[phil_20686]

There is something lacking in the idea that you can decide what a symbol means from the outside.

Its like a laungauge, there are various names in various langauges that sound rude or embarassing in english. However, even if there are many more english speakers than say cherokee speakers. To attempt to take possession of a word like that (in the context of its own langauge) is wrong, its meaning is decided by those who use it. To laugh at people because they say a word that means something else to us is wrong. Symbols are the same as words in this context. The meaning of a symbol is decided by those who use it, and those who don't use it don't get any say.

The meaning of the swastika was defined by the Nazi's who used it and use it still. The meaning of american flag is decided by americans. It doesnt matter at all what other people think of it.

It doesn't matter aboiut the crusades, or about the inquisition, or whatever else you care to look at, none of that matters in defining the symbolism of the cross, all that matters is what christians think it means. Its singularly irrelevant if it once belnged to a cult that ate babies, they gave up the right to define its meaning when they stopped using it. (Or christians took possesion of it when they used it more).

I was wrong before to tie it to 'cultural understanding', that was an error in my thinking.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on Oct 14 2009, 01:25 AM, said:

There is something lacking in the idea that you can decide what a symbol means from the outside.

Its like a laungauge, there are various names in various langauges that sound rude or embarassing in english. However, even if there are many more english speakers than say cherokee speakers. To attempt to take possession of a word like that (in the context of its own langauge) is wrong, its meaning is decided by those who use it. To laugh at people because they say a word that means something else to us is wrong. Symbols are the same as words in this context. The meaning of a symbol is decided by those who use it, and those who don't use it don't get any say.

The meaning of the swastika was defined by the Nazi's who used it and use it still. The meaning of american flag is decided by americans. It doesnt matter at all what other people think of it.

It doesn't matter aboiut the crusades, or about the inquisition, or whatever else you care to look at, none of that matters in defining the symbolism of the cross, all that matters is what christians think it means. Its singularly irrelevant if it once belnged to a cult that ate babies, they gave up the right to define its meaning when they stopped using it. (Or christians took possesion of it when they used it more).

I was wrong before to tie it to 'cultural understanding', that was an error in my thinking.

Simple question:

You say that the meaning of a symbol is decided by those who use it:

How would you identify the group of people who use the symbol of the cross?
What's the lowest common denominator?

[barmar]

I think he's slightly incorrect to say that meaning of symbols is defined by the people who use them. It's defined by concensus of the community. Linguists refer to this as "language community".

Meaning is not set in stone, it evolves. Words change their meanings over time, and so do other symbols. The swastika may have had another meaning for centuries, but the prominent use of it by the Nazis has rendered those other meanings mostly archaic, and most of the world now associates it with that movement. And while crosses may have a number of uses, representing the Christian religion is now its primary association.

Example: If you saw someone wearing a cross pendant, would you have any doubt that they were Christian?

Years ago, my mother had a pendant made for me. It was my nickname, written as:
 B
MAR
 R
When she gave it to me, we realized that it looked too much like a cross. She took it back to the jeweler, and had him shift the M up a bit and the right-hand R down, so MAR would be on a diagonal. When you're part of a language community, it's hard NOT to see the referent of a common symbol, even if it was not intended.

[Trinidad]

A related story from Europe:

Quote

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

(I think that the vast majority of Europeans agrees with the ruling. Whether a majority of Italians agrees, I am not sure.)

Rik

[Codo]

It is really funny how many people know that the people with the opposing belives are narrowminded and err.

Fact is that the cross was used long before christianity and that it is still used outside of it. (F.E. the red or the blue cross are not limied to christians).
So anybody who claims that there is more in a cross then just this is right.

Fact is that Christianity uses the cross as a very strong sign, so that the majority will see a christian symbol in it.

So when you are a judge and must decide on the ground of facts and not just opinions, you have a problem here because now you have to make a descission which will harm the narrowminded people who can see just 1/2 of the truth.

[helene_t]

Would it be wrong if a Hinduist community displayed a Svastika in a public place, intending it as a religious symbol, but well aware that it would be uncomfortable to some passersby who associate it with something else? I think the historic argument that Hinduism is older than Nazism (and presumably there are pre-Hinduist uses of the Svastika, too) is utterly irrelevant. Yet I don't think it's a simple issue. Who are going to see it? Will they see it in a context that to some extent ties its meaning to Hinduism (say by attending an Indian festival) or is it completely out of context (say displayed in a general purpose public park a day where nothing else remarkable is going on in the city, and only a small plate mentioning its meaning)?

I think both sides would need to show some flexibility, and respect for the position of the others.

As for the cross in question ... I dunno. I personally think that a cross can be such a generic symbol that it can be used without necessarily meaning "non-Christians not welcome". But as a symbol for honoring the dead, I think it should be avoided since once one starts thinking about honoring deads, it becomes strongly associated with Christian cemeteries. I think newly placed crosses should be removed from government-owned land unless there are some mitigating circumstances, such as non-Christian symbols accompanying them. If it has been there for decades, one should look at what meaning the cross has acquired in the meantime. This may be tricky, since some non-Christians may perceive it as somehow endorsing Christianity and some may not.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Nov 4 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

As for the cross in question ... I dunno. I personally think that a cross can be such a generic symbol that it can be used without necessarily meaning "non-Christians not welcome". But as a symbol for honoring the dead, I think it should be avoided since once one starts thinking about honoring deads, it becomes strongly associated with Christian cemeteries. I think newly placed crosses should be removed from government-owned land unless there are some mitigating circumstances, such as non-Christian symbols accompanying them. If it has been there for decades, one should look at what meaning the cross has acquired in the meantime. This may be tricky, since some non-Christians may perceive it as somehow endorsing Christianity and some may not.

Why is it a problem to use a cross in a overwhelming christian community as a symbol to honoring the dead?

Does a christian cross say: Muslims are not welcome on this cemetry?

Is it forbidden for me to visit a jewish cemetry, where they use Davids Star as an honour for the dead?

Is it forbidden for me to visit a Turkish cemetry where "everybody" has his halfmoon (or whatever other sign they use...)?

I always thought that the answer to all these questions is no and this is my experience too.

If someone hates to visit his son on a war cemetry, I can understand this.
If someone hates to visit his son on a war cemetry because his ancient ancestors had been victims of the inquisition, the crusade or slavery, and the cross is a symbol for this, I cannot understand this.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Nov 4 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

Does a christian cross say: Muslims are not welcome on this cemetry?

Dunno. Maybe it is perceived and intended just as a generic symbol for cemetery. I think that could be the case in Denmark where "everyone" is a member of the Lutheran church, whether they are religious or not. And where few people are bothered about the meaning of the cross in the national flag.

Maybe it isn't. As a symbol of honoring the dead, I don't think it is neutral w.r.t. religion for most people in most places.

If in doubt, I would prefer to avoid he official use of symbols that could be perceived as endorsing a particular religion/skin color/language/whatever.

Of course there will always be some hypersensitive people who take offense from anything. And it would be impractical to avoid the use of the Latin alphabet in official texts because some Orthodox might perceive it as endorsing the Roman church.

[ArtK78]

Codo, on Nov 4 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

It is really funny how many people know that the people with the opposing belives are narrowminded and err.

Fact is that the cross was used long before christianity and that it is still used outside of it. (F.E. the red or the blue cross are not limied to christians).
So anybody who claims that there is more in a cross then just this is right.

Fact is that Christianity uses the cross as a very strong sign, so that the majority will see a christian symbol in it.

So when you are a judge and must decide on the ground of facts and not just opinions, you have a problem here because now you have to make a descission which will harm the narrowminded people who can see just 1/2 of the truth.

Regarding your reference to the Red Cross, the fact is that in non-Christian nations, the "Red Cross" is not known in that manner.

In Muslim nations, it is the Red Crescent (I do not know if that is the official name of the organization).

In Israel, it is the Magen David Adom or Red Magen David (literally, Red Shield of David but usually translated as Red Star of David) and is symbolized by, as you may guess, a red six-pointed Star of David. (By the way, Magen David Adom had been denied membership in the International Red Cross until 2006 due to its failure to conform to the international symbol for the organization - the Red Crescent was given membership in 1929, but the International Red Cross adopted a policy of not permitting the use of non-conforming symbols in 1930. The Magen David Adom applied for membership in 1931).

Note that the symbol for the Red Cross is not a religious symbol, but actually the reverse of the Swiss Flag. However, it is often perceived to be a religious symbol.

So, in non-Christian nations, the people have gone to great lengths to avoid using the Cross as the symbol of this non-religious organization.

As to your mention that the use of the Cross as a symbol, religious or otherwise, predates Christianity, I find that hard to believe. The Cross is a representation of the means of execution used by the Romans for non-Roman citizens. Why would anyone use that as a symbol of anything prior to its adoption by Christianity?

[jdonn]

Codo, on Nov 4 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Does a christian cross say: Muslims are not welcome on this cemetry?

It could certainly be interpreted in that way.

[matmat]

Codo, on Nov 4 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 4 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

As for the cross in question ... I dunno. I personally think that a cross can be such a generic symbol that it can be used without necessarily meaning "non-Christians not welcome". But as a symbol for honoring the dead, I think it should be avoided since once one starts thinking about honoring deads, it becomes strongly associated with Christian cemeteries. I think newly placed crosses should be removed from government-owned land unless there are some mitigating circumstances,  such as non-Christian symbols accompanying them. If it has been there for decades, one should look at what meaning the cross has acquired in the meantime. This may be tricky, since some non-Christians may perceive it as somehow endorsing Christianity and some may not.

Why is it a problem to use a cross in a overwhelming christian community as a symbol to honoring the dead?

Does a christian cross say: Muslims are not welcome on this cemetry?

Is it forbidden for me to visit a jewish cemetry, where they use Davids Star as an honour for the dead?

Is it forbidden for me to visit a Turkish cemetry where "everybody" has his halfmoon (or whatever other sign they use...)?

I always thought that the answer to all these questions is no and this is my experience too.

If someone hates to visit his son on a war cemetry, I can understand this.
If someone hates to visit his son on a war cemetry because his ancient ancestors had been victims of the inquisition, the crusade or slavery, and the cross is a symbol for this, I cannot understand this.

since you obviously seem to think that it doesn't matter to people what it is that gets put on their graves once they die, how about when you eventually pass on we put a lovely david's star on your tombstone, or perhaps a crescent? would that be ok?

[shyams]

matmat, on Nov 4 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

since you obviously seem to think that it doesn't matter to people what it is that gets put on their graves once they die, how about when you eventually pass on we put a lovely david's star on your tombstone, or perhaps a crescent? would that be ok?

Before we start a war of words on this subject, please note the cross in question is NOT on the grave of a soldier. I seriously doubt people would begrudge crosses on the graves of those war heroes who died for their country.

Here is some more information (with a picture of the cross):
http://www.slate.com/id/2231805/

[Gerben42]

The cross in schools was MEANT as a Christian cross and clear that it would be interpreted as such, so it has no place in a government institution like a school. The separation of church and state states that religion is something for each person to decide, and allowing religious symbols in the classroom would violate that.

I think in school children should learn about the Bible, Koran and Torah, because they are part of our culture. The teaching should be in a neutral way, like "some people believe this, others believe that, etc." Asking kids what they believe in is already crossing the line, as this would just split the class and really, kids in primary school are not in a position to choose between god or no god, or between different religions.

Can a person wear a religious symbol (cross, headscarf, you name it) while teaching? I think so. As long as the religious neutralness of that what is being taught is preserved. The teacher should always present their religious beliefs as personal choice.

[barmar]

Codo, on Nov 4 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Does a christian cross say: Muslims are not welcome on this cemetry?

While it may not indicate that specifically, it may certainly give them the feeling that they're out of place. If I go to a cemetary, and the entrance has a single religious symbol, I would naturally assume that it's a cemetary intended primarily for people of that faith. They might not be able to prohibit others from buying plots there, but they wouldn't expect it.

BTW, the post about the Italian court decision said "crucifix". A crucifix is not just a plain cross, it's a cross with the figure of Jesus Christ on it. Good luck convincing anyone that this is not a purely religious symbol.

[matmat]

shyams, on Nov 4 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

matmat, on Nov 4 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

since you obviously seem to think that it doesn't matter to people what it is that gets put on their graves once they die, how about when you eventually pass on we put a lovely david's star on your tombstone, or perhaps a crescent? would that be ok?

Before we start a war of words on this subject, please note the cross in question is NOT on the grave of a soldier. I seriously doubt people would begrudge crosses on the graves of those war heroes who died for their country.

Here is some more information (with a picture of the cross):
http://www.slate.com/id/2231805/

The picture makes it look even more christian. It's a blatant religious symbol, imo

[Trinidad]

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

BTW, the post about the Italian court decision said "crucifix".  A crucifix is not just a plain cross, it's a cross with the figure of Jesus Christ on it.  Good luck convincing anyone that this is not a purely religious symbol.

Some of the Italians are convinced that the crucifix is a symbol that is embedded in Italian culture. Since "everyone" in Italy is Roman Catholic, can there be a difference? Well, this Finnish lady who is Lutheran and lives in Italy with her Italian husband didn't like the mandatory crucifixes in her children's schools. The Italian courts decided that the crucifixes were Italian and not so much Roman Catholic. The European court overruled that.

Actually, to me it doesn't matter much that there is a figure of a man hanging on a crucifix. I mean, what does the cross symbol (without the male figure) refer to? Can you come up with any serious suggestion that is not linked to the crucifiction of Jesus? Does it then matter whether they actually put a figure of him on it (crucifix) or not (cross)?

The point is that the cross is a symbol of christianity. Denying that, just doesn't make sense. Just like three stripes belong to Adidas and this rounded checkmark (or whatever it is) to Nike. And like chevrons belong to ... Chevron and a shell belongs to well err... Shell.

Some have said that crosses also carry other meanings. That may be true, but it isn't relevant at all. In the context of spirituality or remembering the dead, a cross has only one meaning. Or is anyone seriously suggesting that they build a huge band-aid on that rock?

There are also other uses for three stripes. I am sure you can find army uniforms with three stripes that were not manufactured by Adidas. But on soccer boots 3 stripes means "Adidas", not "soccer boot" and on cemeteries a cross means "Christianity" and not "loved and dearly missed deceased person".

Rik

[ArtK78]

Rik:

Obviously your chances of becoming a Supreme Court Justice are not very good with displays of logic like that.



Seriously, the statements made by Justice Scalia are frightening.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on Nov 4 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

Rik:

Obviously your chances of becoming a Supreme Court Justice are not very good with displays of logic like that.



Seriously, the statements made by Justice Scalia are frightening.

Just to show that IF I would ever become a Supreme Court Justice, it would be for the right reason:

How much does it pay?



Rik

[Codo]

matmat, on Nov 5 2009, 02:03 AM, said:

since you obviously seem to think that it doesn't matter to people what it is that gets put on their graves once they die, how about when you eventually pass on we put a lovely david's star on your tombstone, or perhaps a crescent? would that be ok?

Why not?

Of course this is the wrong question, because nobody would think about it.

But lets say, my son dies during a freedom mission in Israel and his grave is on an Israel war cemetry. Lets guess that they use David Stars on this cemetry.

Will I care? No way. Will I fight for a cross for my son? Of course not, why should I?

[Codo]

jdonn, on Nov 5 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 4 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Does a christian cross say: Muslims are not welcome on this cemetry?

It could certainly be interpreted in that way.

So they denied Jewish and Muslim Americans to pray for the dead at this special cross?

And they stop you from visiting Arlington?

Now this is really shocking...

Of course they don't. So it is not that the governement prohibit non christians to honour the dead or to visit this place. It is "just" that some non christians do not feel good when they see this sign.
So we discuss the fealings of non christians who are so full of hate (?) fear (?) other bad feelings against the cross that they cannot stand to honor the dead in the sight of this sign.

Sounds quite narrowminded to me.