Originally Posted by phlanx

Morning

As a spiritual aetheist, I always find it bemusing when churches or church organisations burn books in their persuit of religeous beliefs

It is always a statement that catches peoples attention

Burning is a symbol that we all recognise, what is being burnt is a symbol of the message trying to be conveyed

Freedom of anything always comes with a price, and in most cases it is the right for people to shout their message the way they like regardless of how other people perceive it

Here in the UK people have freedom of speech, except when that speech contributes towards hatred of a group of people

I dont agree with that statement, I still believe that people have the right to say what they believe, with the only restrictions on what I class as morally acceptable behaviour - swearing for example should not be allowed as part of it as it doesnt convey a message just bad language

Regardless of the message, we should have the right to speak our minds on subjects that effect our lives

If burning something is a way of freedom of expression then I will quite happily give these people the matches, although at the same time I will be stating there ideas are moronic which is my right to freedom of expression

Originally Posted by phlanx

hahaha

Dont worry Artlady, we used to burn catholics, and then protestants and then catholics again

Burning books or flags is considerably good natured compared to the past

Originally Posted by artlady

Relatively speaking ,I guess some fool's have progressed !

Originally Posted by phlanx

Yeah, imagine in 20 years time though, people will burning ipods and ebooks instead

Originally Posted by TUT317

It is interesting how Australians and Americans see things so differently. A possible explanation could be found in the different way we view economic, political and religious freedom. I think Americans see economic freedom and religious freedom as, "ends in themselves" as opposed to, "a means to an end". It is of course possible for some objects of freedom to both at the same time.

Originally Posted by paraclete

Yes we even have a different system of spelling common words and this is because our background is British whilst theirs is European. They deliberately distanced themselves from their British heritage and in isolation developed a different view, much more insular and inward looking, sure of their own view.



And yet it is what is not written that guarantees us the most our freedoms and law are enshrined in an older document and the many many judgments of the courts over a long time. We have a sense that our governments are there to protect us even from ourselves. We don't need to enforce our freedoms at the point of gun. We don't have such love of self that we feel we should solve our differences outside of the rule of Law.



This might be because we don't have a radical lunatic fringe gaining any form of influence in government. The two party system creates a path for such people to rise to such positions of influence. We have never suffered a communist or fascist government or found the need to assassinate a leader. Because of our roots we are more willing to accept the concept of a "fair go" as typified by a socialistic approach to provision of services and protection of the under dog. Even some of the ethos of sharing which typified aboriginal society might have unconsciencely found its way into our thinking. Although America is Christian this part of Christian thought appears to be lacking in their behavour