I wanted to say that this is a hot take but it seems a lot of people in this comment section agree, It doesn’t matter what kind of book it is. Destroying books is and should very much be a big no no.
I feel bad every time I have to throw out a book. Because it’s not only a Symbol of wisdom and knowledge, it is also a testament to a world view, a thought process and identity.
Burning books is the very antithesis of what we consider a modern Society. It directly attacks fundamental rights, if only Symbolically. The right to think freely, to have a different opinion, the pursuit of knowledge to better ourselves and our Surroundings in pursuit of these world views.
To quote Heinrich Heine: “dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen” (Where one begins by burning books, one will end up burning people. )
PS: In search of the correct Quote I stumbled upon this quote by Arnold Zweig: “Wer Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt auch Bibliotheken, bombardiert offene Städte, schießt mit Ferngeschützen oder Fliegerbomben Gotteshäuser ein. Die Drohung, mit der die Fackel in den Bücherstapel fliegt, gilt nicht dem Juden Freud, Marx oder Einstein, sie gilt der europäischen Kultur, sie gilt den Werten, die die Menschheit mühsam hervorgebracht und die der Barbar anhaßt, weil er halt barbarisch ist, unterlegen, roh, infantil”
Roughly translated: “Whoever burns books also burns libraries, bombs open cities, shoots down places of worship with long-range guns or aerial bombs. The threat with which the torch flies into the pile of books is not aimed at the Jew Freud, Marx or Einstein, it is aimed at European culture, it is aimed at the values that humanity has laboriously created and which the barbarian hates because he is just barbaric, inferior, raw, infantile”
Burning books to eradicate their content is bad, yes.
Burning a book which you just made yourself is completely harmless. Or single, mass-produced copies.
Some Muslims will take offense when you destroy a hard drive on which you copied the Quran.
This has nothing to do with the book burnings done by the Nazis. Their intent, context and scale was all about eradicating the books’ content.
Or if you want, the totalitarians this time are those who play victim. They seek to oppose their value system and rules onto others, if necessary by deadly force. You better obey Islamic rule and respect the Quran as holy, or else.
yes it has very much to do with the book burnings of the Nazis.
If one person is murdered in a hate crime it is not less of a hate crime because it lacked the scale.
The intent and the targeted escalation is the same. Also it is no coincidence that there is a islamic terrorist group called Boko Haram - books are sin. It is the same idea and the same motivitation and it is always outside of democratic discourse, where criticism of a religion or its institutions is of course permitted. But burning books is not motivated to be part of the democratic discourse, but to harm democracy.
I wanted to say that this is a hot take but it seems a lot of people in this comment section agree, It doesn’t matter what kind of book it is. Destroying books is and should very much be a big no no.
I feel bad every time I have to throw out a book. Because it’s not only a Symbol of wisdom and knowledge, it is also a testament to a world view, a thought process and identity.
Burning books is the very antithesis of what we consider a modern Society. It directly attacks fundamental rights, if only Symbolically. The right to think freely, to have a different opinion, the pursuit of knowledge to better ourselves and our Surroundings in pursuit of these world views.
To quote Heinrich Heine: “dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen” (Where one begins by burning books, one will end up burning people. )
PS: In search of the correct Quote I stumbled upon this quote by Arnold Zweig: “Wer Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt auch Bibliotheken, bombardiert offene Städte, schießt mit Ferngeschützen oder Fliegerbomben Gotteshäuser ein. Die Drohung, mit der die Fackel in den Bücherstapel fliegt, gilt nicht dem Juden Freud, Marx oder Einstein, sie gilt der europäischen Kultur, sie gilt den Werten, die die Menschheit mühsam hervorgebracht und die der Barbar anhaßt, weil er halt barbarisch ist, unterlegen, roh, infantil”
Roughly translated: “Whoever burns books also burns libraries, bombs open cities, shoots down places of worship with long-range guns or aerial bombs. The threat with which the torch flies into the pile of books is not aimed at the Jew Freud, Marx or Einstein, it is aimed at European culture, it is aimed at the values that humanity has laboriously created and which the barbarian hates because he is just barbaric, inferior, raw, infantile”
It’s just a fucking book. In todays day and age a printed book means shit. Burn as many as you want. You wouldn’t change anything.
is this the same for flags?
It depends on intent, context and scale.
Burning books to eradicate their content is bad, yes.
Burning a book which you just made yourself is completely harmless. Or single, mass-produced copies.
Some Muslims will take offense when you destroy a hard drive on which you copied the Quran.
This has nothing to do with the book burnings done by the Nazis. Their intent, context and scale was all about eradicating the books’ content.
Or if you want, the totalitarians this time are those who play victim. They seek to oppose their value system and rules onto others, if necessary by deadly force. You better obey Islamic rule and respect the Quran as holy, or else.
yes it has very much to do with the book burnings of the Nazis.
If one person is murdered in a hate crime it is not less of a hate crime because it lacked the scale.
The intent and the targeted escalation is the same. Also it is no coincidence that there is a islamic terrorist group called Boko Haram - books are sin. It is the same idea and the same motivitation and it is always outside of democratic discourse, where criticism of a religion or its institutions is of course permitted. But burning books is not motivated to be part of the democratic discourse, but to harm democracy.