I think the aim is more that objects that have labels applied to them also have expected behaviors applied to them. An object labeled "fragile" or "breakable" usually carries the warning "handle with care", and this is an expected behavior.
As for your digression (which I find not to be a digression, but relevant), I would say that the town still respected the symbol, because of the energy they put into destroying it at every turn. If they held no respect for it, they would not bother to do what they do. In that vein, unless you have reasons not to, you should respect it in the same manner as the locals. A desire for non-violence against symbols counts as a reason to abstain from stomping (urinating, burning, etc.) on the symbol. In the same way, flag-burning is effective because people respect the symbol and the ideas it represents. Religious texts are supposed to be treated with respect because of the ideas they contain. There are norms associated with the labels applied to objects. Thus, the claim "it's a religious text, and has its rules [for its care]" is not a wholly void statement, assuming that you agree that the labels applied have behavioral norms attached (religious text), or that you agree that text should be able to suggest to its readers how to care for it (a text with rules).
If you don't agree with either of those premises, then please do tell me how you interpret things, because it's most likely to be novel and worth studying.
no subject
As for your digression (which I find not to be a digression, but relevant), I would say that the town still respected the symbol, because of the energy they put into destroying it at every turn. If they held no respect for it, they would not bother to do what they do. In that vein, unless you have reasons not to, you should respect it in the same manner as the locals. A desire for non-violence against symbols counts as a reason to abstain from stomping (urinating, burning, etc.) on the symbol. In the same way, flag-burning is effective because people respect the symbol and the ideas it represents. Religious texts are supposed to be treated with respect because of the ideas they contain. There are norms associated with the labels applied to objects. Thus, the claim "it's a religious text, and has its rules [for its care]" is not a wholly void statement, assuming that you agree that the labels applied have behavioral norms attached (religious text), or that you agree that text should be able to suggest to its readers how to care for it (a text with rules).
If you don't agree with either of those premises, then please do tell me how you interpret things, because it's most likely to be novel and worth studying.
If that didn't make any sense, let me know.