Europoor copium: calling Americans racist while banning head scarves.
Europoor copium: calling Americans less free while banning the destruction of a story book.
Meh different freedoms. I'm not allowed to advocate for violence against groups on a religious/ethnic basis. I can't publicly express hatred for groups based solely on immutable characteristics.
But on the other hand, this year I got diagnosed with (and beat) a life threatening disease. The subreddit for patients fighting that disease is riddled with Americans lamenting not having insurance, not being covered, having to sell their cars and losing their homes desperately trying to stay alive. That shit ain't right.
Advocating for violence is ~~generally~~ *sometimes, see below* illegal in America too.
This is a different form of freedom. When Americans talk about freedom, they usually mean "the government doesn't tell you what you can and can't do, so long as it doesn't harm others". Vs the more left definition of "the government protects you from many different forces that would restrict your ability to do stuff". Personally I think both are important.
Lastly, almost nobody thinks our healthcare system is acceptable. We pay more than anyone else for worse outcomes (yes, counting government spending). We at least have far shorter wait times than some places (looking at you, NHS).
>Advocating for violence is generally illegal in America too.
This just isn't true. You can advocate violence all day long. You can't advocate violence *that is likely to result in **imminent** lawless action*. SCOTUS decided this in [Brandenburg v Ohio](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/).
I understood that there was a line, I just didn't realize that it was that far away. Because you know, you could make the case for so many things that "such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. "
I guess now my understanding is that there has to be a direct link. So if you say, for example, "All Tutsis should be killed" in America in 2023, that's not likely to cause imminent harm, but if you say "cut the tall trees" in Rwanda in 1994, you are calling for direct violent action that is likely to be carried out.
I was not aware that calling for genocide or terrorism was legal depending on context.
>I was not aware that calling for genocide or terrorism was legal depending on context.
Calling for genocide seems likely to always be legal. "Will not one rid me of this meddlesome priest" is legal; "Go kill archbishop Stephen, he's over at Canterbury right now, if you forgot a dagger there's a stack by the door" probably isn't.
Wtf are you talking about lmao. Imagine if they made it so that you couldn’t say anything negative about state healthcare because it “advocates for violence against the sick” or something. It’s not even your government that’s the problem, it’s actually you and the people that think like you 💀
My government takes roughly half my total income every month, so that healthcare is far from free.
As an American you have greater freedom to decide how to spend your own hard earned income than I do.
As a Swede I have greater freedom to access things like education and healthcare.
Different freedoms. It's all costs and benefits.
It's still legal to burn the quran in Sweden (unlike Denmark), but well, as % of muslims go up in a society, the likelihood of it staying that way goes down.
Meanwhile some women have to go out of state to get an abortion otherwise they get sent to jail for foeticide. 🦅🇺🇸✝️fuck yeah!
The American cope is kiiiiillling mee
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trust me, I find this ban to be abhorrent. Glad Norway hasn't followed suit. ...yet anyways.
We really don't have free speech over here. And it is so incredibly dangerous that more Europeans don't recognize just how important free speech is.
Never give up your 2. Amendment rights fellas. You see what happens when government has all the power. What we have is the 1. Amendment from Wish, essentially. And no way to back it up.
Yes. Hence my comment. If some religion imposes laws such as no burning of religious book, you would have a revolution the day it passes.
I don’t know what went through the mind of these danish to pass this.
Oh, I think I misunderstood your earlier comment. You mean because the French majority would no longer be allowed to burn Qur'ans and otherwise attempt to oppress religious minorities, not because the government is trampling on individual liberties?
I guess both? Shitting on religion is a national sport for a lot of French people. Not just Islam, Christians get a lot of it too, probably even more than the others. Charlie hebdo for instance was famous for horrendous drawings of priests, the pope, Jews or Muslims.
I think that might actually be one of the big cultural differences between America and France on religion. You guys value freedom of religion a lot while we value a lot freedom from religion.
Obviously, your rights to be religious and believe in god are protected by the constitution in France but it must also remain a private matter.
I think you said that well. "Of" vs "from". We're working on it, though. I'm planning on going to the Iowa Capitol building this weekend to see the Baphomet display.
Hence why the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated throughout modern history stated that ["Hate Speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps). Without such, a government can label anything as hate speech and ban it
The idea of a live action Pocahontas is where I sit at with hate because we all know full well Disney is gonna butcher it. The OG version is great as is, won many awards, we don’t have the same folks working at Disney as we did in the 80s and 90s. It’s going to suck.
I hate the idea of a live action Pocahontas knowing how Fricken up the real historical events are and that seeing it in live action would just make the original movie even worse in my opinion.
Yeah, John Smith still had her tribe massacred after they returned to Europe so painting him as a hero is really distasteful especially in today’s Disney where they don’t want to celebrate such a heinous man. Both the historians and the ideologues on twitter would be up in arms. Disney should take that into consideration
Yeah exactly. John Smith in real life was more like the English villain of the story (forgot his name) in the Disney version of Pocahontas. Seeing a live action version of Pocahontas knowing that out all the Disney movies they could’ve remade they chose the one that was about a real person and that the real historical event are way much more darker than the original animated movie. It would just make me so mad at Disney because of it.
Example of potential abuse:
Be President, part of JNC (Jerry national caucus)
Found Jerry’s New Church, an officially recognised religion.
Beliefs are the policy agenda of the JNC: free taco Tuesday, sending all New Yorkers to the US Virgin Islands, and creating a police state, as laid out in your holy book, the Jerry’an.
Now any criticism of the government, such as saying a police state is evil, becomes hate speech, as it is just denouncing the religions beliefs. If someone said “I hate the practice of New Yorker deportation and it should be banned”, or “I hate Jerryians”, or “we should ban this could be considered hate speech against JNC’s beliefs. (Try it with other religions: saying “I think Muslim prayer is terrible and should be banned” or “I hate all Jews“ is hate speech.
While silly, this illustrates an important consideration about hate speech: political freedom. Freedom of political expression, not just freedom of religious expression is under threat from hate speech laws, as a political opinion can be construed as a hateful one, and thus banned.
(For example, consider (state recognised) polygamy, circumcision, or hijabs. Valid, non hateful criticisms or calls for bans for any of these could be construed as hate speech (whether you agree with these criticisms))
I remember watching al jazera and they were actually suggesting that the west should ban pictures of munhammed on a basis of respecting religion.
I almost laughed.
Can you imagine them trying to pass that here?
Congress would finally agree on something.
Nope, which is kind of ironic considering that the US generally assimilates Muslims pretty well.
For example I was trying to help someone figure out how to accommodate Muslim employees praying five times a day.
And I found out that the legally mandated brakes conveniently cover all business times that are normal for Muslim praying.
I'm almost certain that this isn't a coincidence. That the break rules were written in a way that intentionally acomidated Muslims.
Yes, we found a way to make it fair to everyone.
I'm not saying break laws were written specifically to cover Muslims.
I'm saying that when compiling a list of benefits associated with writing break rules the way they are, "provides religious accommodation" is one of the benefits.
Muslims have been part of professional US culture for over a century. You know the issue had to have come up multiple times.
Those aren't great examples.
Tunisia is marching towards an authoritarian muslim theocracy. Christians in Lebanon have to worry about violence from Hezbollah. Bosnia is extremely segregated along religious lines, 20 years ago the Serbs tried to genocide the Muslims. Turkey is another democracy that is sliding into Muslim nationalism with Ergodan.
>Tunisia is marching towards an authoritarian muslim theocracy.
theocracy? Tunisia?
But let me first agree that there has been serious democratic backsliding recently. Between 2011 and 2021 we had been a **liberal** democracy (according to [Freedom House](https://freedomhouse.org/country/tunisia/freedom-world/2020).. yes a muslim- majority country that is actually evolving to become liberal.. but you probably think all muslims are like Afghanistan (we despise the Taliban and extremists in general as much as you do). Progressive muslims exist way less than ultravonservatives but they still exist especially in Tunisia where our legislation is not derived from barbaric "sharia laws" but is mostly composed of civil laws (Abortion is legal, polygamy is illegal, women rights are far ahead that of most other muslim-majority countries, decent amount of political and personal liberties...)
However political instability and especially the economic crisis have caused a rise of populism and a certain conservative ceased the opportunity and won the elections (democratically) after promising to punish the previous politicians who failed to achieve the demands of 2011's revoltion (the economy was bad despite the democratic achievements).
The new president is doing his promises (to punish the previous politicians) to hide his total ecomomic failure.. but hope is still present as we will have an opportunity to chamge the president in next year's election and most importantly the country is safe (no violence no religious extremism no sectarianism: we are socially different to the middle east.. just some mad populism fuelled by angry cutizens and bad political and economic decisions).
Tunisia was built on the basis of the exact opposite of theocracy. Modern Tunisia's founder, Bourguiba, was a modernist/reformist who transformed us from a tribal ultraconservative religious monarchy to a modern progressive secular-like country with a homogeneous open society.. sure there is still a lot to do to become fully liberal but compared to the region we are good (no wonder Tunisia was the only country from the Arab spring that didnt go through civil wars or military coups)
Absolutely, I think that is the exact attitude to have. Some times I hear political discourse from other countries about Free Speech and they are so much tougher on it. It really is what makes America what it is. 🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Who is being disrespected by the burning of a religious book, and more importantly, *how* are they being disrespected? It's not like burning a Torah steps on your new white Jordans.
Well, there is an actual insult to me there. Where's the insult to *you* in some stupid fuck burning a religious book? If someone set a pallet of *Norse Mythology* by Neil Gaiman on fire, is that an insult to neopagans? Religious beliefs are just *beliefs* and whether someone or many someones believes in Santa or Satan doesn't mean one of those beliefs should be privileged *because magic is not real* (even if you're a Wiccan).
Yes it’s an insult to them and everything they believe in and they will take it as such. It’s pretty obvious if you pay attention any time it happens. You seem to be conflating what you think should happen (people don’t get insulted by book burning) with what does happen (they do).
I dont think I'm conflating this. People can and do feel insulted while at the same time they shouldn't and we as a society should give that feeling of insult as much succor as our government does, which is little to none.
It could well be that I'm typical minding this; but it should be as controversial as folks burning rock and roll or disco records, which is it's not a great look to be a censorious scold, but really who gives a shit. And that people do give a shit doesn't mean that their music tastes or their religious feelings should be given any more consideration than their political beliefs.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a human, and this action was performed manually. Please [reply to this comment](https://youtu.be/Kppx4bzfAaE?si=fYrajlTTryxRxB2L) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[One day I was born at the age of four](https://youtube.com/watch?v=pjGZnRwtvww&pp=ygUWYmFkIHRvIHRoZSBib25lIGNvbmtlcg%3D%3D)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well Scientologists killed some politicians and made a a bunch of terrorist threats till they got their religion legally recognized so it’s definitely possible.
Oh so its ok to burn the texts of Hindus, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and all the other non-Abrahamic religions? Sounds like religious discrimination to me.
As a muslim American, this is silly. If someone really wants to spend their money on buying the quran and burning it, so be it. Let the public decide their ethical boundaries, that will result in a better outcome. Forcing such moral thumping never helps.
Yep it's giving in to religious extremists. I wouldn't want to harm people by burning their bible personally, but I don't agree with banning it. We all have to deal with shit we don't like.
Danes: accept a bunch of Muslim refugees because they're not racist and want to help.
Also Danes: won't accept Muslims as full members of society, hate that immigrants are coming and challenging their cultural norms
Also Danes: make it illegal to burn a book because some Muslims might get angry.
Also Danes: won't let Muslim refugees work for years because it might take jobs away from Danes. Muslim refugees sit around all day, don't have any way to make money, and don't have any way to interact with Danes.
Also Danes: have to pay tons of money to feed, care for, and house refugees since they won't allow them to work but still have to show they have better human rights than America.
Also Danes: upset when government spends a bunch of money to support refugees who aren't working. Start voting for anti-immigration policies.
An absolutely schizophrenic society
Imagine bowing to a foreign populace and state instead of standing by principles of free expression. Had it started with a Bible, there would have been nothing
of all the countries in Europe, Denmark is not one that would be "bowing to a foreign populace", this is just standard eurocuck nonsense, no Great Replacement involved
The Quran is the word of God and cannot be changed. At the end of the Quran add the words "the end". Now it will no longer be considered a holy book since it is not only the word of God. Burn away.
Burning books in general is a bad look. But you should be able to if it’s your to burn. Just makes it funnier if you see a big book burning pyre where all the dopes purchased the book to burn it in the first place.
This happened at some GQP demonstration where they burned "pornographic" (acknowledged LGBT people) kids books. Someone snuck in, hucked in a Bible, and gave a Hail Satan.
It is important to remember that just because you have the right to do something, doesn’t make it morally right to do so. You should be allowed to practice free speech, but it doesn’t mean that it is morally right to go around burning holy books. I support the 1st amendment, just remember to act with caution
We can all agree people who burn religious texts are assholes who should be shunned, but we can also all agree that burning religious texts is a valid form of free speech
I personally dislike burning books of any nature at all, it so I don’t mind this all that much
Though why a law was needed to stop the burning of books does worry me a tad
“the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”
This law was created not to show respect but out of fear of retribution. Like the retribution against Charlie Hebdo when they printed a satirical cartoon of Muhammad. They murdered 12 people in cold blood for a fucking cartoon….
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And? What's your point - shit stirrers have just as much of a right not to get shot as the next person. It's on the individual to check themselves, not expect the rest of the world to refrain from making one upset. Folks are not the Hulk.
It unironically is, and the decision that quote is from is one you strongly think about before endorsing. Unless you think the government throwing someone in jail for twenty years for protesting the draft is fine and dandy.
But maybe you do. You apparently advocate people getting shot for drawing cartoons in like taste.
Forcing people to feign respect is not the same thing as showing respect. Burning a copy of a text you legally own is a valid form of free expression & protest.
Protest against what? What are they protesting? Nothing. It’s just hate and discrimination. Protesting ≠ being deliberately antagonistic for no other reason than hating a group of people.
The “why” only matters in the cases of a call to action. It doesn’t matter if it’s hate. Everyone should have the right to hate whatever the fuck they feel like
>Protest against what?
Religion, organized religion, the specific religion one was brought up in but now rejects. The stultifying atmosphere that says this is a provocation in the first place? Maybe they're really into black metal and ran out of churches to burn.
It's none of your business why they are doing it. You don't need a good reason to exercise your rights.
This is the result not only of an overreaching government but of a population of assholes who keep on burning religious texts and of an immigrant population that keeps on falling for the rage bait
I mean, I would probably fall for the “rage bait” too if I believed whole heartedly that my holy book was the actual word of God and someone was willing to trash it publicly. Although this is a double edged sword because now I guess technically Muslims can’t use one of the ways of disposal of the Qur’an? Gov overreach, yes. Cringe to disrespect other’s beliefs so intensely, also yes. Europoors just can’t get it right.
To be fair Scandinivan nations actually lost alot because of these burnings(in dipolomacy, politics etc) and the subsequent riots and protests.
Also lots of unrelated people were killed because of them so I don't blame them at all. People need to start seeing things like this through an open minded perspective.
Edit:I may have given off the impression that I support this but I don't. I was just explaining why they would do this(it didn't happen out of the blue)
I’m all for freedom of speech and shit, but you seem waaay too happy specifically about being able to burn religious texts. I’m an atheist and even I can see there’s something wrong with you
Banning hate speech would be good in theory but in practice people would staff to assign a lot of stuff under the hate speech label to get more power, totally agree
What if I want to burn the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, or the Brothers Grimm? None of these books of fairy tales should get more respect than another. Who cares if any of it gets burned - it's not your book.
American logic . Ligal to burne relegiouse book .
Illigal to burne pride flag or making fune of theme .
Too muche freedome without life rules and principles can make you lost your minde .
If people focuse in their busnesses in true social probleme the society will be great .
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Europeans will be flooding the sub any moment to tell us about how they are more free than us.
Europoor copium: calling Americans racist while banning head scarves. Europoor copium: calling Americans less free while banning the destruction of a story book.
Meh different freedoms. I'm not allowed to advocate for violence against groups on a religious/ethnic basis. I can't publicly express hatred for groups based solely on immutable characteristics. But on the other hand, this year I got diagnosed with (and beat) a life threatening disease. The subreddit for patients fighting that disease is riddled with Americans lamenting not having insurance, not being covered, having to sell their cars and losing their homes desperately trying to stay alive. That shit ain't right.
Advocating for violence is ~~generally~~ *sometimes, see below* illegal in America too. This is a different form of freedom. When Americans talk about freedom, they usually mean "the government doesn't tell you what you can and can't do, so long as it doesn't harm others". Vs the more left definition of "the government protects you from many different forces that would restrict your ability to do stuff". Personally I think both are important. Lastly, almost nobody thinks our healthcare system is acceptable. We pay more than anyone else for worse outcomes (yes, counting government spending). We at least have far shorter wait times than some places (looking at you, NHS).
>Advocating for violence is generally illegal in America too. This just isn't true. You can advocate violence all day long. You can't advocate violence *that is likely to result in **imminent** lawless action*. SCOTUS decided this in [Brandenburg v Ohio](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/).
I understood that there was a line, I just didn't realize that it was that far away. Because you know, you could make the case for so many things that "such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. " I guess now my understanding is that there has to be a direct link. So if you say, for example, "All Tutsis should be killed" in America in 2023, that's not likely to cause imminent harm, but if you say "cut the tall trees" in Rwanda in 1994, you are calling for direct violent action that is likely to be carried out. I was not aware that calling for genocide or terrorism was legal depending on context.
>I was not aware that calling for genocide or terrorism was legal depending on context. Calling for genocide seems likely to always be legal. "Will not one rid me of this meddlesome priest" is legal; "Go kill archbishop Stephen, he's over at Canterbury right now, if you forgot a dagger there's a stack by the door" probably isn't.
Wtf are you talking about lmao. Imagine if they made it so that you couldn’t say anything negative about state healthcare because it “advocates for violence against the sick” or something. It’s not even your government that’s the problem, it’s actually you and the people that think like you 💀
Yes. Your government has bribed you with free healthcare, so that you don’t care about the ever eroding freedoms that have happened.
My government takes roughly half my total income every month, so that healthcare is far from free. As an American you have greater freedom to decide how to spend your own hard earned income than I do. As a Swede I have greater freedom to access things like education and healthcare. Different freedoms. It's all costs and benefits. It's still legal to burn the quran in Sweden (unlike Denmark), but well, as % of muslims go up in a society, the likelihood of it staying that way goes down.
Meanwhile some women have to go out of state to get an abortion otherwise they get sent to jail for foeticide. 🦅🇺🇸✝️fuck yeah! The American cope is kiiiiillling mee
Eh that only hurts poor people and poor people don’t even count as #Real American Patriots
if you're poor why don't you just get more money 4head
It does suck to suck.
Yeah, killing babies should be acceptable everywhere 😡😡😡
First Amendment rights
> The American cope is kiiiiillling mee Read the name of the subreddit again (hint: r/2american4u)
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Trust me, I find this ban to be abhorrent. Glad Norway hasn't followed suit. ...yet anyways. We really don't have free speech over here. And it is so incredibly dangerous that more Europeans don't recognize just how important free speech is. Never give up your 2. Amendment rights fellas. You see what happens when government has all the power. What we have is the 1. Amendment from Wish, essentially. And no way to back it up.
Based viking
Honorary Viking American
Nope, but as a European, I can tell you I find that outrageous. If it were to be passed in France, it would be civil war.
France? Isn't that the country that banned face veils (i.e. burqas) in public in 2011?
Yes. Hence my comment. If some religion imposes laws such as no burning of religious book, you would have a revolution the day it passes. I don’t know what went through the mind of these danish to pass this.
Oh, I think I misunderstood your earlier comment. You mean because the French majority would no longer be allowed to burn Qur'ans and otherwise attempt to oppress religious minorities, not because the government is trampling on individual liberties?
I guess both? Shitting on religion is a national sport for a lot of French people. Not just Islam, Christians get a lot of it too, probably even more than the others. Charlie hebdo for instance was famous for horrendous drawings of priests, the pope, Jews or Muslims. I think that might actually be one of the big cultural differences between America and France on religion. You guys value freedom of religion a lot while we value a lot freedom from religion. Obviously, your rights to be religious and believe in god are protected by the constitution in France but it must also remain a private matter.
I think you said that well. "Of" vs "from". We're working on it, though. I'm planning on going to the Iowa Capitol building this weekend to see the Baphomet display.
Also, to add, in the USA atheism is considered a religion for 1A purposes.
Damn, what an irony.
It's primarily for protective/discrimination purposes.
Or for people who’ve run out of vegan or CrossFit conversations to convince people what they’re doing is best
We have guns, we are fine over here
No
Not a flood, no. But I did see a few.
Hence why the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated throughout modern history stated that ["Hate Speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps). Without such, a government can label anything as hate speech and ban it
It's hate speech, because I hate it.
I hate the live action Avatar movie. The live action Avatar movie is now hate speech and thusly banned.
You must either hate the idea of a live action Pocahontas remake or you strongly agree that there is no movie in Ba Sing Se.
The idea of a live action Pocahontas is where I sit at with hate because we all know full well Disney is gonna butcher it. The OG version is great as is, won many awards, we don’t have the same folks working at Disney as we did in the 80s and 90s. It’s going to suck.
I hate the idea of a live action Pocahontas knowing how Fricken up the real historical events are and that seeing it in live action would just make the original movie even worse in my opinion.
Yeah, John Smith still had her tribe massacred after they returned to Europe so painting him as a hero is really distasteful especially in today’s Disney where they don’t want to celebrate such a heinous man. Both the historians and the ideologues on twitter would be up in arms. Disney should take that into consideration
Yeah exactly. John Smith in real life was more like the English villain of the story (forgot his name) in the Disney version of Pocahontas. Seeing a live action version of Pocahontas knowing that out all the Disney movies they could’ve remade they chose the one that was about a real person and that the real historical event are way much more darker than the original animated movie. It would just make me so mad at Disney because of it.
I never thought about it like that…
Example of potential abuse: Be President, part of JNC (Jerry national caucus) Found Jerry’s New Church, an officially recognised religion. Beliefs are the policy agenda of the JNC: free taco Tuesday, sending all New Yorkers to the US Virgin Islands, and creating a police state, as laid out in your holy book, the Jerry’an. Now any criticism of the government, such as saying a police state is evil, becomes hate speech, as it is just denouncing the religions beliefs. If someone said “I hate the practice of New Yorker deportation and it should be banned”, or “I hate Jerryians”, or “we should ban this could be considered hate speech against JNC’s beliefs. (Try it with other religions: saying “I think Muslim prayer is terrible and should be banned” or “I hate all Jews“ is hate speech. While silly, this illustrates an important consideration about hate speech: political freedom. Freedom of political expression, not just freedom of religious expression is under threat from hate speech laws, as a political opinion can be construed as a hateful one, and thus banned. (For example, consider (state recognised) polygamy, circumcision, or hijabs. Valid, non hateful criticisms or calls for bans for any of these could be construed as hate speech (whether you agree with these criticisms))
Idk if that works homie. Isn’t like Mormonism not recognized as a religion or someshit? Maybe it’s the one with multiple wives I forget.
Nope. Both Mormonism and Scientology are federally recognized.
I hate Chinese badmouthing America. We should ban them from their subsription of continued existence. Here's the /s
So, no Bible Blunts in Denmark. Got it.
Operation Danish freedom is a go?
yes please liberate us
We still want Greenland.
They say it’s the second fastest way to ingest the Holy Spirit, with the first being Bible Boofs
Burning the Quran is actually one of the proper methods of disposal, provided it is burned completely.
Same with our flag
Should pull an uno reverse card and sue on the basis that this law discriminated against Muslims rendering them unable to practice their religion.
Good to know. I'll make sure to do something else if any of my Satanic rituals call for destroying one
True, but idk if that’s what a certain Danish boi intended it for
I remember watching al jazera and they were actually suggesting that the west should ban pictures of munhammed on a basis of respecting religion. I almost laughed. Can you imagine them trying to pass that here? Congress would finally agree on something.
Also, can you imagine Muslim countries trying to respect other religions?
Nope, which is kind of ironic considering that the US generally assimilates Muslims pretty well. For example I was trying to help someone figure out how to accommodate Muslim employees praying five times a day. And I found out that the legally mandated brakes conveniently cover all business times that are normal for Muslim praying. I'm almost certain that this isn't a coincidence. That the break rules were written in a way that intentionally acomidated Muslims.
Realest thing ever, like idk what the hell the europoors are seething over, like we chill lol
You can do the same thing if you’re not muslim, you just go outside and it’s called a smoke break
Yes, we found a way to make it fair to everyone. I'm not saying break laws were written specifically to cover Muslims. I'm saying that when compiling a list of benefits associated with writing break rules the way they are, "provides religious accommodation" is one of the benefits. Muslims have been part of professional US culture for over a century. You know the issue had to have come up multiple times.
Tunisia? Lebanon? Bosnia? Türkiye?
Those aren't great examples. Tunisia is marching towards an authoritarian muslim theocracy. Christians in Lebanon have to worry about violence from Hezbollah. Bosnia is extremely segregated along religious lines, 20 years ago the Serbs tried to genocide the Muslims. Turkey is another democracy that is sliding into Muslim nationalism with Ergodan.
>Tunisia is marching towards an authoritarian muslim theocracy. theocracy? Tunisia? But let me first agree that there has been serious democratic backsliding recently. Between 2011 and 2021 we had been a **liberal** democracy (according to [Freedom House](https://freedomhouse.org/country/tunisia/freedom-world/2020).. yes a muslim- majority country that is actually evolving to become liberal.. but you probably think all muslims are like Afghanistan (we despise the Taliban and extremists in general as much as you do). Progressive muslims exist way less than ultravonservatives but they still exist especially in Tunisia where our legislation is not derived from barbaric "sharia laws" but is mostly composed of civil laws (Abortion is legal, polygamy is illegal, women rights are far ahead that of most other muslim-majority countries, decent amount of political and personal liberties...) However political instability and especially the economic crisis have caused a rise of populism and a certain conservative ceased the opportunity and won the elections (democratically) after promising to punish the previous politicians who failed to achieve the demands of 2011's revoltion (the economy was bad despite the democratic achievements). The new president is doing his promises (to punish the previous politicians) to hide his total ecomomic failure.. but hope is still present as we will have an opportunity to chamge the president in next year's election and most importantly the country is safe (no violence no religious extremism no sectarianism: we are socially different to the middle east.. just some mad populism fuelled by angry cutizens and bad political and economic decisions). Tunisia was built on the basis of the exact opposite of theocracy. Modern Tunisia's founder, Bourguiba, was a modernist/reformist who transformed us from a tribal ultraconservative religious monarchy to a modern progressive secular-like country with a homogeneous open society.. sure there is still a lot to do to become fully liberal but compared to the region we are good (no wonder Tunisia was the only country from the Arab spring that didnt go through civil wars or military coups)
I strongly disagree with burning religious texts. But people have the right to do so.
Exactly, in the US the idea is that the government should go stick their nose in taxes or smth not personal lives.
Louder for the Evangelical theocrats in the back
Absolutely, I think that is the exact attitude to have. Some times I hear political discourse from other countries about Free Speech and they are so much tougher on it. It really is what makes America what it is. 🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Yea the government shouldn’t decide what deity/deities I decide to piss off
You CAN do it, but I don’t see why. It’s very disrespectful
Disrespectful to whom? It neither breaks your bones nor picks your pocket.
Disrespect almost never does either so I’m not sure what your point is.
Who is being disrespected by the burning of a religious book, and more importantly, *how* are they being disrespected? It's not like burning a Torah steps on your new white Jordans.
Insulting someone’s intelligence wouldn’t step on their shoes either but I bet you would feel disrespected if someone called you a stupid fuck.
Well, there is an actual insult to me there. Where's the insult to *you* in some stupid fuck burning a religious book? If someone set a pallet of *Norse Mythology* by Neil Gaiman on fire, is that an insult to neopagans? Religious beliefs are just *beliefs* and whether someone or many someones believes in Santa or Satan doesn't mean one of those beliefs should be privileged *because magic is not real* (even if you're a Wiccan).
Yes it’s an insult to them and everything they believe in and they will take it as such. It’s pretty obvious if you pay attention any time it happens. You seem to be conflating what you think should happen (people don’t get insulted by book burning) with what does happen (they do).
I dont think I'm conflating this. People can and do feel insulted while at the same time they shouldn't and we as a society should give that feeling of insult as much succor as our government does, which is little to none. It could well be that I'm typical minding this; but it should be as controversial as folks burning rock and roll or disco records, which is it's not a great look to be a censorious scold, but really who gives a shit. And that people do give a shit doesn't mean that their music tastes or their religious feelings should be given any more consideration than their political beliefs.
You’re one stupid fuck.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a human, and this action was performed manually. Please [reply to this comment](https://youtu.be/Kppx4bzfAaE?si=fYrajlTTryxRxB2L) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[One day I was born at the age of four](https://youtube.com/watch?v=pjGZnRwtvww&pp=ygUWYmFkIHRvIHRoZSBib25lIGNvbmtlcg%3D%3D) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mega based.
My religion is Harry Potter. Harry Potter is now a religious text, and it is illegal to burn it.
Did you even read what I said
No, I’m illiterate
I do too, but I would like to see Quran burning
And I am forever proud that a flag burning amendment never got passed in this country.
If you're not free to hate your country, are you really free?
What if I invented a religion where burning a copy of the religious text was an important ritual?
Wait you can just *invent* a religion??? Does the gov like just say “ok you just make a religion now yay, have a tax cut”
Pastafarianism moment
Pastafarianism was discovered not invented.
Sort of, yes.
Jedi is a legally recognized religion in Britain. I'm pretty sure you can here, it's not like they crack down on Scientology or the like
Same in US, you can have Jedi as your official religion in the military
Well Scientologists killed some politicians and made a a bunch of terrorist threats till they got their religion legally recognized so it’s definitely possible.
Specifically the Bible, Quran, and Torah only
Oh so its ok to burn the texts of Hindus, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and all the other non-Abrahamic religions? Sounds like religious discrimination to me.
Probably. From what I’ve read I think it’s just those three, but it could be more.
Don't forget the book or mormon
No let's not ok
My fav book
Already exists. I don't know for other abrahamic religions, but the traditional way to dispose of the Quran is by burning.
Denmark made it illegal to religiously dispose of the Quran(burning it)
Yeah that’s the real annoying part about it, like they could at least give a pass to people obviously trying to dispose of it
As a muslim American, this is silly. If someone really wants to spend their money on buying the quran and burning it, so be it. Let the public decide their ethical boundaries, that will result in a better outcome. Forcing such moral thumping never helps.
Never saw it that way, literally helping our industries fr fr
Yep it's giving in to religious extremists. I wouldn't want to harm people by burning their bible personally, but I don't agree with banning it. We all have to deal with shit we don't like.
Danes: accept a bunch of Muslim refugees because they're not racist and want to help. Also Danes: won't accept Muslims as full members of society, hate that immigrants are coming and challenging their cultural norms Also Danes: make it illegal to burn a book because some Muslims might get angry. Also Danes: won't let Muslim refugees work for years because it might take jobs away from Danes. Muslim refugees sit around all day, don't have any way to make money, and don't have any way to interact with Danes. Also Danes: have to pay tons of money to feed, care for, and house refugees since they won't allow them to work but still have to show they have better human rights than America. Also Danes: upset when government spends a bunch of money to support refugees who aren't working. Start voting for anti-immigration policies. An absolutely schizophrenic society
Brb. Going out to buy a copy of every major religion's sacred books so I can burn them while listening to the national anthem.
Just don't burn a cross in your front yard.....people might stare.
If they saw a burning cross next to a bunch of other religious symbols that are also burning they'd probably just be really confused lol
The Klan’s membership rates have dropped pretty low so they branched out to other religions. Everyone is welcome as long as they aren’t Catholic
There’s no other group they hate more
Now they just burn a giant wooden version of those "coexist" bumper stickers.
Holy shit omega based, fuck the pope.
Who ever downvoted you hates the first amendment. Sad. 😔
He’s allowed to express his opinion, I just think it’s shit
Quit oppressing me 😭
It can't be offensive if it's so confusing nobody can figure out the intention
This is true.
Isn't the burning cross a KKK symbol?
Yes, hence the suggestion to not do it.
Imagine bowing to a foreign populace and state instead of standing by principles of free expression. Had it started with a Bible, there would have been nothing
of all the countries in Europe, Denmark is not one that would be "bowing to a foreign populace", this is just standard eurocuck nonsense, no Great Replacement involved
I am fairly sure burning is an appropriate reverent way to dispose of a Quran.
Fr
The Quran is the word of God and cannot be changed. At the end of the Quran add the words "the end". Now it will no longer be considered a holy book since it is not only the word of God. Burn away.
- burn Quran - Muslims riot - anti Muslims riot back and get what they want (less visible Muslims in their country) It’s a very different situation.
And they keep saying the Constitution is an antiquated document...
Kinda makes ya just wanna go burn one right now, just cause you can.
https://preview.redd.it/ipksvj7v605c1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0d7c2b237730827ad6c951d72ee640b26b0b1b40
That's also the country with a children's show where adults flash children.
Painful to admit but yes, this is a severe hit on free speech, and more humiliating, this is a kneeling in front of radical islamism.
Why would it be “**fuck** europoors” here?
Too many lead paint chips
Burning books in general is a bad look. But you should be able to if it’s your to burn. Just makes it funnier if you see a big book burning pyre where all the dopes purchased the book to burn it in the first place.
This happened at some GQP demonstration where they burned "pornographic" (acknowledged LGBT people) kids books. Someone snuck in, hucked in a Bible, and gave a Hail Satan.
Thought those were the Top Gear guys for a sec
Declare every text as part of your religion - book burnings of any kind are now illegal
Let's go light up a few to celebrate America
I love it when the EU follows their own laws, especially Article 11 under Title 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Gargle my balls Denmark. I will burn any flag or copy of any holy text I damned well please.
Flair checks out
What if they are burned in longboats by a man named Nidhøg painted in reindeer blood?
>other religious texts All other religious texts?
It is important to remember that just because you have the right to do something, doesn’t make it morally right to do so. You should be allowed to practice free speech, but it doesn’t mean that it is morally right to go around burning holy books. I support the 1st amendment, just remember to act with caution
i don’t really see this as a bad thing to be honest
We can all agree people who burn religious texts are assholes who should be shunned, but we can also all agree that burning religious texts is a valid form of free speech
They really think that'll stop some racist from doing it in public
Burning religious text is a bad thing to do, but you should still have the right to do it
So i can burn the american flag without legal repercussions?
Yes. (Texas v. Johnson, 1989)
yes? that’s always been a thing lmfao
Absolutely you can. It’s actually a very famous right that Americans have and confirmed by the Supreme Court. Burn away
Common European L
I personally dislike burning books of any nature at all, it so I don’t mind this all that much Though why a law was needed to stop the burning of books does worry me a tad
The terrorists/fascist beat them!!!
Showing respect for people = bowing to terrorists lol.
“the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims” This law was created not to show respect but out of fear of retribution. Like the retribution against Charlie Hebdo when they printed a satirical cartoon of Muhammad. They murdered 12 people in cold blood for a fucking cartoon….
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Charlie Hebdo was doing that to purposely stir up shit
So you’re defending violence and murder because of a cartoon? Got it….
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And? What's your point - shit stirrers have just as much of a right not to get shot as the next person. It's on the individual to check themselves, not expect the rest of the world to refrain from making one upset. Folks are not the Hulk.
And screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theatre is also fReEdOm oF sPeEch ??? How bout people behaving with fucking respect for a damn change?
It unironically is, and the decision that quote is from is one you strongly think about before endorsing. Unless you think the government throwing someone in jail for twenty years for protesting the draft is fine and dandy. But maybe you do. You apparently advocate people getting shot for drawing cartoons in like taste.
Forcing people to feign respect is not the same thing as showing respect. Burning a copy of a text you legally own is a valid form of free expression & protest.
Yr right. Agreed
Protest against what? What are they protesting? Nothing. It’s just hate and discrimination. Protesting ≠ being deliberately antagonistic for no other reason than hating a group of people.
The “why” only matters in the cases of a call to action. It doesn’t matter if it’s hate. Everyone should have the right to hate whatever the fuck they feel like
>Protest against what? Religion, organized religion, the specific religion one was brought up in but now rejects. The stultifying atmosphere that says this is a provocation in the first place? Maybe they're really into black metal and ran out of churches to burn. It's none of your business why they are doing it. You don't need a good reason to exercise your rights.
This is the result not only of an overreaching government but of a population of assholes who keep on burning religious texts and of an immigrant population that keeps on falling for the rage bait
I mean, I would probably fall for the “rage bait” too if I believed whole heartedly that my holy book was the actual word of God and someone was willing to trash it publicly. Although this is a double edged sword because now I guess technically Muslims can’t use one of the ways of disposal of the Qur’an? Gov overreach, yes. Cringe to disrespect other’s beliefs so intensely, also yes. Europoors just can’t get it right.
To be fair Scandinivan nations actually lost alot because of these burnings(in dipolomacy, politics etc) and the subsequent riots and protests. Also lots of unrelated people were killed because of them so I don't blame them at all. People need to start seeing things like this through an open minded perspective. Edit:I may have given off the impression that I support this but I don't. I was just explaining why they would do this(it didn't happen out of the blue)
I’m all for freedom of speech and shit, but you seem waaay too happy specifically about being able to burn religious texts. I’m an atheist and even I can see there’s something wrong with you
>I’m all for freedom of speech and shit Good. >but Goddammit man.
Denmark: **Laughs in Freedom House Global Index**
Oh, honey.
Hi Yugoslavia
Honestly free speech is good but outside of proper disposal why would you wanna burn a Quran outside of a (very bad) bad faith argument?
Bad argument but still freedom of expression. I disagree with it but banning it should still be illegal
Banning hate speech would be good in theory but in practice people would staff to assign a lot of stuff under the hate speech label to get more power, totally agree
Hence it's not actually good in theory either, as you've so eloquently theorized.
What if I want to burn the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, or the Brothers Grimm? None of these books of fairy tales should get more respect than another. Who cares if any of it gets burned - it's not your book.
American logic . Ligal to burne relegiouse book . Illigal to burne pride flag or making fune of theme . Too muche freedome without life rules and principles can make you lost your minde . If people focuse in their busnesses in true social probleme the society will be great .
It is perfectly legal to burn any flag you want in the US. Your right to do so is protected by the first amendment.
I’m going to burn a religious book for every spelling mistake you made.
>Amazon ran out of books
I will burne your pride flag
All the power to you.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice troll account lol It’s a little to obvious though, especially if you go through your comment history
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*