Even 
this? There's a problem with the word 'holy' or 'sacred;' who gets to decide? I do not regard the Tao Te Ching as either 
holy or 
sacred because many scholars have decided, and I am satisfied with their decision, that the 
religious components of Taoism are quite secondary to its 
philosophical components. In fact, 
as far as I know, Lao Tsu did not intend that his Tao Te Ching (or Daodejing, if you prefer) should be 'sacred' nor that he should be a god. He was a philosopher, akin to and a near contemporary of Confucius, who focused his thinking on ways to achieve spiritual 
balance and to 
comprehend (rather than understand) the universe and our place in it.
Let's not burn 
any books. The 'freedom of speech' (actually 
freedom of expression - which includes e.g. burning flags, displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine and so on) 
we many of you have pledged to defend as a fundamental right (but not a 
natural right, I 
think) only counts when the most reprehensible speech must be defended; neo-Nazis and anti-Semites and racists and xenophobes and religious bigots and fools must be allowed to spew their venom - otherwise the 'freedom' is meaningless and 
our your defence of it is worthless.