[MattieShoe]

pigpenz, on Oct 9 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

so how would Scalia look at the swatsika symbol.....most Jewish and Americans can only rationalize it as a symbol of Nazi Germany, but the symbol has been around way before the Nazis

It's still common in the far East as a religious symbol, etc. Nazi Germany also used an Eagle, just like America. It's funny how certain symbols become inexorably tied to a specific idea and other symbols don't. I admit I found the old picture of kids giving the American flag a sieg heil was very creepy.

I think that people objecting to the cross are being oversensitive -- I think what's important is the intent, and there wasn't any intent to disrespect the non-christian dead or exclude them. On the flip side, once it's clear that a large number of people object to it, dismissing their objections as nonsense is even worse.

I think people are looking too hard for evil agendas here. Scalia is a smart, hard working guy with an unfortunately narrow, ethnocentric viewpoint. No need to put him on a pedestal or demonize him. He's flawed, just like the rest of us.

[Winstonm]

Quote

No need to put him on a pedestal or demonize him. He's flawed, just like the rest of us.

The rest of us are not Supreme Court Justices - we expect people who reach that level of responsibility to put aside their "unfortunately narrow, ethnocentric viewpoint(s)" and render proper judgments.

[ArtK78]

pigpenz, on Oct 9 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

so how would Scalia look at the swatsika symbol.....most Jewish and Americans can only rationalize it as a symbol of Nazi Germany, but the symbol has been around way before the Nazis

The Swastika is a very old symbol. Its use dates back about 3000 years according to some accounts. It was originally a symbol of peace. In fact, there are examples of ancient Jewish gravesites with swastikas.

The Nazis took this symbol of peace and perverted it, as they perverted a nation.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston, I don't mean to attribute any notions to you that aren't yours;

No problem Lobowolf - even if you did, though, it wouldn't bother me - I'd just chalk it up to you being wrong one more time...

[mike777]

"don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead,"


ok again i bet SC will side step this issue and rule on some kind of procedure issue.

In any event can a cross or star of david honor non judea/christians?

Can a relig...symbol be on federal land in your country?


If I have a christian relative who is buried in Israel where there is a 10 foot star of david.....can I assume the state of Israel honors him..or disrespects him? In the usa?

[mike777]

ArtK78, on Oct 9 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Oct 9 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

so how would Scalia look at the swatsika symbol.....most Jewish and Americans can only rationalize it as a symbol of Nazi Germany, but the symbol has been around way before the Nazis

The Swastika is a very old symbol. Its use dates back about 3000 years according to some accounts. It was originally a symbol of peace. In fact, there are examples of ancient Jewish gravesites with swastikas.

The Nazis took this symbol of peace and perverted it, as they perverted a nation.

ok so 1940-1950 I prefer not to see this in my federal land...is that ok?

If 3000 years from now...not sure.....but today?

[MattieShoe]

Winstonm, on Oct 9 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

Quote

No need to put him on a pedestal or demonize him. He's flawed, just like the rest of us.

The rest of us are not Supreme Court Justices - we expect people who reach that level of responsibility to put aside their "unfortunately narrow, ethnocentric viewpoint(s)" and render proper judgments.

Ah, I think that's where you went wrong. Supreme court justices are human. In fact, they're usually very OLD humans, which in my experience are the ones least likely to put aside narrow, ethnocentric viewpoints. It's worked for them for twice as long as I've been alive, so by golly, they're sticking with it. And GET OFF MY LAWN!

I think he considers it entirely proper. I'm sure a lot of the country agrees with him. I don't, but... Well, I don't think he's lying. I don't think he's hatched some evil plan to use silly arguments to derail those who oppose him with. He's just wrong. That's why we have nine of them.

Unfortunately, they're all old humans, so I think they often share their stupid preconceptions. That may explain the court's ability to come to incredibly stupid decisions.

[Trinidad]

MattieShoe, on Oct 10 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

I think that people objecting to the cross are being oversensitive -- I think what's important is the intent, and there wasn't any intent to disrespect the non-christian dead or exclude them.

I can buy that once upon a time, a good person with good intent thought it was a good idea to remember (all) fallen soldiers with a memorial. And that unfortunately, this person decided to do that with a cross, not realizing that the cross is a religious symbol, meaning "for Christians only". No problem, everybody makes mistakes.

But this whole thing started by refusing a Buddhist shrine in the same park. I would call that more than just "intent to exclude them".

Rik

[MattieShoe]

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 05:31 AM, said:

MattieShoe, on Oct 10 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

I think that people objecting to the cross are being oversensitive -- I think what's important is the intent, and there wasn't any intent to disrespect the non-christian dead or exclude them.

I can buy that once upon a time, a good person with good intent thought it was a good idea to remember (all) fallen soldiers with a memorial. And that unfortunately, this person decided to do that with a cross, not realizing that the cross is a religious symbol, meaning "for Christians only". No problem, everybody makes mistakes.

But this whole thing started by refusing a Buddhist shrine in the same park. I would call that more than just "intent to exclude them".

Rik

Well, allowing a Buddhist shrine would open the floodgates, setting a precedent. If one wants to play fair, all or none are the only two real options. 'None' certainly seems preferable to a flea-market of shrines at every memorial on public land.

... Does anybody hate Buddhists? There must be, but I can't think of em. They seem to play nice with others more than the other big religions... Or maybe I just don't know enough about Buddhism to know their skeletons.

Anyway, after denying the request, they were going to take the cross down. So it sounds like they were being reasonable, opting for the 'none' solution. If anybody deserves our ire, it sounds like it's congress for repeatedly preventing them from doing the right thing.

That said, I think some consideration should be given based on age... That sucker has been there for 70 years, and 70 years ago, it wasn't a big deal. I don't think it's necessary to start tearing up memorials just because they don't fit perfectly with current thinking. It's a fuzzy grey area, but this seems... petty to me, on both sides.

[Winstonm]

phil_20686, on Oct 9 2009, 06:32 AM, said:

Regardless of what justice scalia said, i think you guys are missing the point. Even if the cross is a religious symbol, it has also entered out culture as the epitomy of courage and sacrifice. It is erected in honour of the courage and sacrifice of those who fell. In no way is that symbolism lessened if you don't believe in christianity.

Consider the alternatives, if you wished to remove all such symbolisms that have religous connotations.

The pentagram (five pointed star) symbolises christ's wounds, so your flag would have to go. So would the houses of congress, as they have poortrayls of wisdom and justice, portrayed in their original incarnations as lesser greek godesses.

Just chill out. The cross honours courage and sacrifice, its a completely fitting memorial regardless of your belief system.

The cross has also entered our culture as the symbol of the Ku Klux Klan.

When we erect a giant federally-approved cross, are we honoring all of our war dead or honoring the bigotry of southern white supremacy? Should there be a disclaimer under the cross? Are all those crosses on top of all those American Christian churches nothing but war memorials?

I think you argue from much too narrow of perspective - your own.

[shyams]

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Oct 9 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Oct 9 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

so how would Scalia look at the swatsika symbol.....most Jewish and Americans can only rationalize it as a symbol of Nazi Germany, but the symbol has been around way before the Nazis

The Swastika is a very old symbol. Its use dates back about 3000 years according to some accounts. It was originally a symbol of peace. In fact, there are examples of ancient Jewish gravesites with swastikas.

The Nazis took this symbol of peace and perverted it, as they perverted a nation.

ok so 1940-1950 I prefer not to see this in my federal land...is that ok?

If 3000 years from now...not sure.....but today?

The swastika is not a 3000 yr old symbol that had gone out of use for ages. It is a symbol that has existed in Hinduism for a long time --- possibly even in today's age.

The actual symbol is called "swastik" and is an approx. mirror image of the one Nazis used. Also, it is not depicted diagonally. I think it was a used as a quasi-religious symbol and represented luck / auspiciousness.

Believe me, I have seen hundreds of these around India even 10-15 yrs ago. As societies open up, and every Indian (not just the educated) becomes more aware of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis, the symbol is rapidly getting eliminated from Hinduism.

But it a fact that the symbol has existed in Hinduism, obviously with no direct links to the infamous Nazi connotations.

[MattieShoe]

My sister was in India last year and the symbol is still very prevalent there. She was out in the country -- I don't know if it'd be common in big cities or not.

[P_Marlowe]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 02:07 AM, said:

That is truly amazing. I mean can't someone show him that he is factualy wrong?

Just some comments: His claim is wrong, at least partially.

There was still some Anti Semitism after World War I, even in the US,
I take "Miss Daisy and her Chauffeur" as a reference for the situation,
correct me, if I am wrong.
The cross was certainly constructed to honor all the dead, but I am pretty
sure they assumed that all Soldiers were Christians (you could even say
all Soldiers were Protestant - as far as I know Kennedy was the first
Catholic as president, and this was in the 60s, and non protestants christians
face some racisim as well.

So assuming, that they mainly wanted to honor the dead white Anglo
Saxons wont be tor far of, be it only because they just ignored the fact that
there were others.

But this does not mean, that this intention is written in stone.

As your constitution was written, all men were claimed to be equal and free,
but slavery was still on, woman did not have the right to vote, and I am sure
they agreed, that the constitution meant jus that.
Today the text is still the same, but you would say, that the constitutions speaks
out against slavery and is also advocating equal rights for woman.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

MattieShoe, on Oct 12 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

My sister was in India last year and the symbol is still very prevalent there. She was out in the country -- I don't know if it'd be common in big cities or not.

... well there is a non european christian church in India, which did
exists in India since the beginning of christianity, the Thomas Christians,
the church was not big, but it was big enough to survive the centuries,
even the times of the colonisation, as the catholic church tried to
assimilate them.
So, India is not a good example.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[luke warm]

in a not very related issue

'God hates Diet Pepsi'

A group that advocates "traditional family values" claims it has the signatures of 500,000 people who have pledged to boycott Pepsi over what it says are the company's activities promoting gay rights.

The American Family Association, which boasts "2.5 million online supporters," "asked PepsiCo to be neutral in the culture war and not support the homosexual agenda," it said in a press release Tuesday. "PepsiCo refused. The company continues to give financial support to homosexual organizations."

http://rawstory.com/...-boycott-pepsi/

i doubt God hates pepsi, but if he does i'd have to agree - compared to coke, it does pretty much suck

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Oct 12 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

i doubt God hates pepsi, but if he does i'd have to agree - compared to coke, it does pretty much suck

Agreed.

[Winstonm]

Quote

it does pretty much suck

That would explain the homosexual aspect.

[ArtK78]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 12 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

There was still some Anti Semitism after World War I, even in the US.

Some?

I am going to assume that you are not Jewish. But you are spot on if "some" means "a great deal of" or "a significant amount of." One might even use the word "rampant" in place of "some."

The planned extermination of the Jewish people by Hitler did not spring full born out of his mind alone. However, he was in a position of power to have the tools to implement his plan, and twisted enough to do it. Not that Jews were the only ones on his "to do" list. But they were certainly front and center.

[P_Marlowe]

ArtK78, on Oct 13 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 12 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

There was still some Anti Semitism after World War I, even in the US.

Some?

I am going to assume that you are not Jewish. But you are spot on if "some" means "a great deal of" or "a significant amount of." One might even use the word "rampant" in place of "some."

The planned extermination of the Jewish people by Hitler did not spring full born out of his mind alone. However, he was in a position of power to have the tools to implement his plan, and twisted enough to do it. Not that Jews were the only ones on his "to do" list. But they were certainly front and center.

Hi Art,

I am a Protestant, and I am a German, and my knowledge about
American history is limited, so I choose a restrained formulation,
but I was well aware, that it most likely was a very restrained formulation.

But if there was lots of Anti Semitism in the US, I am sure my guess, that
they ignored / did not think about Non Christiants as they constructed the place
to remember the dead to honor the fallen is correct.
But this does not mean that a Jew cant honor the Jewish dead at this place
today.

Every country has a place to honor the unknown soldier, and if you bring
flowers to honor the fallen American / English soldiers (WW 1/2) to the
German place in Berlin, you will honor them, ... you dont honor the fallen
Germans.
The honoring / remembering is something personal, if you are really serious
about this, otherwise you just restart the fighting.

With kind reards
Marlowe

[matmat]

PassedOut, on Oct 12 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 12 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

i doubt God hates pepsi, but if he does i'd have to agree - compared to coke, it does pretty much suck

Agreed.

I much prefer Pepsi to Coke. it's not even close.

As far as what the AFA is doing, I'm glad that pepsico basically told them to f#@$# the hell off. It's none of their business how the company spends its money.