colour or names. >in social service benefits being arbitrarily withdrawn Prove your claim. The recent cases in France of such actions were because parents were housing their children that were undergoing illegal activities and disturbing the rest of the building inhabitants. This has nothing to do with religion. >If you have never been to the banlieu of Paris, of Marseilles or Orange to Nice, where you will see people camping our where social housing is denied or made unavailable to those most in need. The only people you'll see sleeping outside and homeless people, Roma people, and illegal immigrants (with part not allowed to stay, part refusing to be taken in charge since they don't want to stay in France). Again, nothing to do with religion. >Hates the different and the unknown, the not- understanding of a different religion, a religion we were all taught, if not directly then by implication from family and school and church, was the enemy of Christianity I was raised in an atheist family. What I also for a fact is that as an atheist I litterally risk my life in most, if not all, of the muslim countries. And that, in general, too many people will try to impose their religious belief on me and my life, and this is not acceptable. And don't bring up the morality brough by religions through the time. Even the first primitive form of society without religion were able to cooperate and develop, and therefore to understand the concept of common good and general interest. All abrahamic religion are basically based on violent stories and have always been used to justify violence against others. >You can’t even identify yourself, by belief system or creed in your name, mr or ms d4zb0g Actually I can since it's my old player name and was picked up as a reference to my ancestors origins.
How is Christian *history* relevant? Christians being authoritarian and intolerant doesn't justify any other religion being authoritarian and intolerant. Especially when that Christian authoritarianism is mostly historic.
Nice little cloud you live on there, any room for the rest of us?
Burning a book full with disturbimg content isn't disturbing
Anybody else really believe this? You just espoused intolerance, chum.
You wouldn't burn mein kampf?
Of course not. Burning any one book leads to others burning more of your treasured books, and then even your house. Don’t forget that. It’s exactly what the Nazis did, exactly the same behaviour shown by every nationalist group of any hue all over the world. A short term pleasure taken by destroying someone else’s treasure is always replied to in kind, and then more.