<Removed>

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[Dukasaur]

There is no single official symbol that represents Hinduism.

Here's a list of 10 different symbols that are sometimes associated with Hinduism:
http://hinduism.iskcon.org/lifestyle/806.htm

The one that most people would recognise as "the" Hindu symbol is the Aum:


The others are of lesser importance.




It's difficult to draw precise parallels between different traditions, but let's make this attempt:
The Aum is to Hinduism as the Cross is to Christianity, a clear and universally understood symbol.
The Swastika is to Hinduism as the Chi-Rho is to Christianity, an icon with meaning to the faithful and to students of the religion, but without the same broad universality of representation.

[sempaispellcheck]

Just to be clear, this:

4. Law.
a. a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience or a reward for obedience.
b. the penalty or reward.

is the definition of sanction as I was using it.

I apologize for any confusion.

[JBlombier]

The one that most people would recognise as "the" Hindu symbol is the Aum:

This is the exact case. I work at a Hinduistic school (I'm an atheist, but Hindus find that irrelevant if you support their values) and Swastika's are rare in our building. The Aum-sign, however, is all over the place. If a Hindu would choose a sign to represent his beliefs, I'm quite certain they'd pick the Aum. But it cannot be ignored that the Swastika is one of the holiest signs og Hinduism.

The 13th of November, is Diwali. Suppose bedub would've chosen to put a Swastika as his avatar, along with the line: Subh Diwali (A blessed Diwali), would it be tolerated? I'm not so sure that would be intentionally annoying anyone. He might've gotten some (upset?) reactions, but if he really did choose to wish everyone a Subh Diwali, he'd be glad to explain it, so more people are aware of Diwali. I know that our school gave candles to the entire neighbourhood to let them in on the holiday and I thought it was wonderful, eventhough I don't believe in it personally. You're supposed to share the feeling.

This whole debate about the definition of 'sanction' has nothing to do with it. It's not about the sanction, it's about whether it was fair. Don't you dare quote only this last sentence, because that was not what my post ws intended for.

[Funkyterrance]

I think that timing ought to be considered into the equation. Did the appearance of the swastika correlate with some discussion or has it been a longtime avatar? The former suggests it was put up to irritate while the latter suggests it represents the owner's belief system.

[trinicardinal]

I think that timing ought to be considered into the equation. Did the appearance of the swastika correlate with some discussion or has it been a longtime avatar? The former suggests it was put up to irritate while the latter suggests it represents the owner's belief system.

Certainly it was not a long time avatar of his. One thing I keep noticing in bedub's arguments is that he seems to feel that not allowing him to use ONE particular symbol as his avatar is discrimination against an entire religion. This is quite simply ridiculous. bedub used that one symbol and never tried to use other, (as has been pointed out) more readily associated symbols to the religion. The fact is that there are many people who do not even know that the swastika was originally a Hindu symbol and subsequently utilised by Hitler and is often therefore automatically offensive to many. As a result it is often best not to use it in an international site where it can (intentionally or not) anger others.

Because of its history, in a situation where only that particular has been attempted to be used to "represent" a religion, it is a natural conclusion that there is an intention to be controversial which can also be viewed as being intentionally annoying, even more so when you take into account the user's history.

As a result I'd say its a complete misrepresentation to say that CC is discriminating against a particular religion. I have not seen evidence of that. in fact I have seen more of a practice of religious tolerance and discouragement of discrimination whether on the basis on race, religion, gender or otherwise.... After all.. isn't that exactly what the Bigotry guidelines address?

[bedub1]

<Removed>

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[trinicardinal]

This isn't about me. It's about a single symbol, from a single religion, that is not offensive, that causes no harm. It is about CC's intolerance to a religions holy symbol.

I think you are mistaken there bedub, the whole point of all of this is that that particular symbol will be offensive to many and therefore will cause harm... its not about intolerance to a religious symbol... its about concern that a particular symbol does cause problems.

How do you think it feels to expression your religious belief, and me told it's not allowed? That others are fine to express their beliefs, but I cannot?

You are not being told you cannot express your beliefs. You have not been stopped from posting nor have you been banned from the site. If you wish to support Hinduism I am sure that you can find many images that are fully acceptable within the site guidelines. To me the fact that you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with trying to say that one image means a whole religion is proof that your intent was to be controversial aka annoying rather than actual religious support.

[Funkyterrance]

I think that timing ought to be considered into the equation. Did the appearance of the swastika correlate with some discussion or has it been a longtime avatar? The former suggests it was put up to irritate while the latter suggests it represents the owner's belief system.

This isn't a case-by-case basis where we establish courts and start trials and initiate inquisitions into the individuals who wish to display a religious symbol. We don't examine each person, and decide whether we feel they are allowed to do something or not. We don't try to determine their motivation, their meaning, their reasoning. Doing such a thing is completely unacceptable. Who are you to judge others?

What we do is acknowledge that the symbol is fine, there is nothing wrong with it. We allow anybody to wear it for whatever reason they so choose. We do not discriminate against a single religion, we do not discriminate against a single image, we do not discriminate against single individuals. We treat all holy symbols the same, we treat all individuals the same.

If you'd like me to describe for you all my entire belief system, my rejection of religions, my transformations, my acceptance of religions, my examination and attempts at enlightenment of others thoughts and belief systems, I might. It's really none of your business though, and I don't feel it necessary to defend myself against your inquisitions. By defending and explaining myself, I only lend credence to your misguided delusion that you are allowed to judge others; that you can discriminate against them based upon your own feelings and intuitions.

How do you think i feel, when I try to wear a symbol, and am immediately met with intolerance, bigotry, and hate? How do you think I feel to be discriminated against? How do you think it feels to expression your religious belief, and me told it's not allowed? That others are fine to express their beliefs, but I cannot?

This isn't about me. It's about a single symbol, from a single religion, that is not offensive, that causes no harm. It is about CC's intolerance to a religions holy symbol.

I don't see where I'm judging anyone, tbh. I feel no particular way about your avatar in itself. I'm just adding my opinion regarding the circumstances. CC is a community, not a court of law as you pointed out and rulings are enacted in regard to the fairness of said community as a whole. I'm not sure why you feel you should have some unalienable right regarding your avatar? This doesn't apply to anyone else, so why to you?
There is no "CC Bill of Rights" but there are guidelines and from what anyone can tell, you put up that avi to intentionally annoy people/make some kind of statement at the risk of offending a good deal of members.

[MrBenn]

This isn't about me. It's about a single symbol, from a single religion, that is not offensive, that causes no harm. It is about CC's intolerance to a religions holy symbol.

To put this in context, it is specifically a debate about a specific symbol whose use, "along with the religious and cultural meanings attached to it, was subverted in the early 20th century after it was adopted as the emblem of the Nazi Party" (source)

[bedub1]

<Removed>

[Metsfanmax]

What next, when some other racists organization subverts another holy symbol? Shall we ban the holy symbol simply because some racists organization subverted the symbol?

I suggest we ban the "racist" instead.

[Funkyterrance]

This isn't about me. It's about a single symbol, from a single religion, that is not offensive, that causes no harm. It is about CC's intolerance to a religions holy symbol.

To put this in context, it is specifically a debate about a specific symbol whose use, "along with the religious and cultural meanings attached to it, was subverted in the early 20th century after it was adopted as the emblem of the Nazi Party" (source)

Correct. The actions of prohibiting the display of the religious Hindu swastika strengthens and empowers the racists Nazi swastika. They aren't the same image, and it is a shame that you guys can't tell the difference between racism and religion.

What next, when some other racists organization subverts another holy symbol? Shall we ban the holy symbol simply because some racists organization subverted the symbol? If we bow down to the ignorance of some now, we shall have to bow down to the ignorance of others in the future. I defend this symbol, so that we can defend other symbols in the future. Every one of those symbols in my first page can be subverted by a racist organization. Shall we ban them all?

First they came for the Hindu Swastika
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Hindu.
Then they came for the Christian Cross
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Christian.
Then they came for the Islam Star and Crescent
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me

Yes, ban them all if enough people complain about them being offensive, who cares? Is this site such a part of someone's identity that having to change their avatar for any reason should be so crushing? It's not like the feds are coming into your apartment and ripping the posters off your walls.
I, like most other players, come here to play risk and have fun. If the site decided to drop avatars completely I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You are really laying it on thick with that borrowed poem or saying or whatever it is btw.

[kentington]

My quick thoughts:
CC has a very diverse group of people running things. The mods range from many backgrounds, religions, and non-religions. Every mod is chosen because they are seen to be tolerant of individual beliefs and able to make unbiased decisions. Whenever a decision is made against someone they feel discriminated against and claim bias or intolerance. This is not the case here.

As far as the symbol is concerned, I can tell the difference. Maybe you could ask if there is a way that your symbol can be used with the word Hindu in the image. The reason I suggest this, and that doesn't mean it will be allowed, is because maybe you are newly into this religion and for some reason this specific symbol relates to you. I don't know your situation, but if you feel that strongly about it, then you should maybe try to work with the mods on clarifying your stance rather than automatically claiming religious discrimination.

I think you will find your responses welcomed in those circumstances but they still may not agree with you.

[Funkyterrance]

As far as the symbol is concerned, I can tell the difference. Maybe you could ask if there is a way that your symbol can be used with the word Hindu in the image. The reason I suggest this, and that doesn't mean it will be allowed, is because maybe you are newly into this religion and for some reason this specific symbol relates to you. I don't know your situation, but if you feel that strongly about it, then you should maybe try to work with the mods on clarifying your stance rather than automatically claiming religious discrimination.

I think you will find your responses welcomed in those circumstances but they still may not agree with you.

I think this is a great idea and a good solution to a problem of differences. If someone Initially has a negative response to the image they will read the text and think: Hmm, maybe I should look into this before I complain.". That is, as long as the text is noticeable without a magnifying glass. It seems that no one who was actually using that avatar for innocent reasons would have a problem with this modification.

[kentington]

That is, as long as the text is noticeable without a magnifying glass. It seems that no one who was actually using that avatar for innocent reasons would have a problem with this modification.

Agreed. In actuality, someone using the avatar for innocent reasons should welcome the clarification. My uncle's name happens to be Jim Jones. Talk about discrimination, he always has to say "not that Jim Jones."

If you don't know what I am talking about, then look up "kool-aid" and cults.

[JBlombier]

I wish CC would discriminate against morons

Are you kidding us? That statement is baiting all people that responded here that have a different opinion than yours. You should be ashamed.

[bedub1]

<Removed>

[kentington]

I would suggest that you send a pm to the original person who dealt with the issue and cc rdsrds2120, even me if you want.
Petition your request to have this symbol with the wording clearly represented and see where it goes from there.

rdsrds2120, he is a great guy and no one here can nay say that. If he finds that it falls within the sites rules to allow it then great. If he doesn't, then it has nothing to do with religion. He is one of the least prejudiced persons I know.

Good Luck.

[BGtheBrain]

*****

[bedub1]

<Removed>

[AAFitz]

To my knowledge, only the Nazi swastika is being sanctioned on CC.

By sanctioned, I assume (hope) you meant discouraged.

Unless sactioned is used in the meaning of say.... the Eiger Sanction.

[AAFitz]

Im just confused...
if the image is banned and CC discriminates, why arent they being removed from these threads?

Maybe you were asked to take the avatar down because you were being needlessly controversial in a discussion about controversial avatars? Just a thought...

I did go through some of your old posts too... maybe something about this line may have had something to do with it also

Now they want us to attack Iran. They want us to fight their battles for them. I'm seriously tired of them. f*ck the Jews.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=178429

I dont know, but when I see a guy with a hindu image that closely resembles a swastika, and then read something like that, I kind of think the guy should take down the avatar...

The Hindu image doesn't closely resemble a swastika, it IS a swastika.
I posted that on September 18th. I changed my avatar on October 23rd. The two aren't related.

Did you read the rest of the post? Do you understand why I said what I said? Do you realize that Israel is trying to goad the US into a war with Iran, that could potentially turn nuclear, decimating the planet? I didn't say "f*ck them" because of their race, I said it because of their actions. I'll continue to use harsh language like that against people that are trying to start wars.

You really should quote the entire statement too so you have some context:

I'm starting to get tired of Israel. I think they need to learn to defend themselves. I think they need to become self-sufficient. I think the US needs to stop paying their way. No more bailing them out. There isn't anything special about them, besides their massive superiority complex.

I just read an article about how the US taxpayers have contributed more to the Israeli defense budget than Israeli taxpayers over the past 3 years.

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2012/09/ ... -israelis/

American taxpayers give Israel over $3 billion per year (over $8 million per day), more than to any other nation, despite the fact that Israel is smaller than New Jersey and is in the top 30 richest countries in the world.

Now they want us to attack Iran. They want us to fight their battles for them. I'm seriously tired of them. f*ck the Jews.

In hindsight I probably shouldn't have used the word "Jews". I probably should have used "Israel", as it's more specific to the nation and it's citizens, as opposed to Jews that live in the US/other countries and don't support the actions of the nation of Israel. It's hard to figure out which word to use when they are a Nation, a Race, and a Religion. Regardless they are not above criticism for their actions. Just yesterday they assassinated a head of state. Again, f*ck them. It's time to end this 4000 year old war, time to them to learn to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors.

Why are you digging through my past posts? Why are you making shit up, flaming me, and baiting other users in this thread? It seems like you are actively going out of your way, TRYING to find some reason to be offended.

Maybe, but to me it seems like hes calling you out on exactly what you were doing.

[bedub1]

<Removed>