Languish.org

Here's a thread for random Scandinavian topics.

First topic:

As you may know, Denmark recently passed a law outlawing burning the Quran. Legally, I believe, the law outlaws the desecrating different religious objects in various ways, but the real intent is to prevent the burning of the Quran to protect the sensibilities of Muslims - in Denmark and abroad.

The law has been hotly debated, with serious concerns about freedom of expression, political as well as artistic. The government has tried to dial it down to be as targetted as possible, with exceptions for artistic expression for example. Nonetheless, the law's been welcomed by local Islamists as well as various Muslim governments.

The idyll doesn't seem like it'll last, however. The man who triggered the furore by regularly burning the Quran in Denmark and Sweden, just announced that he's forming a theatre troupe. He anticipates that the troupe will put on its first performance in front of the Turkish embassy some time next spring. It is almost certain that the performance will involve the burning of a Quran (which is still legal as a part of artistic expression).

He's gone from a wacko to a fully legitimate protester.

Religious laws are anathema to a modern society and insulted muslims can fuck off. Next thing we can't insult incels for fear of them feeling insulted.

Is this thread legal as long as it's in the gaming forum?

I thought we were role playing.

Can I be king of finland?
Åland shall be liberated!
...
It's already mine?
....
Invade um... Russia!

Quote from: The Brain on December 11, 2023, 03:10:24 PMIs this thread legal as long as it's in the gaming forum?

 :lol:  :blush:

Should've paid more attention...

Making it OK to do something otherwise illegal because it's "art" manages to be both poor, unsound, and lazy lawmaking.

What I disliked most reading about this law was that apparently one governmental reasoning was that Quran-burning was not only "against the interests of Denmark" but "endangering Danish citizens". This is the worst possible reason to make such a law - showcasing that yes, violence works, if you want us more down your zealot road, please do more violence to us.

It's absolutely horrible, in this day and age, to introduce religious laws. Why the fuck would a hobby be protected like that?

Western society spent centuries breaking the back of the church and now we have to do that crap again.

Violence will only increase whatever we do and muslim fundamentalism will only encroach more and more the more we let them.

Soumission, one bit at a time

Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2023, 02:58:30 PMHere's a thread for random Scandinavian topics.

First topic:

As you may know, Denmark recently passed a law outlawing burning the Quran. Legally, I believe, the law outlaws the desecrating different religious objects in various ways, but the real intent is to prevent the burning of the Quran to protect the sensibilities of Muslims - in Denmark and abroad.

The law has been hotly debated, with serious concerns about freedom of expression, political as well as artistic. The government has tried to dial it down to be as targetted as possible, with exceptions for artistic expression for example. Nonetheless, the law's been welcomed by local Islamists as well as various Muslim governments.

The idyll doesn't seem like it'll last, however. The man who triggered the furore by regularly burning the Quran in Denmark and Sweden, just announced that he's forming a theatre troupe. He anticipates that the troupe will put on its first performance in front of the Turkish embassy some time next spring. It is almost certain that the performance will involve the burning of a Quran (which is still legal as a part of artistic expression).

Ironically thus proving the need for the law .

I suspect he's operating according to the same kind of trollish reasoning as the extremists in that he wants action to be taken against him in order to push moderates more towards his brand of fuck wittery.
Quite a complex 3D chess sort of situation.

I'm more on the American side of free speech, but if you're going to have laws that limit speech against say races or sexuality why not religion?


*edit* not so much blasphemy,  but more as incitement and the like.

It's the slippery slope argument. If laws are created on the basis of fear of violence the threatening party can just up the ante and demand more and more laws. In the end we'll have Sharia... The line needs to be drawn somewhere and all that. This is a win for religious extremism and as with any extremism they ought not be allowed wins.

The other party thinks that beheading is a proper way to handle disagreements, there are no reasonable blasphemy laws that will stop the threat of violence, the gulf is too wide.

Furthermore: Religion is a choice, sex and race is not a choice. They are not the same.

Is it being done for "fear" of violence though?
And not more for pretty logical reasons of seeing violence as a negative thing and wanting to control incitement of it.
Just because religious extremists are happy with their religion not being insulted doesn't mean its necessarily a terrible thing.  I wouldn't see them as the 'other party' in this so much as just the normal members of the public who'd rather not have two flavours of righty shouting bollocks and trying to kill each other in the streets.

QuoteFurthermore: Religion is a choice, sex and race is not a choice. They are not the same.

In theory sure. But in practice...not really.
If you're born to Muslim parents then you're probably a Muslim. Even if you're not particularly religious (which again might not be something you have full power over), choosing to convert away from that would be the active choice.

Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 07:12:58 AMIs it being done for "fear" of violence though?
And not more for pretty logical reasons of seeing violence as a negative thing and wanting to control incitement of it.

Those two are the same and the Swedish discussion at least is centered around fear of violence and fear of retribution from Islamic countries.

Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 07:12:58 AMJust because religious extremists are happy with their religion not being insulted doesn't mean its necessarily a terrible thing.  I wouldn't see them as the 'other party' in this so much as just the normal members of the public who'd rather not have two flavours of righty shouting bollocks and trying to kill each other in the streets.

I don't care if they're happy, I care about them beheading enemies of their faith and that there are huuuuuuuuuge numbers of adherents to Islam that think that beheadings are right and proper. That they think that should not affect our laws. They in this case being foreigners. Swedish religious extremists should be handled by social services or the police if necessary.

Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 07:12:58 AM

QuoteFurthermore: Religion is a choice, sex and race is not a choice. They are not the same.

In theory sure. But in practice...not really.
If you're born to Muslim parents then you're probably a Muslim. Even if you're not particularly religious (which again might not be something you have full power over), choosing to convert away from that would be the active choice.

If you are born to racist/communist/whatever parents you are expected to rise above that by active choice. There's nothing special about religion making it okay to demand special laws.

Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2023, 10:12:14 AMThose two are the same and the Swedish discussion at least is centered around fear of violence and fear of retribution from Islamic countries.

I have no idea what they're saying in Sweden about it.
But for sure that's not how its regarded here when people speak about stopping hate speech. Its not about any other hate-mongers who might be offended. Its about stopping trouble being caused for no good reason. Cutting off a recruitment route for the Islamic extremists.

QuoteI don't care if they're happy, I care about them beheading enemies of their faith and that there are huuuuuuuuuge numbers of adherents to Islam that think that beheadings are right and proper. That they think that should not affect our laws. They in this case being foreigners. Swedish religious extremists should be handled by social services or the police if necessary.

And?
If a large number of people wanted to behead murderers would that make a law against murder wrong?
(Lets ignore the significant number want this part)

And yes. These extremists being handled by the police is exactly the point.

QuoteIf you are born to racist/communist/whatever parents you are expected to rise above that by active choice.

Sure. But its still wrong to pretend you just choose to be racist from a completely neutral standpoint. We're all products of our upbringing. This is why a well educated westerner from a good background saying stupid racist shit is so much worse than some uneducated farmer from the arse of the world saying the same things.

QuoteThere's nothing special about religion making it okay to demand special laws.

There is. We aren't talking about people being Islamic extremists here. Just being muslim. This is a pretty core part of the identity of adherents in a way being racist isn't.

I'm uncomfortable with such a law.  Sure, burning a Koran is to offend Muslims is being a knob, but making it illegal seems wrong.  Do other religious groups get carve outs to protect their holy items from desecration? 

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 12, 2023, 06:29:35 AMSoumission, one bit at a time

That's like a type of cake right?  Some kind of French cake?

Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2023, 11:04:39 AMI'm uncomfortable with such a law.  Sure, burning a Koran is to offend Muslims is being a knob, but making it illegal seems wrong.  Do other religious groups get carve outs to protect their holy items from desecration? 

I believe Denmark passed laws against burning all holy texts, not just the Koran.

Quote from: HVC on December 12, 2023, 06:34:15 AMI'm more on the American side of free speech, but if you're going to have laws that limit speech against say races or sexuality why not religion?


*edit* not so much blasphemy,  but more as incitement and the like.

Basically this - and I broadly support those laws in general.

Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2023, 02:58:30 PMHere's a thread for random Scandinavian topics.

First topic:

As you may know, Denmark recently passed a law outlawing burning the Quran. Legally, I believe, the law outlaws the desecrating different religious objects in various ways, but the real intent is to prevent the burning of the Quran to protect the sensibilities of Muslims - in Denmark and abroad.

I think you got this thread off on the wrong foot by misdescribing the law.  It is not specific to the Quran.  Rather it is "inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognised religious community"

Quote from: Solmyr on December 12, 2023, 01:10:29 PMI believe Denmark passed laws against burning all holy texts, not just the Koran.

Yeah, the law prohibits "degrading treatment of texts of significant importance to recognized faiths", with an exception for "artistic works where the degrading treatment is a lesser part of the greater work." Those are my translations, by the way.

The law is fairly controversial inside Denmark as well.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2023, 01:25:45 PMI think you got this thread off on the wrong foot by misdescribing the law.  It is not specific to the Quran.  Rather it is "inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognised religious community"

Yeah, but the context is that it's about burning of the Quran.

The law is colloquially known as "the Quran law". It's passage was prompted by a massive backlash in Muslim countries triggered by someone burning copies of the Quran to stake out an anti-Muslim position. The only public voices in favour of the law are people speaking on behalf of Muslims (though not all Muslims support the law, different people have different opinions), people concerned about not alienating the local Muslim population, and people concerned about Danish exports to Muslim countries.

Other significant religious texts have been burned - someone did a thing where they burned a copy of the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran - and noone gave a damn except about the Quran burning.

While the law is phrased to be about "signifcant religious texts" of all (recognized) faiths, in actual practice it's about people burning copies of the Quran to provoke and denigrate Muslims, and about Muslim reactions to those provocations.

Most of these posts are concerned about a law specific to the protection of Islamic relgious texts.  That is a valid concern.  But it is not valid if the law protects all relgious texts.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2023, 02:34:20 PMMost of these posts are concerned about a law specific to the protection of Islamic relgious texts.  That is a valid concern.  But it is not valid if the law protects all relgious texts.

Only if the concern is about the specific language of the law (which is not specific to the Quran), rather than the actual social context (which is about the Quran).

But you have to look at context, intent and effect too - laws aren't free-floating.

In the last few months there have been two rulings from the CJEU broadly saying it is not discrimination to ban workers from wearing religious symbols (and if they don't comply to not employ them). Now in theory that's a perfectly neutral decision applying to all religious symbols. In practice it's about hijabs and discriminating against Muslim women.

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2023, 02:39:14 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2023, 02:34:20 PMMost of these posts are concerned about a law specific to the protection of Islamic relgious texts.  That is a valid concern.  But it is not valid if the law protects all relgious texts.

Only if the concern is about the specific language of the law (which is not specific to the Quran), rather than the actual social context (which is about the Quran).

In one fell swoop you have undermined the entirely of the Rule of Law.  Well done!  :P

Laws have a purpose, spirit of the law in contrast to the letter of the law and all that.

The purpose of the law is to stop burnings of the Quran. The law is written with that in mind. It might not explicitly state it, but it is never the less the purpose of the law.

It is presumably yet to be tried in Danish courts of law and I assume that the wanker that usually goes around burning Qurans will see too it that it will be tried.

I don't think it's unusual for lawmakers to be driven by the specific when making laws for the general. I don't know how this concept would be difficult or noteworthy.

Isn't CC some kind of lawyer? I mean, this is really really basic stuff, high school level stuff.

Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2023, 04:16:40 PMLaws have a purpose, spirit of the law in contrast to the letter of the law and all that.

The purpose of the law is to stop burnings of the Quran. The law is written with that in mind. It might not explicitly state it, but it is never the less the purpose of the law.

It is presumably yet to be tried in Danish courts of law and I assume that the wanker that usually goes around burning Qurans will see too it that it will be tried.

Indeed, he is forming a theatre troupe to do just that.

Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2023, 04:32:53 PMIsn't CC some kind of lawyer? I mean, this is really really basic stuff, high school level stuff.

Yes, and it is distressing that many don't understand even that basic level of stuff.

Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2023, 07:01:05 AMFurthermore: Religion is a choice, sex and race is not a choice. They are not the same.

If you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 07:02:52 PM

Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2023, 07:01:05 AMFurthermore: Religion is a choice, sex and race is not a choice. They are not the same.

If you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

Well, why not force people then to choose the right religion? Why condemn them to eternal hellfire?

Quote from: Tamas on December 12, 2023, 07:22:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 07:02:52 PM

Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2023, 07:01:05 AMFurthermore: Religion is a choice, sex and race is not a choice. They are not the same.

If you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

Well, why not force people then to choose the right religion? Why condemn them to eternal hellfire?

Because we've had several hundred years of wars over such topics.

It was decided that it was best to respect everyone's individual religious choices seemed to work best.

Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 06:31:30 AMIronically thus proving the need for the law .

I suspect he's operating according to the same kind of trollish reasoning as the extremists in that he wants action to be taken against him in order to push moderates more towards his brand of fuck wittery.
Quite a complex 3D chess sort of situation.

Certainly making it illegal to be a troll will indeed make a lot more people start trolling. And instead of being seen as assholes they will, rightly, be seen as doing something principled.

Are you sure this logic is proving the need for the law? Seems to me it is proving why the law is a bad idea.

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 11:24:14 PMBecause we've had several hundred years of wars over such topics.

It was decided that it was best to respect everyone's individual religious choices seemed to work best.

Sure. But we also have freedom of speech that allows Jehovah's Witnesses to go to our homes and tell us our religion is under Satan's control and we should join their religion instead. I don't recall them being arrested for disrespecting all other forms of Christianity in this way.

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2023, 11:37:43 PM

Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 06:31:30 AMIronically thus proving the need for the law .

I suspect he's operating according to the same kind of trollish reasoning as the extremists in that he wants action to be taken against him in order to push moderates more towards his brand of fuck wittery.
Quite a complex 3D chess sort of situation.

Certainly making it illegal to be a troll will indeed make a lot more people start trolling. And instead of being seen as assholes they will, rightly, be seen as doing something principled.

Are you sure this logic is proving the need for the law? Seems to me it is proving why the law is a bad idea.

On the other hand qoran burnings prove the west hates Muslims and violent groups have the right idea in trying to murder people.

I certainly don't see a principle in trying to encourage Islamic extremism.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 02:03:13 AMOn the other hand qoran burnings prove the west hates Muslims

This is ridiculous.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2023, 11:37:43 PM

Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 06:31:30 AMIronically thus proving the need for the law .

I suspect he's operating according to the same kind of trollish reasoning as the extremists in that he wants action to be taken against him in order to push moderates more towards his brand of fuck wittery.
Quite a complex 3D chess sort of situation.

Certainly making it illegal to be a troll will indeed make a lot more people start trolling. And instead of being seen as assholes they will, rightly, be seen as doing something principled.

Are you sure this logic is proving the need for the law? Seems to me it is proving why the law is a bad idea.

On the other hand qoran burnings prove the west hates Muslims and violent groups have the right idea in trying to murder people.

I am fairly certain there are far more people who openly oppose gay rights such as marriage and adoption. Does that mean the west hates gays?

Come on Josqs.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 02:03:13 AMOn the other hand qoran burnings prove the west hates Muslims and violent groups have the right idea in trying to murder people.

I certainly don't see a principle in trying to encourage Islamic extremism.

We can burn the Bible in the West. I guess we hate Christians.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2023, 02:42:57 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 02:03:13 AMOn the other hand qoran burnings prove the west hates Muslims

This is ridiculous.

Yeah, quite ridiculous.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2023, 11:37:43 PM

Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 06:31:30 AMIronically thus proving the need for the law .

I suspect he's operating according to the same kind of trollish reasoning as the extremists in that he wants action to be taken against him in order to push moderates more towards his brand of fuck wittery.
Quite a complex 3D chess sort of situation.

Certainly making it illegal to be a troll will indeed make a lot more people start trolling. And instead of being seen as assholes they will, rightly, be seen as doing something principled.

Are you sure this logic is proving the need for the law? Seems to me it is proving why the law is a bad idea.

On the other hand qoran burnings prove the west hates Muslims and violent groups have the right idea in trying to murder people.

I certainly don't see a principle in trying to encourage Islamic extremism.

Submitting to Islamic extremism is encouraging it, cause it works

QuoteSubmitting to Islamic extremism is encouraging it, cause it works

Yet curiously the kind of behaviour the Islamic extremists want to encourage is knee-jerk Islamophobia. They're against any moves towards tolerance and mutual acceptance as they know this threatens their existence.
But by all means keep dancing to their tune and helping make their lives easier- its mutual help afterall, without being able to present Islam is a threat , recruitment for the white far right will suffer too.

Quote from: Tamas on December 13, 2023, 02:46:32 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2023, 11:37:43 PM

Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 06:31:30 AMIronically thus proving the need for the law .

I suspect he's operating according to the same kind of trollish reasoning as the extremists in that he wants action to be taken against him in order to push moderates more towards his brand of fuck wittery.
Quite a complex 3D chess sort of situation.

Certainly making it illegal to be a troll will indeed make a lot more people start trolling. And instead of being seen as assholes they will, rightly, be seen as doing something principled.

Are you sure this logic is proving the need for the law? Seems to me it is proving why the law is a bad idea.

On the other hand qoran burnings prove the west hates Muslims and violent groups have the right idea in trying to murder people.

I am fairly certain there are far more people who openly oppose gay rights such as marriage and adoption. Does that mean the west hates gays?

Come on Josqs.

Try looking at certain corners of twitter and yes. Any one off bad shit befalling gay people means our entire society is against them.
Thankfully 'Gay extremists' never really get particularly violent.

Amazing how several people are being (wilfully?) ignorant of this fundamental part of how Islamic extremists work. Again, Four Lions presents this nicely (drawn right from Al Quaida literature)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 03:52:37 AMTry looking at certain corners of twitter and yes. Any one off bad shit befalling gay people means our entire society is against them.
Thankfully 'Gay extremists' never really get particularly violent.

Amazing how several people are being (wilfully?) ignorant of this fundamental part of how Islamic extremists work. Again, Four Lions presents this nicely (drawn right from Al Quaida literature)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY

It would be so wonderful if you could learn to write that into your original post.

"When someone in the West burns a Koran, some Muslims perceive it as the West hates us."

This is an infinitely less ridiculous statement than what you first said.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2023, 04:32:45 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 03:52:37 AMTry looking at certain corners of twitter and yes. Any one off bad shit befalling gay people means our entire society is against them.
Thankfully 'Gay extremists' never really get particularly violent.

Amazing how several people are being (wilfully?) ignorant of this fundamental part of how Islamic extremists work. Again, Four Lions presents this nicely (drawn right from Al Quaida literature)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY

It would be so wonderful if you could learn to write that into your original post.

"When someone in the West burns a Koran, some Muslims perceive it as the West hates us."

This is an infinitely less ridiculous statement than what you first said.

Agreed.

Though also in revised form, not the slam dunk he thinks it is. After all, some Muslims could still perceive the West hates them even without Koran burning.

More nuanced to think about whether increased restrictions on one's own citizens are worth what benefits.

Kind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 04:55:16 AMKind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Where does that stop?

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 05:00:16 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 04:55:16 AMKind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Where does that stop?

With Germany invading poland and the ussr invading Finland, as it where.

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 05:00:16 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 04:55:16 AMKind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Where does that stop?

To some extent where the damage caused in outlawing actions actually inconveniences people with innocent explanations for doing those things (e.g. the theatre carve out).
To some extent where the damage caused outweighs the damage avoided- though this one of course can be grossly perverted if you're so inclined or fuck up.
There's no hard and fast one size fits all rule.
But avoiding people burning religious texts with the express purpose of riling up followers of that religion? Yeah...that sounds pretty common sense to me.

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 04:50:40 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2023, 04:32:45 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 03:52:37 AMTry looking at certain corners of twitter and yes. Any one off bad shit befalling gay people means our entire society is against them.
Thankfully 'Gay extremists' never really get particularly violent.

Amazing how several people are being (wilfully?) ignorant of this fundamental part of how Islamic extremists work. Again, Four Lions presents this nicely (drawn right from Al Quaida literature)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY

It would be so wonderful if you could learn to write that into your original post.

"When someone in the West burns a Koran, some Muslims perceive it as the West hates us."

This is an infinitely less ridiculous statement than what you first said.

Agreed.

Though also in revised form, not the slam dunk he thinks it is. After all, some Muslims could still perceive the West hates them even without Koran burning.

More nuanced to think about whether increased restrictions on one's own citizens are worth what benefits.

Also I would offer the argument that it is important for Muslims coming from the background of cultures with various legal deference toward the Quran to grasp that there'll be fringe assholes trying to get a rise out of them by doing these stunts, and just because these are not sanctioned, it doesn't mean they are condoned by wider society. And to be fair I am fairly certain the big majority of them already do.

Also, Josq, I think you might think that NOT sanctioning "blasphemy" is somehow playing to the tune of the far-right asshats looking to steer up anti-Muslim sentiment. I think it is the exact opposite. Triggering the islamist response and even more importantly the resulting law in Denmark must be EXACTLY what the far-right (or at least their leaders) wanted. They need this visible cultural encroaching so they have something to rally against. It is also good for the Islamists because it shows they have the power to coerce change by the threat of violence. With such laws, the extremists at both end win and everyone else loses.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 06:07:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 05:00:16 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 04:55:16 AMKind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Where does that stop?

To some extent where the damage caused in outlawing actions actually inconveniences people with innocent explanations for doing those things (e.g. the theatre carve out).
To some extent where the damage caused outweighs the damage avoided- though this one of course can be grossly perverted if you're so inclined or fuck up.
There's no hard and fast one size fits all rule.
But avoiding people burning religious texts with the express purpose of riling up followers of that religion? Yeah...that sounds pretty common sense to me.

But what counts as 'innocent'? Sometimes riling people up is a way of causing change.

What if a woman started covering Korans in period blood to raise awareness about oppressive Muslim societies? A gay man went around talking about how Muhammad was his backdoor lover to raise awareness around oppression faced by gays in Muslim socities? Naturally they would expect it might rile people up.

Are those not innocent and not permitted? What's the rulebook on what is a permittable critical technique and what is not?

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 07:33:32 AMWhat's the rulebook on what is a permittable critical technique and what is not?

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51SIj-IimcL._SY445_SX342_.jpg)

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 07:02:52 PM

Quote from: Threviel on December 12, 2023, 07:01:05 AMFurthermore: Religion is a choice, sex and race is not a choice. They are not the same.

If you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

From the state? Probably even less than color choices of clothes items.

QuoteBut what counts as 'innocent'? Sometimes riling people up is a way of causing change.

What if a woman started covering Korans in period blood to raise awareness about oppressive Muslim societies? A gay man went around talking about how Muhammad was his backdoor lover to raise awareness around oppression faced by gays in Muslim socities? Naturally they would expect it might rile people up.

Are those not innocent and not permitted? What's the rulebook on what is a permittable critical technique and what is not?

There there'd be an actual point beyond "Fuck muslims".
That's the thing with the far  right. They pretend to care about women's rights, gay rights, etc... when it gives them a stick to hit muslims with.
On the other hand you have people who are primarily concerned with those things first and foremost and offend muslims purely as a side effect of this.
All together different kettle of fish.

Quote from: Tamas on December 13, 2023, 07:19:38 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 04:50:40 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 13, 2023, 04:32:45 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 03:52:37 AMTry looking at certain corners of twitter and yes. Any one off bad shit befalling gay people means our entire society is against them.
Thankfully 'Gay extremists' never really get particularly violent.

Amazing how several people are being (wilfully?) ignorant of this fundamental part of how Islamic extremists work. Again, Four Lions presents this nicely (drawn right from Al Quaida literature)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY

It would be so wonderful if you could learn to write that into your original post.

"When someone in the West burns a Koran, some Muslims perceive it as the West hates us."

This is an infinitely less ridiculous statement than what you first said.

Agreed.

Though also in revised form, not the slam dunk he thinks it is. After all, some Muslims could still perceive the West hates them even without Koran burning.

More nuanced to think about whether increased restrictions on one's own citizens are worth what benefits.

Also I would offer the argument that it is important for Muslims coming from the background of cultures with various legal deference toward the Quran to grasp that there'll be fringe assholes trying to get a rise out of them by doing these stunts, and just because these are not sanctioned, it doesn't mean they are condoned by wider society. And to be fair I am fairly certain the big majority of them already do.

Also, Josq, I think you might think that NOT sanctioning "blasphemy" is somehow playing to the tune of the far-right asshats looking to steer up anti-Muslim sentiment. I think it is the exact opposite. Triggering the islamist response and even more importantly the resulting law in Denmark must be EXACTLY what the far-right (or at least their leaders) wanted. They need this visible cultural encroaching so they have something to rally against. It is also good for the Islamists because it shows they have the power to coerce change by the threat of violence. With such laws, the extremists at both end win and everyone else loses.

As said its 3D chess. No easy answer.
Let them do their shit, they boost Islamic extremist recruitment and in turn their own recruitment.
Stop them doing their shit, they cry "look our weak and corrupt government is afraid of/in the thrall of the muslamic extremists" and boost their own recruitment.
A balance needs to be sought where the amount of trouble they can cause is minimised whilst at the same time their ability to play their favourite game of claiming victim status isn't strengthened too much.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 07:49:44 AMThere there'd be an actual point beyond "Fuck muslims".
That's the thing with the far  right. They pretend to care about women's rights, gay rights, etc... when it gives them a stick to hit muslims with.
On the other hand you have people who are primarily concerned with those things first and foremost and offend muslims purely as a side effect of this.
All together different kettle of fish.

So it isn't so much what people say they are doing but rather whether it is judged they are trying to make a point that determines what should be permitted?

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 08:14:37 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 07:49:44 AMThere there'd be an actual point beyond "Fuck muslims".
That's the thing with the far  right. They pretend to care about women's rights, gay rights, etc... when it gives them a stick to hit muslims with.
On the other hand you have people who are primarily concerned with those things first and foremost and offend muslims purely as a side effect of this.
All together different kettle of fish.

So it isn't so much what people say they are doing but rather whether it is judged they are trying to make a point that determines what should be permitted?

I'm pretty sure that its common in law that intent matters. IIRC the wording of hate crime laws in the UK specifically talk about this.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 08:18:33 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 08:14:37 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 07:49:44 AMThere there'd be an actual point beyond "Fuck muslims".
That's the thing with the far  right. They pretend to care about women's rights, gay rights, etc... when it gives them a stick to hit muslims with.
On the other hand you have people who are primarily concerned with those things first and foremost and offend muslims purely as a side effect of this.
All together different kettle of fish.

So it isn't so much what people say they are doing but rather whether it is judged they are trying to make a point that determines what should be permitted?

I'm pretty sure that its common in law that intent matters. IIRC the wording of hate crime laws in the UK specifically talk about this.

But you just said they will say their intent is to help gays.

What it actually sounds like is you don't like what their point is - which is that they find Islam to be noxious.

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 08:19:29 AMBut you just said they will say their intent is to help gays.

And the court will find that to be transparent nonsense.

QuoteWhat it actually sounds like is you don't like what their point is - which is that they find Islam to be noxious.

Yes. I don't like mindless hate with zero positive aim.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 08:40:45 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 08:19:29 AMBut you just said they will say their intent is to help gays.

And the court will find that to be transparent nonsense.

QuoteWhat it actually sounds like is you don't like what their point is - which is that they find Islam to be noxious.

Yes. I don't like mindless hate with zero positive aim.

But surely we shouldn't restrict people to only doing things we personally like?

I think burning of the Koran is childish and if someone is doing so only to incite violence, punish them under relevant statutes (much like you would do for speech intended to spark violence).

But I feel ill at ease that if we don't like someone's point then we dismiss they have a point / decide their speech/actions are not permissible. After all, in our current era, Islamic societies have been rather intolerant and reprehensible.

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 09:19:33 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 08:40:45 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 08:19:29 AMBut you just said they will say their intent is to help gays.

And the court will find that to be transparent nonsense.

QuoteWhat it actually sounds like is you don't like what their point is - which is that they find Islam to be noxious.

Yes. I don't like mindless hate with zero positive aim.

But surely we shouldn't restrict people to only doing things we personally like?

I think burning of the Koran is childish and if someone is doing so only to incite violence, punish them under relevant statutes (much like you would do for speech intended to spark violence).

But I feel ill at ease that if we don't like someone's point then we dismiss they have a point / decide their speech/actions are not permissible. After all, in our current era, Islamic societies have been rather intolerant and reprehensible.

There's plenty of valid reasons to see mindless hate towards zero positive end as a bad thing other than me personally not being a fan. Its not without reason that companies are big on pushing diversity et al.

I don't see where many Muslim countries having pretty shit laws matters here. Though as you'll probably know thats a common fallacy the right love to trot out- "Just try and do x in Saudi Arabia!". We shouldn't be trying to imitate them, we should be proving ourselves better.

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 09:19:33 AMBut surely we shouldn't restrict people to only doing things we personally like?

I think burning of the Koran is childish and if someone is doing so only to incite violence, punish them under relevant statutes (much like you would do for speech intended to spark violence).

Okay I think this is actually basically my view but I think Islamophobia, like racism or homophobia, should be an aggravating factor

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 09:35:29 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 09:19:33 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 08:40:45 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 08:19:29 AMBut you just said they will say their intent is to help gays.

And the court will find that to be transparent nonsense.

QuoteWhat it actually sounds like is you don't like what their point is - which is that they find Islam to be noxious.

Yes. I don't like mindless hate with zero positive aim.

But surely we shouldn't restrict people to only doing things we personally like?

I think burning of the Koran is childish and if someone is doing so only to incite violence, punish them under relevant statutes (much like you would do for speech intended to spark violence).

But I feel ill at ease that if we don't like someone's point then we dismiss they have a point / decide their speech/actions are not permissible. After all, in our current era, Islamic societies have been rather intolerant and reprehensible.

There's plenty of valid reasons to see mindless hate towards zero positive end as a bad thing other than me personally not being a fan. Its not without reason that companies are big on pushing diversity et al.

I don't see where many Muslim countries having pretty shit laws matters here. Though as you'll probably know thats a common fallacy the right love to trot out- "Just try and do x in Saudi Arabia!". We shouldn't be trying to imitate them, we should be proving ourselves better.

We are less like them if we don't punish people for burning religious texts. :mellow:

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 09:42:12 AMWe are less like them if we don't punish people for burning religious texts. :mellow:

They also ban murder. Should we legalise murder just to be less like them?
That we shouldn't seek to imitate Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we need to automatically try to do the opposite of everything they do.

Again its intent.
They punish burning one very specific religious text because the sky monster said so and its true and admiral akbar.
We're talking about punishing burning any religious text with the intent of stirring up hate, because a group of idiots are determined to try and cause trouble for zero reason beyond encouraging hate.

The result, however, is that the progressives are doing the islamists' bidding. No amount of excuses is going to change that

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2023, 10:03:25 AMThe result, however, is that the progressives are doing the islamists' bidding. No amount of excuses is going to change that

Except the Islamists WANT dopey morons to go around burning quarans and spewing Islamophobic nonsense.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 09:51:54 AMThey also ban murder. Should we legalise murder just to be less like them?
That we shouldn't seek to imitate Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we need to automatically try to do the opposite of everything they do.

No one said anything about playing opposite day except for you.

Also you mentioned that not allowing people to burn the Koran is good at least in part because it will make some of them (and I think you quoted Al Qaeda) less likely to think we hate them. If that's the case, how we feel about those societies is relevant in our calculus on what we permit ourselves.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 09:51:54 AMAgain its intent.
They punish burning one very specific religious text because the sky monster said so and its true and admiral akbar.
We're talking about punishing burning any religious text with the intent of stirring up hate, because a group of idiots are determined to try and cause trouble for zero reason beyond encouraging hate.

I've no idea what you mean on that bit in bold. :huh:

And maybe they aren't burning Korans just because they feel like stirring up violence because that's their end goal. Maybe some want their governments to take action against what they see as the oppresive nature of Islam. And something all the more salient to them as their countries have more Islamic immigrants.

I don't have to agree with them (nor their actions) to see that simply banning their actions and dismissing their concerns is likely to resolve anything. Will just stir up more shit as Tamas noted.

In fact when I googled to try (unsuccesfully) to find out about some of these Koran burners in Scandinavia, I did see a mention that there was an Iraqi Christian who did so in Sweden.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 10:07:20 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2023, 10:03:25 AMThe result, however, is that the progressives are doing the islamists' bidding. No amount of excuses is going to change that

Except the Islamists WANT dopey morons to go around burning quarans and spewing Islamophobic nonsense.

Because they will be all hunky dory with the West if only a small group wasn't burning the Koran? :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2023, 09:36:18 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 09:19:33 AMBut surely we shouldn't restrict people to only doing things we personally like?

I think burning of the Koran is childish and if someone is doing so only to incite violence, punish them under relevant statutes (much like you would do for speech intended to spark violence).

Okay I think this is actually basically my view but I think Islamophobia, like racism or homophobia, should be an aggravating factor

I don't think I know enough about hate crime enhancements. Off my gut it feels like they are valuable as sort of making up for hate crimes against groups that were historically less likely to be investigated/prosecuted/given significant custodial sentences.

Is that their purpose or is there something more to it?

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 07:02:52 PMIf you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

For you religion might be one of the most important things in your life. For others it's their sexuality, their political affiliation, their taste in clothes, their choice of friends or partner or a million other things.

It is not up to the state to decide special laws just because it's religion. There is absolutely nothing special about religion that makes it not a choice when choosing socks is a choice.

I'm an atheist, in my mind people that need magical pretend friends to get through life are not admirable in any way shape or form based on that alone. I don't care very much either, for me it's not an important issue unless someone tries to impose their special brand of delusions on me. Then it becomes deadly serious, I do not want that backward shit to affect the laws where I live.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 10:07:20 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2023, 10:03:25 AMThe result, however, is that the progressives are doing the islamists' bidding. No amount of excuses is going to change that

Except the Islamists WANT dopey morons to go around burning quarans and spewing Islamophobic nonsense.

You keep saying that, but frankly it seems like they're more interested in letting the progressives think that since that group will inevitably act on its authoritarian instincts and enact laws that end up doing what the islamists want: namely undermining western society and its freedoms.
And there is no such thing as Islamophobia, it's a trick to make afraid of opposing Islam.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2023, 10:26:42 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 10:07:20 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2023, 10:03:25 AMThe result, however, is that the progressives are doing the islamists' bidding. No amount of excuses is going to change that

Except the Islamists WANT dopey morons to go around burning quarans and spewing Islamophobic nonsense.

You keep saying that, but frankly it seems like they're more interested in letting the progressives think that since that group will inevitably act on its authoritarian instincts and enact laws that end up doing what the islamists want: namely undermining western society and its freedoms.
And there is no such thing as Islamophobia, it's a trick to make afraid of opposing Islam.

Well of course your Islamophobic ass would say that.

Quote from: Threviel on December 13, 2023, 10:25:37 AM

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 07:02:52 PMIf you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

For you religion might be one of the most important things in your life. For others it's their sexuality, their political affiliation, their taste in clothes, their choice of friends or partner or a million other things.

It is not up to the state to decide special laws just because it's religion. There is absolutely nothing special about religion that makes it not a choice when choosing socks is a choice.

I'm an atheist, in my mind people that need magical pretend friends to get through life are not admirable in any way shape or form based on that alone. I don't care very much either, for me it's not an important issue unless someone tries to impose their special brand of delusions on me. Then it becomes deadly serious, I do not want that backward shit to affect the laws where I live.

From talking with friends who came from religious backgrounds who ended up choosing to reject their religion, I don't think it is as casual thing as you make it. From invective to disownment by families it often sounds not unlike coming out for gays.

Yes, of course it's not easy. But not being easy does not make it not a choice.

It's not easy to break away from racist parents, violent upbringings, homophobic families or lots of other shit either. 

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 10:21:25 AMI don't think I know enough about hate crime enhancements. Off my gut it feels like they are valuable as sort of making up for hate crimes against groups that were historically less likely to be investigated/prosecuted/given significant custodial sentences.

Is that their purpose or is there something more to it?

Interesting - that's not how I'd understood or seen it framed at all.

You may well be right, but I'd always understood it as more law as norm - it's about the society that we want to live in. That a crime is worse and has a social angle/impact if it is also motivated or characterised by hate against someone's race, faith, disability, sexuality, gender identity etc. It is not just a personal attack but a challenge to our social values.

I think that's why it's in the UK not actually necessary to be part of that group (which I think is right) - it applies to crimes motivated by someone's race etc or perceived race etc. So you don't actually need to be part of a group that was historically disadvantaged - it's the nature of the attack/crime that's changed even if the actual person committing the crime was wrong.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2023, 10:26:42 AM

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 10:07:20 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 13, 2023, 10:03:25 AMThe result, however, is that the progressives are doing the islamists' bidding. No amount of excuses is going to change that

Except the Islamists WANT dopey morons to go around burning quarans and spewing Islamophobic nonsense.

You keep saying that, but frankly it seems like they're more interested in letting the progressives think that since that group will inevitably act on its authoritarian instincts and enact laws that end up doing what the islamists want: namely undermining western society and its freedoms.

Except its what they actually say amongst themselves. It frequently comes up in their newsletters. The film clip I posted it is claimed is copied basically verbatim from intelligence transcripts.

As to undermining western values. Ironic. It's the far right who are the authoritarian fifth columnists trying to destroy our hard won freedoms.

QuoteAnd there is no such thing as Islamophobia, it's a trick to make afraid of opposing Islam.

I mean. It actually does exist. It's came up in legal cases.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2023, 11:19:22 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 10:21:25 AMI don't think I know enough about hate crime enhancements. Off my gut it feels like they are valuable as sort of making up for hate crimes against groups that were historically less likely to be investigated/prosecuted/given significant custodial sentences.

Is that their purpose or is there something more to it?

Interesting - that's not how I'd understood or seen it framed at all.

You may well be right, but I'd always understood it as more law as norm - it's about the society that we want to live in. That a crime is worse and has a social angle/impact if it is also motivated or characterised by hate against someone's race, faith, disability, sexuality, gender identity etc. It is not just a personal attack but a challenge to our social values.

I think that's why it's in the UK not actually necessary to be part of that group (which I think is right) - it applies to crimes motivated by someone's race etc or perceived race etc. So you don't actually need to be part of a group that was historically disadvantaged - it's the nature of the attack/crime that's changed even if the actual person committing the crime was wrong.

But why then that selection of identities? Is it because they are largely seen as immutable?

Like I could see it being negative for society, someone who targets librarians or charity workers or the homeless or refugees. Or, I'm a specious manner, millionaires as UK/US society values money makers. :P

If just clash against social values why aren't those protected categories?

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 12:34:29 PMBut why then that selection of identities? Is it because they are largely seen as immutable?

Like I could see it being negative for society, someone who targets librarians or charity workers or the homeless or refugees. Or, I'm a specious manner, millionaires as UK/US society values money makers. :P

If just clash against social values why aren't those protected categories?

I think that's possibly where the historic disadvantage comes in - we know racism, sexism, sectarianism, transphobia, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled exist (and have existed). But also I think that they are somewhat immutable and, often, a fundamental part of who someone is or is perceived to be. And I think all in one way or other something that can be perceived by someone else which motivates the crime. It's difficult to spot millionaires.

While, despite my best efforts, social wide discrimination against estate agents has yet to take off so they don't need special protection (yet).

Although I have seen landlords on Twitter plead that they need hate crime style protection :lol:

Edit: And in that sense we want to be a multi-faith, multi-racial diverse society where everyone can live. Do we want to be a society that tolerates recruitment consultants? Much to ponder.

Quote from: Josquius on December 13, 2023, 08:18:33 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 08:14:37 AMSo it isn't so much what people say they are doing but rather whether it is judged they are trying to make a point that determines what should be permitted?

I'm pretty sure that its common in law that intent matters. IIRC the wording of hate crime laws in the UK specifically talk about this.

Don't confuse intent with motive.

Intent is basically "did you mean to do what you did".

Motive is "why did you do what you did".

In criminal law intent is hugely important (accidents aren't crimes), but motive doesn't need to be proven.

Quote from: Threviel on December 13, 2023, 10:25:37 AMI'm an atheist, in my mind people that need magical pretend friends to get through life are not admirable in any way shape or form based on that alone. I don't care very much either, for me it's not an important issue unless someone tries to impose their special brand of delusions on me. Then it becomes deadly serious, I do not want that backward shit to affect the laws where I live.

It's always useful when people are so upfront about their bigotry.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2023, 12:42:29 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2023, 12:34:29 PMBut why then that selection of identities? Is it because they are largely seen as immutable?

Like I could see it being negative for society, someone who targets librarians or charity workers or the homeless or refugees. Or, I'm a specious manner, millionaires as UK/US society values money makers. :P

If just clash against social values why aren't those protected categories?

I think that's possibly where the historic disadvantage comes in - we know racism, sexism, sectarianism, transphobia, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled exist (and have existed). But also I think that they are somewhat immutable and, often, a fundamental part of who someone is or is perceived to be. And I think all in one way or other something that can be perceived by someone else which motivates the crime. It's difficult to spot millionaires.

While, despite my best efforts, social wide discrimination against estate agents has yet to take off so they don't need special protection (yet).

Although I have seen landlords on Twitter plead that they need hate crime style protection :lol:

Edit: And in that sense we want to be a multi-faith, multi-racial diverse society where everyone can live. Do we want to be a society that tolerates recruitment consultants? Much to ponder.

I really don't think the distinction between "immutable characteristics" and "choices" is a very useful one.  There's just too much overlap.

Earlier Thereviel characterized religion as a "choice".  In some ways it is, sure.  I know Christianity does emphasize that you have to choose to join the faith.  But that just plain ignores the fact that religion is largely inherited from your parents and society.  If you are religious, it's a good chance it's the same religion as your parents.

Or take language.  You can always go and choose to go out and learn a new language.  But you probably speak the language your parents taught you.

Even when it comes to sexuality or gender - you may be attracted to the same sex, but it's your choice to act on it.  You may feel you identity with a different gender - but it's your choice to take hormones or get gender-affirming surgery.

I really hate the sound of this law, but I'll make an argument in favor of the devil.  One of the responsibilities of every member of a tribe is to protect its own from those outside of their tribe.  In modern days the job is outsourced to the government, but the concept remains the same. 

In return, I would argue that it's reasonable for the tribe to collectively put a limit on the ability of some members to antagonize the members of a different tribe, and get the whole tribe ensnared in a conflict that most wanted nothing to do with.  Therefore, there is some justification for the tribe to collectively go "if you try picking a fight with the goons on the other tribe, we'll stop you violently before you get us all involved".

I'm fine with protecting minorities from oppression and unfair treatment, including religious minorities.

I'm less persuaded that members of a religion that recently got to define the social norms and oppress those who didn't follow those norms they defined are being oppressed when they don't get to be jerks to people who don't follow their norms.

Nor am I particularly keen on giving members of minority religions the ability to impose their norms on others and justifying it as protecting them against bigotry.

There are nuances that can be discussed and reasonable people can disagree on exactly where the lines should be drawn - but the bottom line IMO is that religious people should be respected and accommodated insofar as that accommodation doesn't impose their particular value set on those who do not share their religious values.

Giving more consideration in law to religion than to other ideologies is unsound. Religion is as much a choice as other ideologies, and they also have as much impact on non-adherents as other ideologies, and should be available for criticism, including symbolic criticism. Also, the state having to define religion is best avoided (just like the state having to define art).

If burning religious symbols is illegal then burning national flags (for instance) should be illegal too, if the law is meaningfully consistent. Inconsistent law is unsound, and I think banning flag burning would limit people's ability to express themselves to an undesirable degree (just like banning burning of religious symbols does).

And obviously, as has been mentioned, bowing to terror threats is just very bad policy. If my neighbor comes up to me and says "Hey can I use your lawnmower this weekend?" and I let him use it, then that is ENORMOUSLY different from a situation where he says "Hey I wanna use your lawnmower this weekend, let me do it or I'll beat up your wife" and I let him use it. The situations are not even remotely the same, neither in message I communicate nor regarding impact on future events.

Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2023, 09:17:09 PMEarlier Thereviel characterized religion as a "choice".  In some ways it is, sure.  I know Christianity does emphasize that you have to choose to join the faith.  But that just plain ignores the fact that religion is largely inherited from your parents and society.  If you are religious, it's a good chance it's the same religion as your parents.

You also agreed it was a choice...but it was just 'a choice' but the 'most important choice you will ever make in your life'

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 07:02:52 PMIf you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2023, 09:17:09 PMEven when it comes to sexuality or gender - you may be attracted to the same sex, but it's your choice to act on it.  You may feel you identity with a different gender - but it's your choice to take hormones or get gender-affirming surgery.

Oh fuck you. A claim is made that religion is a choice, you get butthurt and make up a ludicrous claim that choosing one's religion is the most important choice in life. Then you get butthurt again when someone disagrees with you and isn't polite (as wont on Languish) and you declare religion isn't a choice. Then you decide to point out that LGBT individuals could just choose to be unhappy.

Guess what? I'd still be gay and attracted to men even if I weren't fucking them. :o

That said, I do agree that how religion propogates is it gets to children when they are young. The contradictions inherent in organized religion are likely less palatable to non-religious adults off converting. (E.g., loving, omnipotent God who permits all kinds of horrific suffering; if God has you born somewhere where no one is a Christian and you've no opportunity to learn about it to convert, well that might not work out well for you; God gives people ability to reject Christianity and therefore doom themselves for...reasons.)

Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2023, 02:44:33 AMOh fuck you. A claim is made that religion is a choice, you get butthurt and make up a ludicrous claim that choosing one's religion is the most important choice in life. Then you get butthurt again when someone disagrees with you and isn't polite (as wont on Languish) and you declare religion isn't a choice. Then you decide to point out that LGBT individuals could just choose to be unhappy.

Guess what? I'd still be gay and attracted to men even if I weren't fucking them. :o

That said, I do agree that how religion propogates is it gets to children when they are young. The contradictions inherent in organized religion are likely less palatable to non-religious adults off converting. (E.g., loving, omnipotent God who permits all kinds of horrific suffering; if God has you born somewhere where no one is a Christian and you've no opportunity to learn about it to convert, well that might not work out well for you; God gives people ability to reject Christianity and therefore doom themselves for...reasons.)

My point was only that there's not some easy binary between "choice" and "innate characteristic".

When it comes to religion I already said there was an element of choice to it - but there's also an element of innate characteristic.

And that's been an argument used against gay rights in the past - that the person isn't against "the gays" - just against them choosing to act on their sexual attraction.  You rightly object to that kind of reasoning.

What is innate about choosing religious belief?  Are you suggesting the dominant culture is something that is innate to an individual?

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2023, 02:48:19 PMWhat is innate about choosing religious belief?  Are you suggesting the dominant culture is something that is innate to an individual?

If you're in a community where everyone wears a pointy hat and your parents raise you to always wear a pointy hat or else a giant elephant will be angry and stomp on your soul, then stopping wearing a pointy hat isn't an easy decision to make.

Quote from: Josquius on December 14, 2023, 02:52:57 PMIf you're in a community where everyone wears a pointy hat and your parents raise you to always wear a pointy hat or else a giant elephant will be angry and stomp on your soul, then stopping wearing a pointy hat isn't an easy decision to make.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, you should still not agitate for those who don't wear pointy hats to be stomped by elephants due to your communal beliefs.

Quote from: Barrister on December 14, 2023, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2023, 02:44:33 AMOh fuck you. A claim is made that religion is a choice, you get butthurt and make up a ludicrous claim that choosing one's religion is the most important choice in life. Then you get butthurt again when someone disagrees with you and isn't polite (as wont on Languish) and you declare religion isn't a choice. Then you decide to point out that LGBT individuals could just choose to be unhappy.

Guess what? I'd still be gay and attracted to men even if I weren't fucking them. :o

That said, I do agree that how religion propogates is it gets to children when they are young. The contradictions inherent in organized religion are likely less palatable to non-religious adults off converting. (E.g., loving, omnipotent God who permits all kinds of horrific suffering; if God has you born somewhere where no one is a Christian and you've no opportunity to learn about it to convert, well that might not work out well for you; God gives people ability to reject Christianity and therefore doom themselves for...reasons.)

My point was only that there's not some easy binary between "choice" and "innate characteristic".

When it comes to religion I already said there was an element of choice to it - but there's also an element of innate characteristic.

And that's been an argument used against gay rights in the past - that the person isn't against "the gays" - just against them choosing to act on their sexual attraction.  You rightly object to that kind of reasoning.

I'd already said that.

And it isn't the same.

My point was that religion is one of many things in life that you carry and that might be important.

Say for example for many people football is the most important. If you're born in Liverpool you might get lucky and be born into a red family or you might be unlucky to be born into a blue family. Even though Everton seems to suck something fiercely you might like them and it would be very difficult to switch to Liverpool FC. That might be your defining feature and what is most important in your life.

That does not give the state the right to create laws forbidding Liverpool FC:ers from ridiculing, humiliating or enraging Evertonians. Sure, it's bad form and we wish that Liverpoolians would behave better, but it should not be illegal.

It's exactly the same with religion. Religion does not have any properties making it a special case. It's a bunch of people with similar views taking themselves far too seriously, just like football fans, communists, atheists or whatever. It's not the purpose of the state to decide which actions are deemed acceptable as long as no-one is harmed. The classic liberal view, Jacob put it very nicely a bit earlier in the thread.

The special feature of Islam is that apparently a large majority of it's adherents hold views that are incompatible with classical liberalism and that there are enough adherents that are an actual threat to the general public. That does not mean that the state should bend over and use its monopoly of violence to force non-muslims to not insult islam. It ought to mean that the state should use all its power to defend the right of its population to insult islam, whilst perhaps using soft power to tone it down a bit, it's bad form after all. Just like states comes down hard on football hooligans, they don't make laws forbidding people from enraging hooligans.

Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2023, 03:26:40 PM

Quote from: Josquius on December 14, 2023, 02:52:57 PMIf you're in a community where everyone wears a pointy hat and your parents raise you to always wear a pointy hat or else a giant elephant will be angry and stomp on your soul, then stopping wearing a pointy hat isn't an easy decision to make.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, you should still not agitate for those who don't wear pointy hats to be stomped by elephants due to your communal beliefs.

Yes.
Though even there worth noting that believing the non-hatted are evil isn't a simple switch if that's all you've ever known.
That does have the advantage in reality that there usually will be moderates within your circle who can provide a neat off-road.

Quote from: Threviel on December 15, 2023, 01:47:31 AMMy point was that religion is one of many things in life that you carry and that might be important.

Say for example for many people football is the most important. If you're born in Liverpool you might get lucky and be born into a red family or you might be unlucky to be born into a blue family. Even though Everton seems to suck something fiercely you might like them and it would be very difficult to switch to Liverpool FC. That might be your defining feature and what is most important in your life.

That does not give the state the right to create laws forbidding Liverpool FC:ers from ridiculing, humiliating or enraging Evertonians. Sure, it's bad form and we wish that Liverpoolians would behave better, but it should not be illegal.

So look - I'm a passionate sports fan.  My father was/is a sports journalist, my kids play competitive sports.  I annually bump a thread about my favourite sports team here on Languish.

But everyone knows that sports is a game.  If I walk into an Edmonton Oilers home game wearing my Winnipeg Jets jersey I fully expect to get comments and teased.  I'm going to hear it if the Oilers win, and I'm going to be smug if the Jets win.  That's all part of the fun.  I don't expect to get assaulted over wearing the wrong jersey, but we already have laws about that.

That's where your analogy is completely wrong.  Religion DOES have special properties.  These are belief systems that go back thousands of years.  They deal with (according to believers) not only your life on earth, but your life after death as well.  They give rules that are supposed to cover how you are supposed to carry out your entire life.

Now I'm not 100% sure about the "banning burning the Koran" laws.  I think burning a Koran is juvenile, childish and deliberately offensive and I wish people wouldn't do it, but I'm not quite sure if it should be banned.  But I do think there's a legitimate argument to be had.

And like I said - I appreciate you being upfront about your bigotry against religious people. :)

It's all fun and games until you wear your Everton shirt on the Kop at Anfield when there's a derby going on.

Jokes aside it's obvious that religion plays a bigger part in more peoples lives than sport. It was just a harmless example.

Nothing very much wrong with religion, I'm all for letting people find their own salvation. It's religious laws affecting the nonbelievers I care about. And I used a silly example to display the absurdity of the Danish law. I wish they would target the hooligans instead of protecting them.

Quote from: Threviel on December 15, 2023, 01:49:56 PMJokes aside it's obvious that religion plays a bigger part in more peoples lives than sport.

And that's too bad.

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 07:02:52 PMIf you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

That's because it doesn't. Can you explain why it should deserve more respect from others?

Why should I treat any religion with respect? How could my disrespect possibly affect your salvation or whatever?

QuoteNo, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

That's what YOU believe. I believe that's total, comical nonsense. Has your faith been affected in anyway by me laughing at this statement?

Quote from: Zoupa on December 15, 2023, 11:32:16 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 12, 2023, 07:02:52 PMIf you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

That's because it doesn't. Can you explain why it should deserve more respect from others?

Why should I treat any religion with respect? How could my disrespect possibly affect your salvation or whatever?

QuoteNo, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

That's what YOU believe. I believe that's total, comical nonsense. Has your faith been affected in anyway by me laughing at this statement?

Why should I treat your language with respect?  I mean - you obviously know English.  So just man up and speak white, right?

Obviously not.

I should treat your language with respect because it's important to you.

We should try to treat our fellow citizens with respect even if we don't understand or identify with the things that they think are important.  That's just part of living in a hopefully harmonious pluralistic society.

Beeb, my language is not treated with respect. Hence the whole separatist movement? I'm speaking white right now, btw.

People's religion of choice is as worthy of respect or even interest to me as their sock colour. I don't care what you believe, it should not have any bearing on my life.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 16, 2023, 02:08:14 AMBeeb, my language is not treated with respect. Hence the whole separatist movement? I'm speaking white right now, btw.

People's religion of choice is as worthy of respect or even interest to me as their sock colour. I don't care what you believe, it should not have any bearing on my life.

"This thing that is important to me should be important to everyone.  This thing I don't care about should be ignored by everyone."

Like - I have no idea why Sikhs put so much importance on their turbans.  I mean - it's just a silly hat, right?  But they do place importance on it, so I should respect it not because I care or understand, but because they care.

I'm not going around the city tearing down turbans and crosses from people. I just don't feel the need to have any sort of accommodation related to demands based on religion.

Like the famous Mountie turban guy. I found it profoundly stupid that rules had to be bent for him. You start down this path and you'll get a mountie with a pasta strainer on his head, because why not?

I think that people deserve respect and the cultural roots of people deserve respect if it's something harmless as a turban or an Everton shirt.

They do not deserve respect for harmful things and for things that are oppressive. The turban is interesting because it's a male symbol that every male Sikh should wear. Kind of like a Hijab, which is very similar to what most older women wore daily when I grew up. I don't really have a problem with either of these and since they are harmless an people think them important we should make allowances. It costs very little and to show respect to our fellow men is the decent thing to do.

In contrast with Niqab and Burkha, they are not harmless in my eyes. They are symbols of oppression and furthermore they cover the face and gives anonymity which is not something that's acceptable in most instances. To them we should make no allowances what so ever.

And by that I don't mean that religion deserves any kind of special treatment, because it doesn't. Still doesn't mean that we should be dicks to religious people.

Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2023, 03:30:33 PM

Quote from: Threviel on December 15, 2023, 01:49:56 PMJokes aside it's obvious that religion plays a bigger part in more peoples lives than sport.

And that's too bad.

Depends on the country.  :P

Quote from: Tamas on December 12, 2023, 03:53:12 AMWhat I disliked most reading about this law was that apparently one governmental reasoning was that Quran-burning was not only "against the interests of Denmark" but "endangering Danish citizens". This is the worst possible reason to make such a law - showcasing that yes, violence works, if you want us more down your zealot road, please do more violence to us.

I usually draw the limit at book burning.  For religious or political reasons.
And incitement to hatred, which is highly subjective.  Publicly, of course.  Privately, is a different matter.

And as I understand it, this is what it was.

There's no way American Christians would not be up in arms if we started burning Bibles publicly.  Actually, they protest in front of metal shows for less.

And there's a loophole in the US laws for free speech:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N37N1L5/

Yup, it's naive to think if people were burning bibles in the states some snake handler wouldn't be out there shooting people up.

Since this is the Scandinavian thread, I came up on this:
(https://i.imgur.com/EYDPpAJ.jpg)


There's still a Sweden-Denmark rivalry?  Someone is still pissed off at the end of the Kalmar Union?  Kinda strange that they include the lands discovered by a Norwegian descendant, but I've seen stranger things I suppose.

Should the Baltic Republic also reinforce their navies, on top of their borders with Russia? :P

Quote from: HVC on December 16, 2023, 11:01:51 AMYup, it's naive to think if people were burning bibles in the states some snake handler wouldn't be out there shooting people up.

That already happens, no violence.

Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2023, 11:05:57 AMThere's still a Sweden-Denmark rivalry?

:P

100% there's a Danish-Swedish rivalry :lol:

It's basically just very persistent trash talk, and is put aside in face of serious issues. Basically it's like two brothers who fight and put each other down, but who will work closely together when the situation calls for it.

In any Danish forum, mention anything about Sweden in any context at all and you're bound to get comments about Swedish inferiority. Any kind of international ranking, no matter how awful the placing is for Denmark will elicit some level of satisfaction as long as we outrank Sweden. Most people don't really care, and it's almost purely reflexive, but there is definitely consistent trash talk thrown at Sweden.

From my occasional visits to Swedish forums - and from examples this map - it's pretty clearly reciprocated.

But on real issues Sweden and Denmark collaborate and support each other. Should Russia somehow fuck with Sweden, Denmark would 100% be there to support them and vice versa.

We rarely mention the Danes. The Nowegians are our competitors and the Finns our friends. The Danes are mostly drunk hobos.

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2023, 01:32:17 PMBut on real issues Sweden and Denmark collaborate and support each other. Should Russia somehow fuck with Sweden, Denmark would 100% be there to support them and vice versa.

I had no doubt it about it. :)

I just found the map amusing with the inclusion of Iceland, Greenland, Vinland and Markland, given they were not discovered by Swedes or descendants of Swedish colonists who emigrated to Iceland. :)


Norwegian and Danish seems pretty close as language, but Swedish is farther from these two, right?  Which of the 3 has the lowest tax rates so I can pick wisely my new overlords? :P

Quote from: Threviel on December 16, 2023, 03:33:54 PMThe Danes are mostly drunk hobos.

They have King Christian IV, you have Carolus Rex.
Though call.  I'd vote for the one with the cool song.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 16, 2023, 03:07:07 AMI'm not going around the city tearing down turbans and crosses from people. I just don't feel the need to have any sort of accommodation related to demands based on religion.

Like the famous Mountie turban guy. I found it profoundly stupid that rules had to be bent for him. You start down this path and you'll get a mountie with a pasta strainer on his head, because why not?

I feel like your cultural references are like 30 years old.

I know a whole bunch of police officers/sheriffs who wear turbans.  They typically wear black/blue turbans with a shield in the front - it looks really sharp.

You know there are all kind of interesting conversations to be had about wearing a turban while on a construction site, or while riding a motorcycle (instead of wearing protective headwear).  But when it is purely symbolic - what the fuck is the harm is someone wears a turban?

You mention a pasta strainer.  I think there is no problem is saying that before a religious accommodation is made it needs to be a "seriously held" religious belief.  And again while I think there might be some discussions around the edges, I don't think a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster would ever count as a serious religious belief.

But more generally - human history is replete with hundreds if not thousands of years of religious violence - followers of one religion fighting followers of another.  It was finally in the 17th-19th century where we, as a human society, decided to follow a belief of "live and let live" - that people of different religious beliefs should just accept people of other beliefs.

So I just  have a real problem with this "new atheist" movement who wants to ignore all of that human history, and ignore all those millions/billions of people who believe in religion, and think those beliefs should just be tossed into the dustbin of history and given no accommodation whatsoever.

Like I said earlier - I don't know about banning the burning of Holy Books. I can see the pros and cons of both sides.  But I just can't understand how one can be so dismissive of the entire idea of respecting any of the millions/billions of people who believe in religion.

Quote from: Threviel on December 16, 2023, 03:33:54 PMWe rarely mention the Danes. The Nowegians are our competitors and the Finns our friends. The Danes are mostly drunk hobos.

The Finns dunk on Swedes plenty. :P

Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2023, 01:49:29 AMYou mention a pasta strainer.  I think there is no problem is saying that before a religious accommodation is made it needs to be a "seriously held" religious belief.  And again while I think there might be some discussions around the edges, I don't think a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster would ever count as a serious religious belief.

How do you determine if a belief is seriously held? There is a fundamental unseriousness to these accommodation demands.

Also I believe this reading of history is wrong:

QuoteIt was finally in the 17th-19th century where we, as a human society, decided to follow a belief of "live and let live" - that people of different religious beliefs should just accept people of other beliefs.

The West decided during the Enlightenment to separate church and state, and more generally for organized religions to have less and less say in public policies. It was not a kumbaya moment where folks in Florence decided to accept muslims as they are, it was a recognition that religion hampers progress and should have no weight in stately matters.

Religion is a private matter. We should not be carving out exceptions.

Thinking about the religion and football analogy... Is that not being looked at the wrong way? Less an attempt to disprove religiosity motivated hate and more evidence that football related hate counts too - it is afterall a perfectly innocent part of who someone is they'd be attacked for.

Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2023, 08:40:32 PMNorwegian and Danish seems pretty close as language, but Swedish is farther from these two, right?  Which of the 3 has the lowest tax rates so I can pick wisely my new overlords? :P

Spoken Swedish and spoken Norwegian are most similar, with Danish getting a lot of shit on that front for being less clear.

Written Norwegian and written Danish on the other hand are very similar - I always find it funny multilingual packaging will often just have the one entry for Swedish and Danish.

Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2023, 08:40:32 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2023, 01:32:17 PMBut on real issues Sweden and Denmark collaborate and support each other. Should Russia somehow fuck with Sweden, Denmark would 100% be there to support them and vice versa.

I had no doubt it about it. :)

I just found the map amusing with the inclusion of Iceland, Greenland, Vinland and Markland, given they were not discovered by Swedes or descendants of Swedish colonists who emigrated to Iceland. :)


Norwegian and Danish seems pretty close as language, but Swedish is farther from these two, right?  Which of the 3 has the lowest tax rates so I can pick wisely my new overlords? :P

The different nordic countries may seem very similar and they are very similar, but they do have some personality.

The Danes are like the uncle living a happy life, having done some really cool stuff and seen a lot, in a somewhat run down house. They have a wholly different business culture to the others and cannot in any way shape or form be trusted in money affairs.

The Swedes are the boring big brother with a bit of Asperger, always ready to point out the faults in others and to look down on them. Trustworthy and responsible, but uninteresting. Takes ourselves far too seriously.

The Finns are the silent middle brother. Trudging along without making much of a fuss of anything. Very similar to Sweden in most ways, except they don't have the superiority complex.

The Norwegians are the slightly retarded cousins from the countryside that have won the lottery. Weirdly religious.

We like each other and when abroad we gather together and can talk to each other. In international affairs we have mostly the same outlook and we support one another. Not to the point that we would go to war for the others (before Nato that is), but still.

We like to make fun of the Danes, mostly over the guttural sounds they call Danish or their drinking habits, but we make even more fun of the Norwegians. It's never serious and we have no real dislike of any of them.

Language wise Norwegian is easy to understand, they have dialects close to Swedish and dialects closer to Danish. Danish can be understood with difficulty. We had a job meeting the other day with some Danes involved and we spoke English, that wouldn't happen with Norwegians. Icelandic is unintelligible for everyone.

Quote from: Threviel on December 17, 2023, 07:35:41 AMLanguage wise Norwegian is easy to understand, they have dialects close to Swedish and dialects closer to Danish. Danish can be understood with difficulty. We had a job meeting the other day with some Danes involved and we spoke English, that wouldn't happen with Norwegians. Icelandic is unintelligible for everyone.

So, the Icelanders are like the Quebecers, they kept the purer language form? :sleep:  :D
(Duque, are you reading this? :P )


Icelandic is closer to older Norse than modern Scandinavian languages, isn't it?  I guess they had less cultural exchange due to being farther from mainland Europe, they were less involved in the affairs over there.

I think we were discussing the topic the ethnic composition of vikings in the UK thread, but I think it fits better in this thread

Some evidence of the foreign composition

QuoteWho was in Harold Bluetooth's army? Strontium isotope investigation of the cemetery at the Viking Age fortress at Trelleborg, Denmark

The circular fortress of Trelleborg on Zealand in Denmark is well known as a military camp with a key role in the formation of the Danish state under Harald Bluetooth in the tenth century AD. Taking a sample of 48 burials from the fort, strontium isotope analysis once again demonstrates its ability to eavesdrop on a community: at Trelleborg, the young men in its cemetery were largely recruited from outside Denmark, perhaps from Norway or the Slavic regions. Even persons buried together proved to have different origins, and the three females sampled were all from overseas, including a wealthy woman with a silver casket. Trelleborg, home of Harald Bluetooth's army, was a fortress of foreigners with vivid implications for the nature of his political mission.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/who-was-in-harold-bluetooths-army-strontium-isotope-investigation-of-the-cemetery-at-the-viking-age-fortress-at-trelleborg-denmark/EC869F4BE5A4B8C6F5125A1071687549

I wonder if Viking raiding groups had a large amount of south Slavs and maybe Greeks. A lot of nords became Varangian guards (some famous like the other famous Harald, harald Hardrada). So many in fact that inheritance laws were changed to discourage it.  Would make sense they made friends down south.

Quote from: HVC on December 17, 2023, 12:18:11 PMI wonder if Viking raiding groups had a large amount of south Slavs and maybe Greeks. A lot of nords became Varangian guards (some famous like the other famous Harald, harald Hardrada). So many in fact that inheritance laws were changed to discourage it.  Would make sense they made friends down south.

I haven't come across any such references myself. I did just learn that both Ireland and Britain had denouncements or laws to discourage locals from joining viking raiders.

Makes sense that people forming effectively a standing state army at this time and place would be largely foreigners. And IIRC signs point to a significant foreign element among the soldiers at Birka.

The movie "The Norseman" had a black Viking, supposedly picked up during a raid in the Mediterranean. Incidentally, one of the more believable bits in the movie. :D

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m906DVm2k9o/TvUyKnNIrXI/AAAAAAAAC7k/pyD_y2EZArE/s1600/bv_dj.jpg)

(https://dienachtderlebendentexte.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/die_nordmaenner_im_angesicht_des_falken-2.jpg)

(The black character is named Thraul, which I assume is a misspelling of thrall ... I guess calling him "slave" was too on the nose :P )

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2023, 12:42:47 PMMakes sense that people forming effectively a standing state army at this time and place would be largely foreigners. And IIRC signs point to a significant foreign element among the soldiers at Birka.

You wonder to what extent that was also true of William's army - and almost if, despite the obviously different religious and ideological context, it's a pre-figuring of the Crusades?

Prefiguring the crusades in what sense?

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2023, 02:45:40 PMPrefiguring the crusades in what sense?

In getting a loads of lads together from all over the region to go and cause havoc, do a bit of looting, maybe become an earl etc?

Crusades as development of Viking raids, but also William's army, Saxon wars etc. Perhaps Christianity and the whole Truce of God ideas restricting that adventurism within Latin Christendom, the Crusades then directing it to the Holy Land?

Edit: New theory of history - more can be explained by the instinct of lads to go on tour than we'd previously thought :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 17, 2023, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2023, 02:45:40 PMPrefiguring the crusades in what sense?

In getting a loads of lads together from all over the region to go and cause havoc, do a bit of looting, maybe become an earl etc?

Wasn't that common though? German raids into Rome were a mismatch of semi related (or unrelated) tribes banned together for loot. Even the celts before them.

 :lmfao:
I want to read the popular history book about this lads go on tour theory .

Though I guess it does lean heavily into the well established theory that Europe in general /Britain in particular came to be globe spanning imperial master adventurers because their homeland was shit.

But yes. Tribes raiding their neighbours the natural order of things for humans. You see it still in the 4th world, which in 2023 of course leaks into the 3rd.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 17, 2023, 02:38:18 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 17, 2023, 12:42:47 PMMakes sense that people forming effectively a standing state army at this time and place would be largely foreigners. And IIRC signs point to a significant foreign element among the soldiers at Birka.

You wonder to what extent that was also true of William's army - and almost if, despite the obviously different religious and ideological context, it's a pre-figuring of the Crusades?

I mean...it was literally blessed by the Pope as a holy war.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 17, 2023, 02:51:59 PMCrusades as development of Viking raids, but also William's army, Saxon wars etc. Perhaps Christianity and the whole Truce of God ideas restricting that adventurism within Latin Christendom, the Crusades then directing it to the Holy Land?

Only proper non-cringe Crusade was that of Sigurðr Jórsalafari. He sailed off from Norway, skipping the overland journey and basically went on a massive lads on tour/bloody rampage of the Mediterranean, made it to Jerusalem and back again in one piece.  :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 17, 2023, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2023, 02:45:40 PMPrefiguring the crusades in what sense?

In getting a loads of lads together from all over the region to go and cause havoc, do a bit of looting, maybe become an earl etc?

Crusades as development of Viking raids, but also William's army, Saxon wars etc. Perhaps Christianity and the whole Truce of God ideas restricting that adventurism within Latin Christendom, the Crusades then directing it to the Holy Land?

Edit: New theory of history - more can be explained by the instinct of lads to go on tour than we'd previously thought :lol:

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Roman empire, but this and related topic is frequently top of mind....  :lol:

So... I agree that harrying the neighbours (and farther afield) with sword & brand is pretty universal and I absolutely agree that - papal blessings notwithstanding - can easily be understood in that context.

Conversely, I'd also argue that the viking raids have gotten a little more PR than average and are considered more unique than maybe they should due to the authorial inclinations of the monks who wrote about them.

On a different tangent - while I find the idea of "the lads getting together for a bit of looting and pillage" very appealing, I'm reasonably sure that viking raids (and their equivalents in most other cultures) were typically endeavours organized by the magnate class.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2023, 01:25:45 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2023, 02:58:30 PMHere's a thread for random Scandinavian topics.

First topic:

As you may know, Denmark recently passed a law outlawing burning the Quran. Legally, I believe, the law outlaws the desecrating different religious objects in various ways, but the real intent is to prevent the burning of the Quran to protect the sensibilities of Muslims - in Denmark and abroad.

I think you got this thread off on the wrong foot by misdescribing the law.  It is not specific to the Quran.  Rather it is "inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognised religious community"

Where is the list of "recognized religious communities kept?  How does a religious community go about becoming recognized?  If a religious community is recognized in one EU country, is it recognized in all of them?

This is a terrible law for many, many reasons, not least of which being that it discriminates against religions that are not "recognized."  The horrific free speech implications are obvious as well.

Certainly not an EU competence, no idea about the rest of your question with regards to Denmark. But as I know the German rules I can confidently state that it will be different across the EU.

I guess the most simple case is similar to a tax exemption claim with the IRS.

I think I mistranslated the term in my post - it should be "registered religious community" and is an administrative term to describe a temple, church, or association formally recognized by the Church Ministry as serving religious function. I think Zanza's analogy of a church (or other group) getting tax exempt status in the US is pretty good, though the consequences of the status in Denmark are different.

This may or may not affect any points about whether and how much the state should be involved in recognizing religious communities (or not), but our conversation will be based on a slightly a more accurate reflection of what's actually happening.

Quote from: Zanza on December 17, 2023, 08:47:51 PMCertainly not an EU competence, no idea about the rest of your question with regards to Denmark. But as I know the German rules I can confidently state that it will be different across the EU.

I guess the most simple case is similar to a tax exemption claim with the IRS.

But any organization can make the tax exemption case in the US.  Anyone can declare their group to be a tax-exempt part of The Church of the FSM provided they meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3)e.  To be tax-exempt, all churches must be non-profits under IRC Section 501(c)(3)e, and the "religious exemption" is a purely optional designation signifying nothing in law.

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2023, 09:09:32 PMI think I mistranslated the term in my post - it should be "registered religious community" and is an administrative term to describe a temple, church, or association formally recognized by the Church Ministry as serving religious function. I think Zanza's analogy of a church (or other group) getting tax exempt status in the US is pretty good, though the consequences of the status in Denmark are different.

This may or may not affect any points about whether and how much the state should be involved in recognizing religious communities (or not), but our conversation will be based on a slightly a more accurate reflection of what's actually happening.

I was unaware of the existence of a Church Ministry that gatekeeps religious registration (and thus recognition) in Denmark.  I thought all of that stuff disappeared with the Enlightenment.

Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2023, 10:46:07 PMI was unaware of the existence of a Church Ministry that gatekeeps religious registration (and thus recognition) in Denmark.  I thought all of that stuff disappeared with the Enlightenment.

Oh no, not at all. In a Lutheran state, religion is subjected to the power of the state. That was one of the sticking points of the Reformation, after all.

Denmark has a state religion - or rather an Established Church (Evangelical Lutheran). Therefore the state has a ministry dedicated to administering the Established Church, which has - since the advent of religious freedom (in the Danish Constitution since 1849) - grown to take on administrative functions related to all religions in the country.

I genuinely don't know if it is more onerous to become a recognized religious community in Denmark than to get tax free status as a church in the US. I expect it may be.

By default - unless you belong to another religious community - you are a member of the state church and thus pay a certain amount of tax which is used to pay for upkeep of churches, pay for priests, and so on. Other religious communities similarly receive the church tax money collected from their members. It is possible - and fairly trivial - to leave the state church and thus not pay the (slight) church tax.

There's even a registered Asatru religious community.

Definitely not the American way :)

Any idea how much people pay a year?

And I suppose they've done away with the offering plate?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2023, 12:20:14 AMAny idea how much people pay a year?

I looked it up - it depends on your municipality (as I think the various churches etc are administered at that level). It ranges from 0.43% to 1.3% of your income, with a national average of 0.88%... which I guess may or may not be slight depending on your perspective.

QuoteAnd I suppose they've done away with the offering plate?

I expect so. As I understand it, it's also fundamentally free to be baptized, confirmed, or married in a church (but you'll probably pay extra for additional things like flowers or music or whatnot). If/when you're baptized in a state church you automatically become a member of the church... I assume it's something similar for the other religious communities.

Quote from: Josquius on December 14, 2023, 02:52:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2023, 02:48:19 PMWhat is innate about choosing religious belief?  Are you suggesting the dominant culture is something that is innate to an individual?

If you're in a community where everyone wears a pointy hat and your parents raise you to always wear a pointy hat or else a giant elephant will be angry and stomp on your soul, then stopping wearing a pointy hat isn't an easy decision to make.

Yes.  But that is not an innate human quality.  You are describing cultural values.  Which was the point I was awkwardly trying to make. If a certain type of religious belief was innate to our species, the vast majority of us would follow it.

Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2023, 10:42:48 PM

Quote from: Zanza on December 17, 2023, 08:47:51 PMCertainly not an EU competence, no idea about the rest of your question with regards to Denmark. But as I know the German rules I can confidently state that it will be different across the EU.

I guess the most simple case is similar to a tax exemption claim with the IRS.

But any organization can make the tax exemption case in the US.  Anyone can declare their group to be a tax-exempt part of The Church of the FSM provided they meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3)e.  To be tax-exempt, all churches must be non-profits under IRC Section 501(c)(3)e, and the "religious exemption" is a purely optional designation signifying nothing in law.

Oh, I did not know that.  Thanks.

In Canada it is a bit different.  Religious groups are usually registered as charitable organizations.  To qualify as a charity the money received, after expenses, must be used for charitable purposes.   

Quote from: Zoupa on December 17, 2023, 02:39:18 AM

Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2023, 01:49:29 AMYou mention a pasta strainer.  I think there is no problem is saying that before a religious accommodation is made it needs to be a "seriously held" religious belief.  And again while I think there might be some discussions around the edges, I don't think a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster would ever count as a serious religious belief.

How do you determine if a belief is seriously held? There is a fundamental unseriousness to these accommodation demands.

Also I believe this reading of history is wrong:

QuoteIt was finally in the 17th-19th century where we, as a human society, decided to follow a belief of "live and let live" - that people of different religious beliefs should just accept people of other beliefs.

The West decided during the Enlightenment to separate church and state, and more generally for organized religions to have less and less say in public policies. It was not a kumbaya moment where folks in Florence decided to accept muslims as they are, it was a recognition that religion hampers progress and should have no weight in stately matters.

Religion is a private matter. We should not be carving out exceptions.

I think you my friend have the misreading of history.

During the enlightenment European countries certainly did not decide to separate church and state - many/most European countries continue to have official state religions to this day.  I always like to bring up that the pre-amble to the Canadian constitution recognizes the "supremacy of God".

However, after the various wars of religion in Europe, it eventually was decided that trying to enforce one's religion on others was doomed, and instead that a general policy of religious toleration would be agreed to.  Now yes in Florence (or wherever) that was more about Protestants vs Catholics, and not Islam (never mind Sikhism or whatever) but the principle none the less stands.

And since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

There is an interesting argument coming from the Evangelical community in Canada that our nation does not have a separation of Church and State.  As BB points out, there is wording in the preamble of our Constitution Act of 1982 which recognizes both the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Which God in particular is also an interesting question not addressed in the Constitution. 

The courts have not given any weight to the language in the preamble and so, for at least the present, the separation of Church and State is well recognized in Canada, and particularly in the Freedom of Religion jurisprudence which recognizes freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

So for example, laws prohibiting Sunday shopping were struck down.  Also, the State cannot endorse any particular religious belief in Canada.     

Just because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 12:42:59 PMThere is an interesting argument coming from the Evangelical community in Canada that our nation does not have a separation of Church and State.  As BB points out, there is wording in the preamble of our Constitution Act of 1982 which recognizes both the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Which God in particular is also an interesting question not addressed in the Constitution. 

The courts have not given any weight to the language in the preamble and so, for at least the present, the separation of Church and State is well recognized in Canada, and particularly in the Freedom of Religion jurisprudence which recognizes freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

So for example, laws prohibiting Sunday shopping were struck down.  Also, the State cannot endorse any particular religious belief in Canada.     

Oh I'm 100% sure that the vagueness of "God" was deliberate.

And while the "supremacy of God" in the preamble has never been a deciding issue on a decision that I'm aware of, the Courts have never said that the preamble itself is without meaning, either.

So I'm unfamiliar with the specific argument from the "Evangelical community" you're referencing, but it is true that we don't have the same language that the US does about about the separation of church and state.  In particular the rights of Catholics is enshrined in the Quebec Act, and the rights to religious education is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2023, 01:12:13 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 12:42:59 PMThere is an interesting argument coming from the Evangelical community in Canada that our nation does not have a separation of Church and State.  As BB points out, there is wording in the preamble of our Constitution Act of 1982 which recognizes both the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Which God in particular is also an interesting question not addressed in the Constitution. 

The courts have not given any weight to the language in the preamble and so, for at least the present, the separation of Church and State is well recognized in Canada, and particularly in the Freedom of Religion jurisprudence which recognizes freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

So for example, laws prohibiting Sunday shopping were struck down.  Also, the State cannot endorse any particular religious belief in Canada.     

Oh I'm 100% sure that the vagueness of "God" was deliberate.

And while the "supremacy of God" in the preamble has never been a deciding issue on a decision that I'm aware of, the Courts have never said that the preamble itself is without meaning, either.

So I'm unfamiliar with the specific argument from the "Evangelical community" you're referencing, but it is true that we don't have the same language that the US does about about the separation of church and state.  In particular the rights of Catholics is enshrined in the Quebec Act, and the rights to religious education is guaranteed in the Constitution.

There was an interesting anecdote shared by my constitutional prof back in the day. Trudeau was convinced to include the wording when someone from his caucus pointed out all the churches in swing ridings.

If you want to see the arguments, look up the arguments made by the Appellants in the Servatius case decided by the BC Court of Appeal last year.  It was essentially based on the textual analysis you posed in the last paragraph of your post - that we don't have the same language therefore there is no formal separation.  The court rejected the argument and pointed to the SCC cases which have decided there is a clear separation.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 02:01:17 PMIf you want to see the arguments, look up the arguments made by the Appellants in the Servatius case decided by the BC Court of Appeal last year.  It was essentially based on the textual analysis you posed in the last paragraph of your post - that we don't have the same language therefore there is no formal separation.  The court rejected the argument and pointed to the SCC cases which have decided there is a clear separation.

So I wasn't familiar with the case but looked it up:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca421/2022bcca421.html

Here's the relevant portion:

QuoteState Neutrality
[65]      I turn to the second aspect of freedom of religion: the duty of state neutrality. The Charter does not expressly impose a duty of religious neutrality on the state. This duty arises from an evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion: Saguenay at paras. 71–72.

[66]      Our understanding of freedom of religion includes separation of church and state, and includes the obligation of the state to remain neutral. This is not because the state has hostility towards religion but, rather, because religion occupies a separate sphere than the state. Religious leaders interfering with or dictating state policy is viewed as undemocratic. In this regard, see Jeroen Temperman, State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law: Towards a Right to Religiously Neutral Governance, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010) at 136–37.

[67]      State neutrality is assured "when the state neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever, while taking into account the competing constitutional rights of the individuals affected": S.L. at paras. 31–32; Saguenay at para. 71. When the state indicates that it adheres to or favours one set of beliefs, it is creating a "hierarchy of beliefs and casting doubt on the value of those it does not share": Saguenay at para. 73.

[68]      The duty of neutrality applies to government institutions, not individuals, and it helps preserve and promote multiculturalism and diversity. It encourages everyone to participate fully in public life regardless of their beliefs: Saguenay at paras. 74–75.

[69]      The duty of state neutrality does not mean that the state favours atheism or agnosticism by default. It simply means that the state takes no position on questions of religion. This was explained in Saguenay:

[133]   Contrary to the respondents' argument, abstaining does not amount to taking a stand in favour of atheism or agnosticism. The difference, which, although subtle, is important, can be illustrated easily. A practice according to which a municipality's officials, rather than reciting a prayer, solemnly declared that the council's deliberations were based on a denial of God would be just as unacceptable. The state's duty of neutrality would preclude such a position, the effect of which would be to exclude all those who believe in the existence of a deity.

[70]      Saguenay involved a city mayor who started each municipal council meeting with a prayer at a microphone. The mayor and other counsellors would stand and make the sign of the cross when the prayer was said. One citizen asked that the mayor cease this practice which he said interfered with his own freedom of conscience and religion. The mayor refused and then the council passed a by-law incorporating a prayer into the beginning of their meetings. The citizen brought a complaint which made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[71]      In finding that the citizen's complaint must prevail, Gascon J. noted, at para. 64, that state sponsorship of one religious tradition amounts to discrimination against other such traditions.

[72]      Saguenay explains that it is no answer for the state to suggest that its form of expression is merely part of a cultural heritage, if the expression identifies the state with a particular religion: paras. 77–78, 87–88. However, the duty of state neutrality is not breached by every expression of religion in the public sphere. Cultural practices may be intertwined with the religious, and not all cultural expressions will breach the state's duty of neutrality: Saguenay, at paras. 87, 116, 131.

[73]      A complainant seeking to prove that a state practice breaches the duty of neutrality must prove two components:

a)   the state is professing, adopting or favouring one belief to the exclusion of others; and

b)   the exclusion has resulted in interference with the complainant's freedom of conscience and religion.

See Saguenay at paras. 83–85.

[74]      The first component requires the court to consider the circumstances to determine the state actor's intention behind the action at issue, and to consider the actual effect of the state's action: Saguenay at para. 88.

[75]      The second component returns to the test for showing interference with religious freedom. The complainant must establish two components to make out interference: first, that the complainant's religious belief is sincere and, second, that the state's lack of neutrality has interfered with the individual's ability to act in accordance with their own beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial: Saguenay at paras. 85–86, 88.

[76]      This was demonstrated in Saguenay where the complainant was an atheist. The prayer at the start of each council meeting made him feel uncomfortable, and had a "severe exclusionary and isolating impact" on him. The Court found that the circumstances in which the prayer was recited "turned the meetings into a preferential space for people with theistic beliefs": Saguenay at paras. 93, 120–121.

So paragraph 66 does use the phrase "separation of church and state", but that is the only use of that phrase in the entire judgment.  It cites to an article (not caselaw).  Throughout the rest of the section (including the subheading) it instead uses the phrase "religious neutrality" which is I think a much better characterization of the state of law in Canada.

I think it's also useful to look at the facts of the case - kids were observing indigenous cultural practices at school, which included a prayer.  An evangelical parent sued saying that her kids were forced to participate in a religious exercise against their will - a claim which the courts dismissed.  So this was actually a ruing in favour of a religious element to a school event.

No, not at all.  You could not have read the case very carefully in the short time since I told you about it.  I suggest you read it a bit more carefully.  You will find the factual allegation of the parent was rejected by the court. 

Paragraph 66 sums up succinctly what I have been saying.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2023, 12:47:10 PMJust because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Yes, exactly. This part of Beeb's argument is conflating freedom with respect:

QuoteAnd since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

Not being a dick is a general good idea in order to live in a harmonious society, hence why I don't go around mocking religious people. It goes both ways though. I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 02:33:19 PMNo, not at all.  You could not have read the case very carefully in the short time since I told you about it.  I suggest you read it a bit more carefully.  You will find the factual allegation of the parent was rejected by the court. 

Paragraph 66 sums up succinctly what I have been saying.

CC, if you want to make a counter-argument please feel free to do so, but you can't just say "read it a bit more carefully".

There's a single passing reference to "separation of church and state", but 43 references to "neutrality".

As for the "factual allegation" - the facts don't seem to generally in dispute here (looks like some debate about whether the child was "fanned in smoke"), but in the end the court found the child was not compelled to participate in the ceremony, and instead only observed.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 18, 2023, 03:10:27 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2023, 12:47:10 PMJust because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Yes, exactly. This part of Beeb's argument is conflating freedom with respect:

QuoteAnd since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

Not being a dick is a general good idea in order to live in a harmonious society, hence why I don't go around mocking religious people. It goes both ways though. I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever.

So you're confusing the responsibilities of the state, with your responsibilities.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to governments, not individuals.  You can shout from the rooftops how much Islam (or Christianity) sucks to your heart's content.  The government, however, does have to treat religious beliefs with some degree of respect.

Whether that should extend to banning the burning of religious holy texts is a matter of debate.  I'm of two minds on the topic.  But government doesn't have the option of saying "I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever".  And we have quite a lot of caselaw about the extent to which governments should, or should not, accommodate various religious beliefs.  Such accommodations are absolutely not without limit, but they certainly do exist.

Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2023, 03:51:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 02:33:19 PMNo, not at all.  You could not have read the case very carefully in the short time since I told you about it.  I suggest you read it a bit more carefully.  You will find the factual allegation of the parent was rejected by the court. 

Paragraph 66 sums up succinctly what I have been saying.

CC, if you want to make a counter-argument please feel free to do so, but you can't just say "read it a bit more carefully".

There's a single passing reference to "separation of church and state", but 43 references to "neutrality".

As for the "factual allegation" - the facts don't seem to generally in dispute here (looks like some debate about whether the child was "fanned in smoke"), but in the end the court found the child was not compelled to participate in the ceremony, and instead only observed.

I dont have the time or patience to read the case for you.  You are a lawyer.  Read it yourself.

You made an assertion based on a couple of minutes of reading a lengthy judgment.  Your assertion is factually wrong.   The family's factual assertions were rejected both at the BCSC and no error was found at the BCCA.

It's not an argument.  Its what happened.

Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2023, 03:56:11 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 18, 2023, 03:10:27 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2023, 12:47:10 PMJust because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Yes, exactly. This part of Beeb's argument is conflating freedom with respect:

QuoteAnd since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

Not being a dick is a general good idea in order to live in a harmonious society, hence why I don't go around mocking religious people. It goes both ways though. I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever.

So you're confusing the responsibilities of the state, with your responsibilities.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to governments, not individuals.  You can shout from the rooftops how much Islam (or Christianity) sucks to your heart's content.  The government, however, does have to treat religious beliefs with some degree of respect.

Whether that should extend to banning the burning of religious holy texts is a matter of debate.  I'm of two minds on the topic.  But government doesn't have the option of saying "I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever".  And we have quite a lot of caselaw about the extent to which governments should, or should not, accommodate various religious beliefs.  Such accommodations are absolutely not without limit, but they certainly do exist.

Yes, I don't know of any case decided in Canada which requires citizens to respect the religious beliefs of others.  Quite the contrary.  Our expressive rights give provide the right to express views that are disrespectful and even odious to those who practice that religious faith so long as the speech does not cross the line into hate speech.

But you were the one confusing the issue when you said our Charter requires respect for religious beliefs.  In fact the law requires neutrality.  Not respect.

Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2023, 03:56:11 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 18, 2023, 03:10:27 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2023, 12:47:10 PMJust because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Yes, exactly. This part of Beeb's argument is conflating freedom with respect:

QuoteAnd since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

Not being a dick is a general good idea in order to live in a harmonious society, hence why I don't go around mocking religious people. It goes both ways though. I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever.

So you're confusing the responsibilities of the state, with your responsibilities.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to governments, not individuals.  You can shout from the rooftops how much Islam (or Christianity) sucks to your heart's content.  The government, however, does have to treat religious beliefs with some degree of respect.

Whether that should extend to banning the burning of religious holy texts is a matter of debate.  I'm of two minds on the topic.  But government doesn't have the option of saying "I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever".  And we have quite a lot of caselaw about the extent to which governments should, or should not, accommodate various religious beliefs.  Such accommodations are absolutely not without limit, but they certainly do exist.

I wasn't specifically talking about the Charter, more like an aspirational goal. You won't find it surprising that what's closest to my ideals is France's laicity concepts and practices.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 04:00:33 PMI dont have the time or patience to read the case for you.  You are a lawyer.  Read it yourself.

You made an assertion based on a couple of minutes of reading a lengthy judgment.  Your assertion is factually wrong.   The family's factual assertions were rejected both at the BCSC and no error was found at the BCCA.

It's not an argument.  Its what happened.

:lol:

Hey man, if you don't have the time, you don't have the time.  I know I'm certainly know ponying up to pay your hourly rate to argue on Languish. :P

But I've gone through the case.  There was no doubt a first nations ceremony happened at a public school and that in involved smudging and a prayer.  The trial judge did make certain findings of fact against the applicant, but not to the extent that the whole ceremony didn't happen.

But you'll perhaps forgive me when I say "just read the case" is not a particularly persuasive argument.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 04:00:51 PMYes, I don't know of any case decided in Canada which requires citizens to respect the religious beliefs of others.  Quite the contrary.  Our expressive rights give provide the right to express views that are disrespectful and even odious to those who practice that religious faith so long as the speech does not cross the line into hate speech.

But you were the one confusing the issue when you said our Charter requires respect for religious beliefs.  In fact the law requires neutrality.  Not respect.

I think "respect" is actually a pretty good term to the various accommodations we make to religious life and belief, and is a part of that sense of religious neutrality.

Outside of Quebec (which explicitly violated the Charter via the notwithstanding clause) you can not prohibit someone from wearing a religious face-covering while working for the government.  Wearing a hat is generally prohibited in certain circumstances (like for photo ID or in a courtroom), except for religious headcoverings.  You can choose what holy book to use in swearing an oath (or a sacred eagle feather).

How is that not "respect"?  It's not slavish adherence, and it's not without limit, but that all sounds like we try to respect the religious beliefs of our citizens.

Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2023, 04:17:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 04:00:33 PMI dont have the time or patience to read the case for you.  You are a lawyer.  Read it yourself.

You made an assertion based on a couple of minutes of reading a lengthy judgment.  Your assertion is factually wrong.   The family's factual assertions were rejected both at the BCSC and no error was found at the BCCA.

It's not an argument.  Its what happened.

:lol:

Hey man, if you don't have the time, you don't have the time.  I know I'm certainly know ponying up to pay your hourly rate to argue on Languish. :P

But I've gone through the case.  There was no doubt a first nations ceremony happened at a public school and that in involved smudging and a prayer.  The trial judge did make certain findings of fact against the applicant, but not to the extent that the whole ceremony didn't happen.

But you'll perhaps forgive me when I say "just read the case" is not a particularly persuasive argument.

If you read the case of it more carefully, you will see that the whole factual foundation turned on whether what occurred in the classroom was, in fact that religious ceremony in which the children were required to participate, or whether it was merely a demonstration of a cultural practice


The Chambers judge did not accept the evidence of the family that would have occurred was a religious ceremony.

That finding a fact was not overturned on appeal.

I am not particularly trying to persuade you. Rather, I am posting for the benefit of others, who might be astray from the characterization you gave to the facts.

Can Canadian appeal courts overturn findings of fact?

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 05:17:11 PMIf you read the case of it more carefully, you will see that the whole factual foundation turned on whether what occurred in the classroom was, in fact that religious ceremony in which the children were required to participate, or whether it was merely a demonstration of a cultural practice


The Chambers judge did not accept the evidence of the family that would have occurred was a religious ceremony.

That finding a fact was not overturned on appeal.

I am not particularly trying to persuade you. Rather, I am posting for the benefit of others, who might be astray from the characterization you gave to the facts.

Well then again, in the interest of not wanting anyone to be led astray from your characterization...

It wasn't that it was or was not a "religious ceremony".  It clearly was a cultural ceremony that had a religious aspect to it (the prayer and the smudging).  The legal conclusion however was that the children were not compelled to participate, and instead merely observed.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 18, 2023, 05:23:55 PMCan Canadian appeal courts overturn findings of fact?

They could order a new hearing, but the appeal court can not make their own findings of fact.

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2023, 06:13:52 PMI don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Roman empire, but this and related topic is frequently top of mind....  :lol:

:lol: Every man has his Roman Empire.

QuoteSo... I agree that harrying the neighbours (and farther afield) with sword & brand is pretty universal and I absolutely agree that - papal blessings notwithstanding - can easily be understood in that context.

Conversely, I'd also argue that the viking raids have gotten a little more PR than average and are considered more unique than maybe they should due to the authorial inclinations of the monks who wrote about them.

On a different tangent - while I find the idea of "the lads getting together for a bit of looting and pillage" very appealing, I'm reasonably sure that viking raids (and their equivalents in most other cultures) were typically endeavours organized by the magnate class.

This all makes sense - but presumably there is also an element of the magnates organising but it also being a route to social advancement? Either domestically coming home with a share of the loot or in the land you've raided.

I seem to remember that's a big theory on the Normans exploding and taking over everywhere, including the Crusades - and ties to that family structure of Europe still shapes social structure today theory. Lots of young men without a role or access to a role, but who had been trained in violence and had access to funding.

And it definitely doesn't help the Vikings' reputation that they raided England and Ireland as both of those societies were very, very keen on chronicle keeping. So we have a lot of written records which isn't true for, say, the Saxons or the Baltic peoples.

Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2023, 05:28:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 18, 2023, 05:17:11 PMIf you read the case of it more carefully, you will see that the whole factual foundation turned on whether what occurred in the classroom was, in fact that religious ceremony in which the children were required to participate, or whether it was merely a demonstration of a cultural practice


The Chambers judge did not accept the evidence of the family that would have occurred was a religious ceremony.

That finding a fact was not overturned on appeal.

I am not particularly trying to persuade you. Rather, I am posting for the benefit of others, who might be astray from the characterization you gave to the facts.

Well then again, in the interest of not wanting anyone to be led astray from your characterization...

It wasn't that it was or was not a "religious ceremony".  It clearly was a cultural ceremony that had a religious aspect to it (the prayer and the smudging).  The legal conclusion however was that the children were not compelled to participate, and instead merely observed.

Not so long ago you observed that you should not stray into my area. This is one of those times.

Quote from: viper37 on December 17, 2023, 10:44:09 AM

Quote from: Threviel on December 17, 2023, 07:35:41 AMLanguage wise Norwegian is easy to understand, they have dialects close to Swedish and dialects closer to Danish. Danish can be understood with difficulty. We had a job meeting the other day with some Danes involved and we spoke English, that wouldn't happen with Norwegians. Icelandic is unintelligible for everyone.

So, the Icelanders are like the Quebecers, they kept the purer language form? :sleep:  :D
(Duque, are you reading this? :P )

Nope.  :P  Icelandic is sometimes called the "Latin of Scandinavian" yet I don't believe Québécois even kept cas sujet et cas régime.  :D

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 19, 2023, 10:33:29 AMNope.  :P  Icelandic is sometimes called the "Latin of Scandinavian" yet I don't believe Québécois even kept cas sujet et cas régime.  :D

Yeah Icelandic is the odd one out in how hyper-conservative it's grammar has remained.

Can Canadian appeals courts stop a Canadian gimp fight?

Meanwhile in Sweden:

Quote from: ReutersSwedish court upholds life sentence in Iran executions case
By Johan Ahlander and Simon Johnson
December 19, 20234:58 PM GMT+1Updated 15 hours ago

STOCKHOLM, Dec 19 (Reuters) - A Swedish appeals court on Tuesday upheld a guilty verdict and life sentence given to a former Iranian official convicted last year for his part in a mass execution of political prisoners in Iran in 1988.

In 2022, the Stockholm District Court ruling found Hamid Noury guilty of murder and serious crimes against international law, drawing strong criticism from Iran, which said the verdict was politically motivated.

The Appeal Court's decision was greeted with cheers by several hundred protesters who had gathered outside the court, waving flags and chanting slogans calling for the end of the Iranian regime.

"It's a great day, it's a beautiful day and justice has prevailed," Abdolreza Shafie, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an opposition umbrella group, told Reuters.

Noury's lawyer could not immediately be reached for a comment.

In an interview with Iran's Fars news agency, Noury's son, Majeed Noury, said the trial was unfair adding "we will go to higher Swedish courts as well as international courts and present our evidence".

Noury is the only person so far to face trial over the killings at the Gohardasht prison in Karaj, Iran, in 1988 that targeted members of the Iranian People's Mujahideen, which was fighting in parts of Iran, as well as other political dissidents.

Amnesty International has put the number executed on government orders at around 5,000, saying in a 2018 report that "the real number could be higher". Iran has never acknowledged the killings.

Under Swedish law, courts can try Swedish citizens and other nationals for crimes against international law committed abroad.

Noury, who denied the charges, was arrested at a Stockholm airport in 2019.

The case has caused a deep rift between Sweden and Iran.

Earlier this month, an Iranian court opened the trial of a Swedish European Union employee arrested in 2022 while on holiday in the country.

Johan Floderus is charged with spying for Israel and "corruption on earth," a crime that carries the death penalty.

Sweden has requested his immediate release, calling the detention arbitrary.

Rights groups and Western governments have accused the Islamic Republic of trying to extract political concessions from other countries through arrests on security charges that may have been trumped up.

Tehran says such arrests are based on its criminal code and it denies holding people for political reasons.

I don't fully understand the case. There's two parts, one about executing members of People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, which the courts consider to be part of the war with Iraq, and therefore be war crimes which Sweden prosecutes globally. May or may not be a stretch, but OK I guess. But the second part (he is convicted of both war crimes and garden variety murder) is just executions unrelated to the war with Iraq. It's not clear to me why a Swedish court tries normal alleged murders committed in Iran (I doubt they were murders according to 1988 Iranian law). If this is upheld (I guess the Supreme Court will try the case) then this may have interesting implications, for instance Americans involved in convicting criminals on loose evidence in capital cases may want to avoid touristing in Sweden (I doubt Swedish courts will bother prosecuting mere prison sentences).

Queen Margrethe II announced that she's abdicating in 14 days, on the 52nd anniversary of her reign. Denmark is going to have a King in a few weeks.

I've never been much of a royalist, but I Margrethe did it well.

Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet took swipe tests in the different parties' rest rooms in the Riksdag. Liberals, Soc Dems, Sweden Democrats (right-wing nutjob party), and Communists tested positive for cocaine.

Not a big deal I think. No one expects the Riksdag to be a gathering of saints. "-Baldrick, you're going to be an MP! I'll just put fraud and sexual deviancy."

Party segregated toilets is kind of weird.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2024, 03:01:37 PMParty segregated toilets is kind of weird.

Apparently parties have their own little part of the Riksdag building to themselves.

Maybe not that weird.  We have caucus rooms, I'm sure they have shitters attached.

Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2024, 06:59:23 AMSwedish tabloid Aftonbladet took swipe tests in the different parties' rest rooms in the Riksdag. Liberals, Soc Dems, Sweden Democrats (right-wing nutjob party), and Communists tested positive for cocaine.

Not a big deal I think. No one expects the Riksdag to be a gathering of saints. "-Baldrick, you're going to be an MP! I'll just put fraud and sexual deviancy."

Yeah - it's a fairly regular story here too. I feel like it happens every year or two when they need a story.

I'm not sure if parliament's set up like that but the last one I remember was that every bathroom but one in the Houses of Parliament tested positive for coke.

I'd be worried if my MP wasn't on something.

QuoteThe Turkish parliament has ratified Sweden's bid to join Nato by an big majority in a long-delayed vote.

Leaves just Hungary now. Orban has invited the Swedes over for...talks. :hmm:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68076829 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68076829)

About time, Turkey :cheers:

QuoteSwedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billström on Tuesday rejected Hungary's call to negotiate about his country's bid to join NATO.

"I see no reason to negotiate at this point," Billström said, responding to a request made by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

 ^_^

And in the end the Hungarians get nothing. At least the Istanbul rug haggler played his hand well.

https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-declines-orbans-push-for-nato-negotiations/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter (https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-declines-orbans-push-for-nato-negotiations/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter)

QuoteHungarian MPs have ratified Sweden's bid to join Nato in a long-delayed vote which paves the way for the Nordic nation's membership.

You ally with your enemies.

About time :cheers:

Tomorrow the US will fly a B1-B and a B-52 over Stockholm (with Gripen escort). Things have changed since Swedish PM Olof Palme compared the Hanoi bombings to "Guernica, Oradour, Babij Jar, Katyń, Lidice, Sharpeville, Treblinka".

Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2024, 10:35:21 AMTomorrow the US will fly a B1-B and a B-52 over Stockholm (with Gripen escort). Things have changed since Swedish PM Olof Palme compared the Hanoi bombings to "Guernica, Oradour, Babij Jar, Katyń, Lidice, Sharpeville, Treblinka".

I may have happened to find myself in a good spotting position. They passed at 3000 ft (ie pretty low). Nice to see the size of the bombers compared to the Gripens.

Did they continue on to Moscow?

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 06, 2024, 08:37:01 AMDid they continue on to Moscow?

No, the appeared to head for the slim pickings of the North.

Quote from: The Brain on March 06, 2024, 07:50:54 AMI may have happened to find myself in a good spotting position. They passed at 3000 ft (ie pretty low). Nice to see the size of the bombers compared to the Gripens.

Looks like next Monday is when they'll have the flag ceremony outside NATO HQ.

:cheers:

So the Danish invasion of Sweden seems to be firmly off then :(

Quote from: Josquius on March 07, 2024, 10:33:32 AMSo the Danish invasion of Sweden seems to be firmly off then :(

It's been off the table for quite a while.

Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 12:36:34 PM

Quote from: Josquius on March 07, 2024, 10:33:32 AMSo the Danish invasion of Sweden seems to be firmly off then :(

It's been off the table for quite a while.

Fear of Canada attacking on their flank to secure Hans Island no doubt.

I wouldn't have guessed you to indulge in irridentism, CC. That issue's been settled to (apparent) mutual satisfaction for a while now :Canuck: :uffda:

Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 01:29:07 PMI wouldn't have guessed you to indulge in irridentism, CC. That issue's been settled to (apparent) mutual satisfaction for a while now :Canuck: :uffda:

 :ph34r:

Welcome to the club.
Just in time for the orange oaf to fuck it all up

He will just buy all of Greenland.  :P

Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2024, 01:28:11 AMHe will just buy all of Greenland.  :P

He is aware there are no greens there?

A smiling Finn.  :ph34r:

https://twitter.com/minna_alander/status/1765833161437487171 (https://twitter.com/minna_alander/status/1765833161437487171)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIZM_xCXUAA9Mwt?format=jpg&name=900x900)

First time since the Kalmar Union that all the Nordics are in one security alliance.

:uffda: :cheers:

Very nice!

Hopefully we won't be taking ours down next year.  :sleep:

Holy shit the Børsen in Copenhagen is burning down.  :o

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/633E/production/_133160452_copenhagen_old_stock_exchange_fire_map_640-2x-nc.png.webp)

:(

Pretty crazy. I wonder what caused the fire?

Well the building was under renovation. Seems very similar to what happened to Notre Dame.

Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2024, 09:11:34 AM:(

Pretty crazy. I wonder what caused the fire?

These old buildings, it's like the African Bush.  Every once in a while, they must be burnt to let the new one regrow...

Sorry... :(

It sucks really.  Hopefully, it can be rebuilt like the original.

It does seem to be weirdly close in timing to notre dame.
Or maybe I'm just paying more attention these days and missed the every 5 years burnings before that?