The Danish government said on Friday it was proposing legislation that would make it illegal to burn copies of the Koran in public places, part of the Nordic country's effort to de-escalate tensions with Muslim countries.
Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.
Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.
And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?
Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them
I see now. Someone else mentioned it too, it’s similar to how we don’t negotiate with terrorists imo.
Personally I’m against all book burning, religious or no. In this instance though, it’s not just that Islamists are against it, as much as it giving them free recruitment ammunition, to help motivate their populace.
There’s always a certain percentage of crazies in any society. They benefit if they can recruit more moderate people to that extremist position. When we attack them, either physically or ideologically, we feed into that mechanism that strengthens them by giving them more of what they want. They say they don’t want us to burn their quoran, but I suspect their leaders are actually extremely happy when we do.
In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.
Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.
Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.
And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?
I was moving back to my original thesis, which is that offending them doesn’t accomplish much. I don’t perceive Islam itself to be the problem.
I admit I don’t fully understand what you’re specifically trying to say though.
Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them
But how does this relate to the book burning ban being a good or bad idea?
Because it’s basically giving Islamism concessions. The Qur’an burning is a mild one, but just imagine they do it with more serious issues.
I see now. Someone else mentioned it too, it’s similar to how we don’t negotiate with terrorists imo.
Personally I’m against all book burning, religious or no. In this instance though, it’s not just that Islamists are against it, as much as it giving them free recruitment ammunition, to help motivate their populace.
There’s always a certain percentage of crazies in any society. They benefit if they can recruit more moderate people to that extremist position. When we attack them, either physically or ideologically, we feed into that mechanism that strengthens them by giving them more of what they want. They say they don’t want us to burn their quoran, but I suspect their leaders are actually extremely happy when we do.
We’re literally shooting ourselves in the foot.
In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.
Oh don’t even mention that heretical joke of Christianity that claims to be true but was founded 1700 years after Jesus taught