Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 89879	2008-05-14 23:41:00	Hitler or Hindu Row	Roscoe (6288)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
669551	2008-05-15 22:22:00	Good grief, I have found myself agreeing with Metla twice in a row. Unprecedented. I don't see the issue in terms of trying to predict how returned soldiers would feel - though other's opinions on that may be valid. I see it through the ways in which my relations (who went through the concentration camps and the Nazi atrocities in Poland) would react to a huge swastika on someone's roof. No-one disputes what others do in the privacy of their own homes and temples - they can, and quite properly will, use all their revered symbols in those places. What I cannot accept is the large public display of a symbol that represents all that is evil in human nature to a significant part of our population. Why was that necessary? The guy who did it graciously recognised the distress that he caused, and I would have thought that a genuine response would be for him to remove it completely. He did not do that though, which casts doubt on his sincerity as far as I am concerned. All he did was to try to distinguish it from the Nazi symbol - an improvement, but not sufficient IMHO.	John H (8)
669552	2008-05-15 22:38:00	Well said.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
669553	2008-05-15 22:38:00	I think that we should respect hindu and buddhist use of a symbol that holds power to them. But to think that this guy just wants to modify his swastika to make it less offensive makes me wonder what the hell is going through his head. You can justify it all you want, but at the end of the day a lot of people are going to be offended. Not to mention how distasteful it is in the first place. If someone painted a big white cross on their roof I'd dispair. I respect peoples religious rights, but I respect them even more when I don't have them put in my face. Really, this guy should paint over it, just in respect for other peoples feelings. But there's nothing stopping him having them all over his house. The symbol itself isn't the problem, just the public display of it. Does that mean, then, that you believe the "big white cross" that is outside, on public display, most churches throughout the world, should be removed, "just in respect for other peoples' feelings"? You see many every day. Isn't that, "in your face"? So perhaps the churches need to "paint over" the "public display" of their emblems as well. The Cross is, I think you will find, one of the most recognised (religious) symbols in the world. Perhaps even more so than Coca Cola. I do hope that that Mr Gupta is not intimidated by the people that find his symbol of his faith unacceptable. We are supposed to live in a country that embraces free speech - one of the reasons this forum exists - and so he should be able to say what he likes as long as he is not breaking the law, and nobody has suggested, so far, that he has.	Roscoe (6288)
669554	2008-05-15 22:45:00	No we do not have free speech. What if a satanist publicly displayed their stuff in public, or a skin head etc what then? Anyways I think it's obvious what should be done, if they havent figured it out then either be prepared for abuse or go back to india.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
669555	2008-05-15 22:55:00	Does that mean, then, that you believe the "big white cross" that is outside, on public display, most churches throughout the world, should be removed, "just in respect for other peoples' feelings"? You see many every day. Isn't that, "in your face"? So perhaps the churches need to "paint over" the "public display" of their emblems as well. The Cross is, I think you will find, one of the most recognised (religious) symbols in the world. Perhaps even more so than Coca Cola. I do hope that that Mr Gupta is not intimidated by the people that find his symbol of his faith unacceptable. We are supposed to live in a country that embraces free speech - one of the reasons this forum exists - and so he should be able to say what he likes as long as he is not breaking the law, and nobody has suggested, so far, that he has. If it's on a temple then it has context. I'd be fine if it were there. But it's not is it? Do we know he's hindi from looking at his roof? Faith is a private thing. People should know enough to keep it that way. He has the right to keep it there, but that doesn't mean jack really. Any responsible adult in another culture should respect that culture. And in this society it's irresponsible to display that symbol with no context. I used to dabble in buddhism before I just cut to the chase and went atheist. Should I have displayed my faith loudly and proudly? And then just expected my WW2 vet grandfather to be happy for me? No. Why? Because I'm not delusional. The symbol carries power for us, just as it does them. And in us respecting their faith, they should equally respect our beliefs. It's a two way thing. I find it funny when people stand up for minorities to the bitter end, but then just deny the majority for being prissy. Two standards anyone? Just because I'm in the majority it doesn't make my values any less important. In some ways it should logically go the other way. But who listens to logic?	Thebananamonkey (7741)
669556	2008-05-16 00:10:00	I agree with the point about context. When I first went to England a few years back, my wife's relations were fiercely patriotic about the English flag (cross of St George, not the Union flag) flying over churches in those cute villages. They were outraged that a group of overseas origin (who had permanent residency) were complaining about their employer flying the English flag above their place of work - they said it was intimidating, much to our rellie's disgust. When I thought about it for myself I had to conclude that the only contexts I had ever experienced for the display of the cross of St George had been pictures of the cross on the shields of the mediaeval Crusaders; telly news and newspaper photos of the National Front; and football hooligans. In fact the only images I had for that flag had been entirely negative - it certainly affected the way I perceived that symbol, so to me it seemed redolent of violence, chauvinism, and racism. Hardly surprising that others objected, though how you can go to a country, take all its benefits, and then complain about patriots flying the country's legitimate flag, I don't know. But it made the point for me about context being critical. This guy Mr Gupta should respect the context in which he is making a large public display of the swastika.	John H (8)
669557	2008-05-16 22:38:00	I would like the Hindus to use their symbols more not less. Hiding the real meaning of the swastika only gives it more power to offend. Please take back your symbols and teach others that the Nazi's were / are thieves. Over 60 here and born after the second world war. Time to grow up and learn.	Sue (33)
669558	2008-05-16 22:49:00	You cant change history, you have to wait a few more generations.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
669559	2008-05-16 22:49:00	Sweet, In honour of the sentiments put forward by Roscoe, Sue and others,I have changed my avatar to a swastika, In order to remove any chance of offending I have named the image file "peace". Anyone offended, Please grow up, Your opinion is meaningless until you get educated, Obviously the killing means nothing. HAIL.	Metla (12)
669560	2008-05-16 22:50:00	You cant change history, you have to wait a few more generations. My thoughts exactly, time heals all wounds, No need to force it. HAIL.	Metla (12)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7