Murder is a lot worse than insulting religious beliefs. Whatever valid debates might be had about its contents, it has inspired and consoled millions of people who have led honourable lives. Yes, some books are very bad β if not morally then aesthetically. But do we have to burn them? Even disregarding the historical connotations, the vibes are terrible. What would civilisation lose if we decided not to burn books?
The problem is that this debate is not happening in the abstract. As much as I think burning a book is obnoxious, I have what I consider to be the modest opinion that shooting a man is worse. I have similar thoughts about drawings of Muhammad. Satirise religion, sure, but do it with the gravity that theme deserves. Well, perhaps you would if you worked for a European government. Well done, lads.
You arrested a middle-aged man who posed no threat to anyone. Have a beer on me. Mary Whitehouse is considered a censorious fool for trying to get James Kirkup convicted for blasphemy over his poem about Jesus having gay sex. When a rabbi burned a Bible in there was minimal fuss. But it is also true that Christians do not march, riot and kill over people who offend them. A concern for public order is being dressed up as a concern for religious sensibilities.
The real villains are the successive governments which have welcomed mass migration from countries which are very culturally different to our own.
What did they expect? But our understanding of Muslim sensitivities should not extend to the conclusion that society should be ordered around them. I think it is childish and obnoxious to blaspheme for the sake of it. Yet we cannot allow such standards to be imposed through the means of intimidation.
