If the idea behind burning Qurans is to prove that there is no religious force that stops us, that’s something different. Like showing the people that there is no reason to enforce the ancient rules and laws of whipping people for having extramarital sex, cutting of hands of thieves, claiming the right to bear arms or stoning people for cheating in marriage.
Yes.
It's mostly for the doubters riding the fence.
Of course, then comes the other problem with how "apostates" are treated.
It's certainly incompatible with multi-national corporations with huge vertical integration. This is what happened with beer, soda and other stuff in many parts of the world.
I have lived in that World in my part of Eastern Europe, I lived plastic-free... it was the default.
It's much worse than that. The anti-abortion drive is anti-woman. Sure, it's a wedge issue for some politicians, but overall it's about rolling back women's rights until they're domestic non-citizens who depend entirely on their father, brother, uncle, husband. The anti-abortion drive also has the benefit of pleasing the ones who hate the poor, as the poor women are the most affected, while rich ones can "find ways around" the bans. In the US, that combines with racism too.
The solution to that, the systemic impersonal solution, is going to be ending the production of single use plastics. While there's little you can do about recycling, you can imagine if you'll be complaining about that.
Unfortunately, everyone participates and it adds up. If you want to compare such personal consumption like jets, then the rich account for about 15% of the global emissions.
The share of total global emissions associated with the consumption of the
richest 1% is set to continue to grow, from 13% in 1990, to 15% in 2015 and 16%
in 2030.
If you want to include the rich's capital, which you should, because that has to change:
the bottom 50% of the world population emitted 12% of global emissions in 2019, whereas the top 10% emitted 48% of the total. Since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total. While per-capita emissions of the global top 1% increased since 1990, emissions from low- and middle-income groups within rich countries declined. Contrary to the situation in 1990, 63% of the global inequality in individual emissions is now due to a gap between low and high emitters within countries rather than between countries. Finally, the bulk of total emissions from the global top 1% of the world population comes from their investments rather than from their consumption.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00955-z
But if you imagine that the petite bourgeois lifestyle of McMansion in suburbia, cars and driving around everywhere, eating boatloads of primary calories, and the rest of the consumption isn't contributing, you should read more. Here's a start: https://www.versobooks.com/books/3691-the-imperial-mode-of-living
The moral failing is that of personally encouraging, supporting or defending car dependency, along with the other more failing of not trying anything to reverse it.
Defenders of slavery argued that by comparison with the poor of Europe and the workers in the Northern states, that slaves were better cared for. They said that their owners would protect and assist them when they were sick and aged, unlike those who, once fired from their work, were left to fend helplessly for themselves.
Yes.
It's mostly for the doubters riding the fence.
Of course, then comes the other problem with how "apostates" are treated.