I saw this post on [email protected]: https://lemmy.world/post/2387220
I got me in a philosophical mood.
Is it okay to burn a Koran?
On one hand, a Koran, a Bible or anything else “sacred” literature is paper and ink. And burning them is just disposing of said book. Children are taught at young age not to get provocated by provocators. Adults should be able to live with this principle.
On the other hand, burning is not the main reason people get upset when sacred literature is burnt. The whole burning ordeal is (usually) a symbol for hate. Hate should not be tolerated, and therefore it is wrong to burn a sacred books. It is imporant to make hateful actions illegal to prevent hate from spreading. If hate is allowed, then we are possibly facing hate crimes and violent actions towards minorities.
Burning a sacred book is not always about hate. It can also be a symbolical protest. In sweden, a few weeks ago, Iraqi man burned a Koran. According to news I read at the time of said event, the man justified his actions as a protest against Iraqi government. He was kept prisoner in his homecountry and tortured during his imprisonment.
Iraq is a theocracy. Amputations and even death sentence are used as forms of punishment. People are not equal and theistic law is above other laws. The country does not follow UN’s declaration of human rights. These human rights are recognized all over the globe and should be held as standards for all.
If someone burns a sacred book to protest torture, amputations or death sentences, I think it is not morally wrong, but quite the contrary. Burning a book is a victimless crime. Forementioned actions of Iraqi government however are not.
Thoughts from an European atheist.
Im interested to hear your thoughts on this matter and hoping to understand this question from different perspectives.
The applicable term is not “paradox”, it’s “hypocrisy”…
The paradox is that, if you are tolerant of everything, then you are tolerant of intolerance. However, if you are never willing to stand up to intolerance, then you are intolerant by proxy.
The resolution is recognising it as a social contract. When a party breaks that contract, they can’t then hide behind it too.
“if you are never willing to stand up to intolerance, then you are intolerant by proxy.”
This is an assumption of the individuals beliefs and opinions… you’re attributing the “intolerance” to them simply because they don’t support you in your intolerance of the intolerance you don’t tolerate.
They aren’t hating on what you hate, so you declare them to be what you hate, simply because they won’t hate what you hate.
It’s not a paradox in actuality, it’s a paradox because of your assumption.