The decision follows a recent string of public desecrations of the Quran by a handful of anti-Islam activists, sparking angry demonstrations across Muslim countries.
Publicly desecrating the most holy symbol of any world religion will always spark hate and probably violence and that is why these malicious people do it.
Let’s say I’m a freeist. We strongly believe people should be free of religious symbols. It is most sacred to us that especially public spaces are not tainted with religious symbols. The possession, distribution, usage and display of religious symbols is an outragous desecration of everything we hold dear and holy, and cannot be seen as anything but a direct, personal and utmost provocation to each and every freeist. This intolerance is unacceptable.
Now what, which religion gets precedence, and why? Whose fairy tale deserves to determine what people not following that religion are forbidden (by law, or by decency) to do in public spaces?
Do we really want a justice system of “whoever plays the imaginary victim first wins”?
I can come up with arbitrary religious rules all day, and demand everyone else (including non-followers) to follow my rules. Is that a sensible demand to follow?
Irrelevant objection. What does it matter how many people believed in something for how long? Who’s to say which imaginary belief system is to be taken seriously, and which is to be discarded?
You’re free to believe in whatever you want, but so am I. You’re free to submit to religious rules, in exactly the same way that I am free to not submit to them. Or have my own, different belief. Further, I’m not obliged to follow practices from other cultures in different countries.
Don’t be ignorant towards the power play you’re inviting if you accept such encroaching behaviour.
Let’s say I’m a freeist. We strongly believe people should be free of religious symbols. It is most sacred to us that especially public spaces are not tainted with religious symbols. The possession, distribution, usage and display of religious symbols is an outragous desecration of everything we hold dear and holy, and cannot be seen as anything but a direct, personal and utmost provocation to each and every freeist. This intolerance is unacceptable.
Now what, which religion gets precedence, and why? Whose fairy tale deserves to determine what people not following that religion are forbidden (by law, or by decency) to do in public spaces?
Do we really want a justice system of “whoever plays the imaginary victim first wins”?
I can come up with arbitrary religious rules all day, and demand everyone else (including non-followers) to follow my rules. Is that a sensible demand to follow?
deleted by creator
Irrelevant objection. What does it matter how many people believed in something for how long? Who’s to say which imaginary belief system is to be taken seriously, and which is to be discarded?
You’re free to believe in whatever you want, but so am I. You’re free to submit to religious rules, in exactly the same way that I am free to not submit to them. Or have my own, different belief. Further, I’m not obliged to follow practices from other cultures in different countries.
Don’t be ignorant towards the power play you’re inviting if you accept such encroaching behaviour.
deleted by creator