Bird Man of Venice said

Frankly, how dare you!

My wife happens to be Jewish, and her family was driven out of Europe by the Nazis – at least those who were lucky enough to escape.  The remainder of her family ended up in concentration camps.  I can assure you, I'm not anti-semitic!

BMOV u have dragged every wrong ever committed by anyone anywhere to support your argument that is ok to be an a**h*le and fly a swastika sign over a crowded beach in 2012.  not the hindu version of it, but the aryan version of it.  you have taken to devil's advocate position to an extreme that collapsed into a pile of woe and statistics.  (by the way, how were the native americans to each other?  or the african kings?  we're their hands clean?)  again you have a right to stick to logic and un-emotionality for the sake of argument.  but tell us this;

how would your postulation be received by your wife and her family holocaust survivors?  would you become "right", yet STILL persona-non-grata at chanukka?

As for "condemning a Symbol", it is just that, a symbol of _______ fill in blank here.  and if the overarching meaning for said symbol is completely negative in this HEMISPHERE (you right i don't make it "over there" much) then perhaps some sensitivity to that instead of steadfastly hammering the technical points of being right home.  otherwise we get into some real deconstructionist philosophies and quickly realize that no one's hands are clean ultimately and that well, let's all be nietzche or camus since we are all gonna die someday anyway.  

Venice Rob said 
Another Anti-Semite

i agree with bird man half the time and rick never, but the more you cry wolf (or anti-semite) the weaker your case is.

it's right up there with "because  god told me so " in terms of the quickest way to be discounted as a crack pot.  save the energy of that word for the real-antisemites.

Loren Lyons said

Bird Man of Venice said

Frankly, how dare you!

My wife happens to be Jewish, and her family was driven out of Europe by the Nazis – at least those who were lucky enough to escape.  The remainder of her family ended up in concentration camps.  I can assure you, I'm not anti-semitic!

BMOV u have dragged every wrong ever committed by anyone anywhere to support your argument that is ok to be an a**h*le and fly a swastika sign over a crowded beach in 2012.  not the hindu version of it, but the aryan version of it.  you have taken to devil's advocate position to an extreme that collapsed into a pile of woe and statistics.  (by the way, how were the native americans to each other?  or the african kings?  we're their hands clean?)  again you have a right to stick to logic and un-emotionality for the sake of argument.  but tell us this;

how would your postulation be received by your wife and her family holocaust survivors?  would you become "right", yet STILL persona-non-grata at chanukka?

 

As for "condemning a Symbol", it is just that, a symbol of _______ fill in blank here.  and if the overarching meaning for said symbol is completely negative in this HEMISPHERE (you right i don't make it "over there" much) then perhaps some sensitivity to that instead of steadfastly hammering the technical points of being right home.  otherwise we get into some real deconstructionist philosophies and quickly realize that no one's hands are clean ultimately and that well, let's all be nietzche or camus since we are all gonna die someday anyway.  

Okay, so I tested your theory.  My wife is a very intelligent person, so I asked her for her views.  She agreed with me (no surprise) that it would be good if the swastika were to be reclaimed as a symbol of good.  Of course, my wife is highly educated, has spent time with people of many spiritual traditions and understands the use of religious symbols.  She wasn't even hesitant about it.

She understood my ability to support the legitimate use of the symbol, while still condemning the acts of those who perverted it's meaning.

Now again – let me clarify.

I support he use of the swastika in it's proper configuration, not with the hooks turned in the opposite direction (the version.)  If they were flying the version over the beach, that's wrong.  In fact, they are both entirely different symbols.  It's the same as if a Satanist were to hang a cross upside-down.

I also think it's wrong to display the swastika in an inappropriate context.  If it (and again, I mean the correct version) is used to adorn a Hindu place of worship, or worn in jewelry by a Hindu person (or anyone who is using it in its intended spiritual context) then the display of this symbol is totally acceptable.  Anyone using the swastika as a symbol of hate, I condemn.

With symbols, it's always about context – much like any other language.

To use the cross again – a cross used on the steeple of a country church is totally appropriate.  One burning on the lawn of an African-American family in the Mississippi, not so much.

A skin head is using the symbol as a symbol of hate.  I don't condemn the symbol, I condemn them.

I am sorry that you feel that my sticking to logic for the sake of argument is inferior to using raw emotion to settle differences.  I do, however, wish more of the world would use a little bit more reason and logic, and a little less emotion.  Perhaps we could finally have a more peaceful Earth if that were the case.

I also think that recognizing that nobody's hands are clean is an important part of reaching understanding and healing.  The first step is to acknowledge our own wrongs and then to work to make amends.  We can't stop a skin head from hating, but we can release our own hatred and be an example for others to embrace, should they wish to do so.  You achieve piece by building bridges, not dropping bombs.  In this, I feel the Raelians are wrong.  They are trying to force healing on society, rather than peacefully practicing their beliefs and then educating people they come into contact with on an individual basis.  I feel that would be more effective and sensitive.  I understand that they will be subjected to a certain amount of hatred for using the symbol by those who are uneducated, but they should perceive that as an opportunity to engage in constructive dialog. If they were to be shining examples of goodness in our communities while not being ashamed of wearing that symbol, that would be the best way to reclaim it.  Forcing change down peoples throats just doesn't work.

I'm a bit disappointed that you have the classic "Ugly American" attitude.  It's caused a lot of suffering over the years.  It's important to treat every nation, people and individual with understanding and dignity.  How do we ask others to embrace our spiritual beliefs if we do nothing but heap scorn on theirs?  If you're not familiar with the concept, the "Ugly American" (and I've encountered more than a few) are those who travel abroad and then spend most of their time telling the populace of the country they are visiting about how backward they are, how stupid their customs are, how much better it is back in America.  They view the remainder of the worlds population as some type of backward savages.  I recognize that this is the minority of Americans, but there is still that attitude.  My guess is that the reason is the education system in the US is slanted toward US history, rather than world history.  In Canada, we learn ancient and European history in school first, then our own last.  I think it gives you a broader perspective, which is why we as a people probably tend to be more diplomatic.

As for my parallel between the abuses of the Jewish people in Europe in the 1940's and the abuses of the Native Americans here in the United States, I agree that it is an unfair comparison.  There are museums to recognize the injustices done to the Jewish people.  We teach the horrors of the Holocaust to our children in hopes that it won't be repeated.  We hunt those who were part of the horrors and put them in prisons, even though they are in their 80's and 90's and have lived peacefully for the last 60 years.  We condemn those who deny the Holocaust existed.  And we are right in doing all those things.

As for the Native Americans, we sanitize our history to deny that the atrocities ever happened.  We continue to shove them onto reservations and to strip away their land from them if the government has a need. (There is a tribe currently where the Government is trying to force them off their homes using imminent domain because they discovered uranium under what was believed to be the useless arid land where they forcefully relocated them decades ago.)  We don't have monuments and museums to remind people about their horrors.  We don't accept responsibility as a society.  We turn blindly from the whole affair.  We continue to cast them as savages and bad-guys in our cinema.  We teach that the Natives saved the Pilgrims from starvation as we celebrate Thanksgiving, but we fail to mention that the Pilgrims thanked them by slaughtering the tribe for their land.

So we agree – it's not at all a fair comparison.

Finally, it might surprise me that my Jewish wife, who's Grandmother and Grandfather fled Hungary with the clothes on their backs just before their Brothers and Sisters were rounded up and shipped off to the camps, told me that she doesn't hate the Nazis.  Make no mistake, she hates and condemns what they did.  The Buddhist Monk she used to hang with taught her that holding on to hatred in your heart for others, on matter how terrible they may be, only hurts yourself in the end.  Hatred is a powerful emotion, and almost a narcotic in it's addictive properties.  In the end, it only brings more harm to ourselves.

hi birdman

all good sound points – not even sure we disagree on any of it except where the rubber hits the road- and that is, for me the raelians are real A-holes that hid behind their religious freedom to get attention in a very ugly way.   i am not an ugly american but you will have to take byword for that as i really hate the part where we have to list our accomplishments, travels, religion act to justify.  BUT i am a pragmatic person and sometimes you have to rack focus down to the situation that is right in front of you.  analogy – not dissimilar to the dirtbags that are making life here so nasty the last few years; hiding behind jones act and any other law they can find to continue to take advantage of the situation and get as free of a ride for as long as they can at our expense.  In this area i have to agree with Saltwater assessment of your cultural relativism bent and believe that your birds-eye view of the situation sees all yet sees nothing up close.  which is what our personal experience is and what we are debating.  it is no less relevant and fitting than your admittedly evolved and astute observations.

Loren Lyons said
hi birdman

all good sound points – not even sure we disagree on any of it except where the rubber hits the road- and that is, for me the raelians are real A-holes that hid behind their religious freedom to get attention in a very ugly way.   i am not an ugly american but you will have to take byword for that as i really hate the part where we have to list our accomplishments, travels, religion act to justify.  BUT i am a pragmatic person and sometimes you have to rack focus down to the situation that is right in front of you.  analogy – not dissimilar to the dirtbags that are making life here so nasty the last few years; hiding behind jones act and any other law they can find to continue to take advantage of the situation and get as free of a ride for as long as they can at our expense.  In this area i have to agree with Saltwater assessment of your cultural relativism bent and believe that your birds-eye view of the situation sees all yet sees nothing up close.  which is what our personal experience is and what we are debating.  it is no less relevant and fitting than your admittedly evolved and astute observations.

Actually, we agree on the rubber/road part as well.

I'm not aware of who the Raelians are or what they stand for (other than that they wish to reclaim the swastika, and only know about that thanks to this thread.)  Given their approach to this admittedly sensitive issue, I'm convinced that they are actually more interested in provoking people than in advancing public education about legitimate religious issues.  So yes, that would make them A-holes in my book as well.

I also wish to be perfectly clear that I believe the vast majority of Americans to be very decent folk with plenty of compassion.  Every culture produces an ugly element.  Just some cultures have more impact than others.

I'm just of the opinion that it's important to set aside our personal biases on these types of issues.  The Raelians may well be absolute jerks, yet they do have a legitimate point in their argument.  That's pretty much all I was really trying to say.

I do support freedom of speech, but believe there needs to be limits on it for the good of society.  I'm actually in favor of the fact that Canada has stronger laws than the US banning hate speech.  I think it's important to allow the free expression of ideas, but I also think that a society needs to establish a standard for speech based on mutual respect and tolerance.  Hate speech, even if you're technically correct in what you are saying, just isn't acceptable.

In the case of the swastika, it's a slippery-slope.  On one hand, you have the legitimate use of the symbol in its historic context which should be respected.  On the other hand you have the perverted use of the symbol to promote hate which shouldn't be tolerated.  I think you have to look at this on a case by case basis.  It's much like the judge said about pornography, I can't define it but I know it when I see it.  I know a swastika on a Hindu temple is not a symbol of hate.  I know the same swastika tattooed on the chest of a skinhead is a symbol of hate.  I suspect most people are conscious enough to tell the difference, provided they receive the proper education on the full history of the symbol.  (It's also made a bit easier by the fact that Hitler chose to twist the symbol in the opposite direction – in essence making it an entirely different symbol – even though it essentially looks the same.)

You really have to look at why the Raelians appear motivated to do what they are doing.  If there intent is to right a perceived wrong, and it's based on fact – then I fully support them.  If their intent is to provoke controversy to further a less noble agenda, then I absolutely condemn them.  As I say, I don't really know enough about them to assign a motive at this point.  I will say that by attaching the swastika to the Star of David, they tend to make me think it is the latter and not the former.

Truly spiritual people tend to pursue life with calm, gentleness, sensitivity and understanding.  Doesn't sound like the Raelians, unfortunately.

I'm also curious about the name of the symbol.  I've never studied the names, and don't speak the languages.  It seems to me that Swastika is a German word.  I'm willing to bet that the Hindu word is completely different, and have no doubt that the Native American name for the symbol (if there is one) is entirely different as well.  I would be curious to know what the original names were, and how they would translate into English.

I also encourage anyone to look up images of the Hindu swastika on Google.  It's actually quite different in appearance than the German version.  Not only is the German version oriented different, it also tends to be very angular, whereas the arms on the Hindu version tend to be much more fluid.  While they are similar symbols, they are also considerably different.

I didn't see the banner they were towing, so I would be curious to know what the Raeliean version looked like.  Perhaps someone who saw it can describe it for us (in particular if it looked more like the German or Hindu version of the symbol.)  That would go a long way to helping me decide what the intentions behind the act were.