Carolina

[windwalker]

Many symbols can offend others.

this is from my home town grew up and lived in this neighborhood.
Not religious nor ascribe to any one faith.

The cross itself has been the subject of much debate among the residents of San Francisco as they have tried to weigh its religious role against its status as a historic landmark. In 1991 the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Congress, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued the city over its ownership of the cross. After a long legal battle and loss at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in 1997 the City auctioned 0.38 acres (0.15 ha) of land, including the cross, to the highest bidder.

The cross was purchased for $26,000 by The Council of Armenian American Organizations of Northern California[6] which installed a bronze plaque at the base memorializing the victims of the 1915 Armenian genocide. On Armenian Independence Day September 23, 2007, it was discovered that the 160-pound (73 kg) plaque was missing.
The original plaque was never found, and a replacement plaque was dedicated at a ceremony on April 20, 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Dav ... California)

The Council of Armenian American Organizations of Northern California

wow didnt know what group bought it.

Generally, people regard that swastika symbols mean "good fortune", but most people have forgotten the very original meaning of the symbols. The very origin of swastika symbols is not from human world but from Buddha's paradise. It is a mark on Buddha's body that represents the Buddha's level and status in heaven. A Buddha of Tathagata level only has one swastika on the body, while higher level Buddhas have more swastika symbols. Arhats and Budhisattvas do not have any swastika on their bodies. We can find one swastika on many Buddha statues' chests.

http://www.foreigners-in-china.com/budd ... mbols.html

In Korea there are many Buddhist temples, as young GI it took a little while to figure out the directions of the symbol was different.

As you see, the Buddhist religious symbols swastika has a much longer history in human world than the Nazi symbols. Hitler stole the Buddhism symbol, but he was using the symbols differently. In Buddhism, the swastika is put flat and not in black color, but the Nazi put the swastika's corner pointing upwards and made it black.

[Steve James]

I'm sure that someone will argue that putting a swastika on top of a building means good luck. But, imo, the point is that the swastika is a symbol. It's not like a stop sign or a red light. There's no universal meaning. It means whatever the person/group wants it to mean. It didn't get associated with the Nazis until the 1930s. And, it didn't get picked up by Americans who idolize the Nazis until the 60s, only because the Nazis were considered bad guys by most people after the war. Though, people used and still use the German (or iron) cross, particularly on motorcycles. Jesse James uses it as the logo for West Coast Choppers. But, it's more likely that he'd say that it just looks cool.

But, symbols are funny things that depend on context for meaning. A guy in a white sheet can be a kkk member (burning a cross or not) on one night, but be just a guy playing a ghost on another night. It's not the sheet.

Flying a swastika flag is illegal in Germany precisely because of what it represents.

[windwalker]

Dont know about Ger.

Your argument based on enemy flag was better and made more sense.
Same as separation of church and state which IMO in the US was and is not really true.

money and politics,,,USA inc.

[Steve James]

Here's the perspective of a guy who informed on groups like the one the SC shooter cited in his manifesto. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-i ... L-HP-IP-NA
Btw, he's not "anti-gun" and he realizes that he's considered a traitor with a bounty on his head --like a fatwa.

[grzegorz]

Conservatives in media call for Confederate flag removal

BY: Eddie Scarry June 23, 2015 | 1:15 pm

Several leading conservative voices in the media have joined the broad call in the press to remove the Confederate flag from South Carolina's capitol grounds, after last week's racially-motivated shooting left nine black churchgoers dead.

"It's a flag of another country," radio host Glenn Beck said on his show Monday. "Why are you flying that? Are you proud that you were another country at some point?" Beck said the flag is "a thing of the past."

Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Monday that the flag should be removedfrom in front of the state's capitol building, though she had defended its display in the past. "The events of this week call upon us to look at this in a different way," she said.

Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said that Haley did the right thing. "As a matter of policy, if I were a South Carolinian, I would do exactly as she did," he said Monday on Fox News. "I would have done it five years ago. It's a good thing that it's being done."

Jason Lee Steorts, managing editor of the conservative National Review magazine, wrote a blog post rebutting defenders of the flag, who say it is merely a piece of Southern history. "It was a banner of white supremacy, and of lawlessness, from the beginning," Steorts said. "And that is more than enough to disqualify it from respectability."

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker said in her column printed Tuesday that the flag is "the racist symbol many have long thought it to be."

Some of the Republican presidential candidates have been far more timid in their public declarations about the flag.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said Saturday he understood people who see the flag as a symbol of oppression as well as those who revere it for its "historical traditions."

He said South Carolina officials should decide for themselves whether to keep the flag on display.

Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson all offered similar answers.

Comparatively, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham have all said or suggested that the flag acts as a divisive symbol and should be taken down from State grounds.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/conserv ... le/2566849

[grzegorz]

I don't believe that the flag should be illegal but I do think the flag creates the same issues that were raised by some Asians when GPS wore the rising sun gi.

Dear Mr. Georges St. Pierre
Hi, My name is Chan Sung Jung from South Korea. As one of many Koreans who like you as an incredible athlete, I feel like I should tell you that many Korean fans, including myself, were shocked to see you in your gi designed after the Japanese 'Rising Sun Flag'. For Asians, this flag is a symbol of war crimes, much like the German Hakenkreuzflagge. Did you know that? I hope not.
Just like Nazis, the Japanese also committed atrocities under the name of 'Militarism'. You can easily learn what they've done by googling (please do), although it's only the tiny tip of an enormous iceberg.
Furthermore, the Japanese Government never gave a sincere apology, and still to this day, so many victims are dying in pain, heartbroken, without being compensated. But many westerners like to wear clothes designed after the symbol under which so many war crimes and so much tragedy happened, which is ridiculous.
I know most of them are not militarists. I know most of them do not approve unjustified invasion, torture, massacre, etc. They're just ignorant. It's such a shame that many westerners are not aware of this tragic fact. Wearing Rising Sun outfits is as bad as wearing clothes with the Nazi mark on it, if not worse.

If I recall correctly the Korean Zombie wrote that but I'm not completely sure if those were his words but I do know that those were his sentiments. I also know that both GSP and the gi company apologized and I don't believe that GSP ever wore it again.

[grzegorz]

Dude wanted an AR-15.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/us/charle ... index.html

[jimmy]

[windwalker]

interesting times we live in

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

"Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on 'due process' to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the 'liberty' protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society," Thomas wrote in conclusion.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/clarence- ... 58716.html

a commenter funny

what would happen if a gay couple walked into a bakery, owned by a religious owner, and ordered a cake for a gay wedding with a confederate flag on it?

[Steve James]

Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. ....

If that's part of Thomas's dissent, it's interesting. When the SC in 1896 came down with the Plessy v Ferguson decision that affirmed the legality of racial segregation (and Jim Crow laws), one of the arguments was that, if the Negroes felt humiliated by having to drink at separate fountains, it was they who created that feeling. Of course, most ordinary segregationists argued that Negroes didn't mind at all. Anyway, apparently, they did mind --which brings up the point at hand. This specific decision wasn't about whether same-sex marriages could occur. It was about whether legal marriages in one state had to be recognized in any other. Iow, if it were not legal in AL and a couple from NY were driving through, could they be arrested? Could they stay at a hotel? The SC's ruling today doesn't mean that FL can't have a law against these marriages; it just means that FL has to recognize them. Opponents to that come in two camps. The first, like NJ governor Christie, argues that the state should have the right to decide, not the SC. The other camp, mostly religious-based, think that gay marriage is just wrong and allowing it will destroy society. Of course, the latter camp also believes that being gay should be illegal.

Afa the moral argument, I think --to paraphrase Thomas-- if people feel that same-sex marriage takes away their dignity or morality, that is just their feeling. Personally, I believe that churches and preachers should have the right to marry whomever they choose. That includes refusing to marry interracial couples, or couples from different religions. However, "marriage" has certain benefits when it comes to taxes, insurance, health care, inheritance, etc., etc.,. And there are such things as "civil" and "common law" marriages. If two people (m&f) get married at the county clerk, is their marriage any less legitimate than if it had been done by a priest in a church? What about the King who puts away his wife and marries a few ladies afterward? Or, what about people who divorce? All these are customs, and not Biblical commands. In the Bible, iirc, someone said that it is better not to marry --but "it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

But, the fact of the matter is that heterosexuals fornicate and are adulterers, and all that good stuff. The debate is not about sin or who's sinning, or whether marriage keeps heterosexuals from sinning. I agree with the SC decision because it represents a civil freedom, not a religious restriction. It's too bad if it gives a freedom to people that some (or all) religions condemn. The state has to justify why certain people are identified as not having specific rights. Whether someone thinks it's right or wrong, it is a restriction imposed on a citizen. Either you are a free citizen wherever you go or you're not. But, I also think that it's only fair that someone who lives with someone else for 50 years gets the social security and tax benefits.

Can you think of a group of humans (non-criminals) to whom certain "rights" should not apply?

[windwalker]

However, "marriage" has certain benefits when it comes to taxes, insurance, health care, inheritance, etc., etc.,. And there are such things as "civil" and "common law" marriages. If two people (m&f) get married at the county clerk, is their marriage any less legitimate than if it had been done by a priest in a church?

bingo, agree

If its now legal to marry same sex what about the other prohibitions.

what happens when a polygamist wants the same benefits, people marrying others of their family, ect.
would not the same logic apply?

Will churches or religious leaders be forced to accept and preform services requested which IMO is really the heart of the matter along with the benefits.
note: not religious

I fail to see the logic applied to what is basically something that is considered to be beneficial to society,
unions between men and women in that it's how it sustains it self though replacements.
Societies in gen, recognize this and give benefits that foster it.

The state has to justify why certain people are identified as not having specific rights.

Is it about rights or benefits, I tend to see it as benefits.

Either you are a free citizen wherever you go or you're not. But, I also think that it's only fair that someone who lives with someone else for 50 years gets the social security and tax benefits.

its only fair, so why not allow others to marry who they want, how many they want and so on?

[windwalker]

Can you think of a group of humans (non-criminals) to whom certain "rights" should not apply?

Those not in ones society, they do not have the same "rights" as those with in it.

[Steve James]

what happens when a polygamist wants the same benefits, people marrying others of their family, ect.
would not the same logic apply?

Sorry. There are polygamists with tv shows. However, what if a state decides that polygamy is legal? But, better yet, what is your specific logic that a man with two wives or vice versa is not "married"?

Will churches or religious leaders be forced to accept and preform services requested which IMO is really the heart of the matter along with the benefits.
note: not religious

Well, it would help if you'd read what I wrote. At least you wouldn't ask me that question.

I fail to see the logic applied to what is basically something that is considered to be beneficial to society, unions between men and women in that it's how it sustains it self though replacements.

You fail the see what logic? Married couples don't get tax benefits because they have kids. They get the married tax rates with or without children. And, it's sex that produces offspring, not marriage. I wonder if more children aren't produced outside of wedlock. And, if the logic is reproduction, I can't understand your opposition to polygamy --especially since all those gay people aren't reproducing

Those not in ones society, they do not have the same "rights" as those with in it.

Right. Ahem, but aren't gays in "our" society? What gives you the right to deny them any right that you claim as a citizen?

Woman on polygamy show 'My Five Wives' accuses father of abuse

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... her-abuse/

[windwalker]

Right. Ahem, but aren't gays in "our" society? What gives you the right to deny them any right that you claim as a citizen?

can a LBGT non citizen vote?

what gives you the right to give them rights not conferred by citizenship.

Sorry. There are polygamists with tv shows. However, what if a state decides that polygamy is legal? But, better yet, what is your specific logic that a man with two wives or vice versa is not "married"?

The US federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and made polygamy illegal through the enforcement of Acts of Congress such as the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. The LDS Church formally abolished the practice in 1890, in a document labeled 'The Manifesto'.[29][30] Small splinter groups from the LDS Church, such as Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Apostolic United Brethren still practice polygamy and awareness has been increased through television dramas such as Big Love and reality shows such as Sister Wives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

try reading what I wrote.

Why is this not the same as same sex marriage between consenting adults ?

[Steve James]

can a LBGT non citizen vote?

We are talking about citizens. It's true that the Constitution does not mention God --nor marriage. But, the Declaration says that there are certain "unalienable" rights.

But, you're just joshing anyway. I don't give people rights. I ain't the one trying to argue who should not have any