Banning the swastika = religious discrimination?

[The Black Forrest]

The problem is that the US. legal system has become rather pedantic, especially in the last half century, with a good number of cases decided by technicalities. So I imagine a semi-valid fear is that one might construe a Hindu rally as a hate rally, and still be able to win.

In any nation aside from the US (or most of the third world), I'd put my faith in nuance.

Umm, the Swastika is not, and cannot be banned in the US. Hindus can fly it here free from any legal restrictions. The US legal system is not the problem and is quite nuanced on this topic.

The US is not the one banning whole symbols regardless of context.

That is true but many choose not to as they understand the hate the symbol generates from it's corruption by the Nazis.

The US in general probably doesn't understand the history as it was not really taught. I will admit to being surprised by seeing it on a Native American belt from the 1800s. I saw it in a museum a long time ago. I won't say how long A museum person came up smiling and said "I see you trying to reconcile the dates" She gave me a small lesson in the symbol.....

[USS Monitor]

Umm, the Swastika is not, and cannot be banned in the US. Hindus can fly it here free from any legal restrictions. The US legal system is not the problem and is quite nuanced on this topic.

The US is not the one banning whole symbols regardless of context.

That is true but many choose not to as they understand the hate the symbol generates from it's corruption by the Nazis.

The US in general probably doesn't understand the history as it was not really taught. I will admit to being surprised by seeing it on a Native American belt from the 1800s. I saw it in a museum a long time ago. I won't say how long A museum person came up smiling and said "I see you trying to reconcile the dates" She gave me a small lesson in the symbol.....

I've seen a lot of swastikas in stonework, tile floors, etc. scattered around Massachusetts because there are a lot of buildings from before WWII, and swastikas used to be popular as a decorative motif before the Nazis ruined it.

This doesn't mean the US "doesn't understand" the history. It is taught in schools.

[New Scario]

That is true but many choose not to as they understand the hate the symbol generates from it's corruption by the Nazis.

The US in general probably doesn't understand the history as it was not really taught. I will admit to being surprised by seeing it on a Native American belt from the 1800s. I saw it in a museum a long time ago. I won't say how long A museum person came up smiling and said "I see you trying to reconcile the dates" She gave me a small lesson in the symbol.....

I've seen a lot of swastikas in stonework, tile floors, etc. scattered around Massachusetts because there are a lot of buildings from before WWII, and swastikas used to be popular as a decorative motif before the Nazis ruined it.

This doesn't mean the US "doesn't understand" the history. It is taught in schools.

It really is an aesthetically pleasing symbol, and I'd be a liar to say the Nazis made it look bad visually.
In any context, besides the Celtic version, it really is pleasing to eye and very beautiful visually.
Hence its allure, whatever meaning one puts behind it.

[The Black Forrest]

That is true but many choose not to as they understand the hate the symbol generates from it's corruption by the Nazis.

The US in general probably doesn't understand the history as it was not really taught. I will admit to being surprised by seeing it on a Native American belt from the 1800s. I saw it in a museum a long time ago. I won't say how long A museum person came up smiling and said "I see you trying to reconcile the dates" She gave me a small lesson in the symbol.....

I've seen a lot of swastikas in stonework, tile floors, etc. scattered around Massachusetts because there are a lot of buildings from before WWII, and swastikas used to be popular as a decorative motif before the Nazis ruined it.

This doesn't mean the US "doesn't understand" the history. It is taught in schools.

Might be an East Coast thing as I don't remember it being taught and I was interesting in history and culture back then. It may have changed since thing. Building wise, I have not seen it and have only heard of a slat floor that had it in the design.

[Nachocuntree]

Sorta wondering how banning neo-nazis from having the same rights to freedom of speech as everyone else fits in with moral nihilism. Am I allowed to ask or is that against some rule here?

Not advocating ban, but rather retaliation as being rational.

And it doesn't, really. I would say it is rational to me since it is in my best interest to retaliate against them. In that sense, it is less moral and more about rationale.

Fair enough even if not entirely convincing.

[Oldenfranck]

I mean, it is your right to display it if you want, but expect to get a beating, or your stuff vandalized.

[The Archregimancy]

Can I just take a brief moment to correct a couple of common misconceptions being perpetrated in this thread.

The swastika is not a derivative of 'Aryan' culture (however defined; itself a problematic concept that I won't get into here in much detail) in the wake of the supposed post-Indus Valley civilisation 'Aryan' invasions of the Indian subcontinent, nor is it in origin a Hindu symbol.

This is an Indus Valley Civilisation faience seal recovered from Harappa in 2001-2002:

(Image)

https://www.harappa.com/indus4/45.html

It's not unique. Examples have been found on other Indus Valley civilisation sites, including Mohenjo-Daro, in both seal and clay tablet form.

So we can certainly say that the earliest known swastikas are from the Indian subcontinent (in what's now Pakistan), but it would be quite wrong to associate these earliest swastikas with either 'Aryans' or Hinduism.

The Nazis did to some degree deliberately associate their hakenkreuz with their version of Aryan racial theory, and to some extent did (wholly problematically) attempt to conflate their 'Aryans' with the supposed 'Aryan' invaders of India that were traditionally held to have caused the collapse of Harrappan civilisation. While they were patently wrong, they were arguably no more wrong than anyone else at the time; scholarship on the Indus Valley Civilisation has moved on considerably since. Today, few - if any - serious scholars of the period would hold to the old discredited hypotheses involving a rapid and violent 'Aryan' invasion of the subcontinent. Instead, the gradual spread of Indo-Aryan languages (which is quite distinct from an 'Aryan' invasion) is seen as a complex long-term process of acculturation and migration rather than as a sudden violent invasion by an external [and sometimes overtly conceptualised as racially superior master] 'race'.

And however it occured, the swastika patently predates that process anyway.

We can associate it with hinduism... Because its a religious symbol which was used by the hindus and maybe indus valley civilization practised hinduism and thats why the used that seal? So it wouldnt be wrong to associate it with hinduism.

That's not my point. I wasn't saying that swastikas shouldn't be associated with Hinduism. Clearly the swastika is an important Hindu symbol.

However, I was specifically referring to the earliest swastikas from the Indus Valley Civilisation pre-dating Hinduism. The sentence in question was: 'So we can certainly say that the earliest known swastikas are from the Indian subcontinent (in what's now Pakistan), but it would be quite wrong to associate these earliest swastikas with either 'Aryans' or Hinduism'

Note the underlined.

[Novus America]

I mean, it is your right to display it if you want, but expect to get a beating, or your stuff vandalized.

Umm you should expect to get a beating if you are a Hindu? Or Native American?
Sure if you fly a black right facing swastika canted 45 degrees on a white disk on a red field you are saying you are a Nazi and deserve to be ostracized but their is a lot more to swastikas than Nazis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

[Internationalist Bastard]

We can associate it with hinduism... Because its a religious symbol which was used by the hindus and maybe indus valley civilization practised hinduism and thats why the used that seal? So it wouldnt be wrong to associate it with hinduism.

That's not my point. I wasn't saying that swastikas shouldn't be associated with Hinduism. Clearly the swastika is an important Hindu symbol.

However, I was specifically referring to the earliest swastikas from the Indus Valley Civilisation pre-dating Hinduism. The sentence in question was: 'So we can certainly say that the earliest known swastikas are from the Indian subcontinent (in what's now Pakistan), but it would be quite wrong to associate these earliest swastikas with either 'Aryans' or Hinduism'

Note the underlined.

Well yeah, Crucifixion was huge for a long time, still is in some places. But now the cross is almost entirely associated with Christianity.

[Animalian Territories]

If you ban it, you offend the Hindus.

If you don't ban it, you offend the Jews.

It's a lose-lose situation either way.

[Herargon]

The US banned displaying Confederate flags on veteran graveyards and memorials, if I recall it right. And that might be just one of the examples.

The US never did. Now certain memorials who previously flew said flag in support of segregation subsequently removed them. That is not banning them though.

link

[Herargon]

If you ban it, you offend the Hindus.

If you don't ban it, you offend the Jews.

It's a lose-lose situation either way.

The Hindu swastika isn't banned. The Nazi one and its way of use aside from historical and movie purposes and such, however, is.

[Novus America]

The US never did. Now certain memorials who previously flew said flag in support of segregation subsequently removed them. That is not banning them though.

link

That bill was blocked by Senate Democrats. It never passed, and thus never went into effect. Thus it was a proposed ban on only placing the flags on certain government property, not banning it in general which would of course violate the US constitution.

Thus it was a proposed ban that never passed, and even if it had, it would still be completely different than the swastika criminalization in Europe.

[The Archregimancy]

That's not my point. I wasn't saying that swastikas shouldn't be associated with Hinduism. Clearly the swastika is an important Hindu symbol.

However, I was specifically referring to the earliest swastikas from the Indus Valley Civilisation pre-dating Hinduism. The sentence in question was: 'So we can certainly say that the earliest known swastikas are from the Indian subcontinent (in what's now Pakistan), but it would be quite wrong to associate these earliest swastikas with either 'Aryans' or Hinduism'

Note the underlined.

Well yeah, Crucifixion was huge for a long time, still is in some places. But now the cross is almost entirely associated with Christianity.

Again, not my point. That a symbol later becomes associated with a religion has little to do with how uses of that symbol predating that religion should be interpreted when we're looking at them in the earlier contet. My point here isn't about the historical and modern association between Hinduism and the swastika, but rather about the very earliest swastikas that predate Hinduism.

I'll attempt to spell this out as simply as possible. I thought this was fairly straightforward, but apparently not.

Let's use an analogy involving pre-Christian use of Crucifixion to help emphasis the point about pre-Hindu use of the swastika.

The use of crucifixion to execute slaves at the conclusion of the Third Servile War [aka the Spartacus War] obviously had nothing to do with Christianity. That crucifixion and the cross later became strongly associated with Christianity doesn't mean we interpret Crassus' execution of the 6000 survivors of the War as Christian. Indeed, it would be fairly idiotic for anyone to try and claim that the executions were inspired by Christianity since Christianity didn't exist yet.

Similarly, whatever the subsequent associations between Hinduism and the swastika, it would be silly to claim a direct contemporary association between the archaeological examples of swastikas from Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro and Hinduism since Hinduism didn't exist during the Indus Valley civilisation. The Vedic period post-dates the Indus Valley civilisation.

The earlier uses may well have influenced the later religious uses (more obviously so in the Roman case), but we can't refer to those earlier uses as 'Christian' or 'Hindu' since they predate the later religion.

[Chricoma]

Though the reason I disagree with even NationStates ban on swastika is it an impediment on free speech
I mean if people are going to Jews and Holocaust survivors and trolling them with it I can understand banning the user but banning the symbol is ignorance of what it means and stands for and his an impediment upon human history, white history

The Aryans Civilizations
Sumer
Iran
Nords
India

These are all Aryan civilizations, these are all Aryan civilization White, Usually Blonde, and Blue Eyed people, the word Swastika comes from the Sanskrit word SVASTIKA which is the Wheel of Mithra, a symbol of fire it has been used for thousands of years of human history of the white race
If you look at TRUE Iranians they are not Arab they are white, the Arab nations simply invaded Iran many years ago. The reason Hitler wanted the Jews dead is that not all of them but some of them wants the Aryans destroyed their race is called the Semetics the ones that understand human evolution know how different they are from us, the idea of "white" is just a way to make the Semetics and Aryans get along with each other so their are Semetics who like Aryans and us Aryans like them.
Both Aryans and Semetics have white skin but FULLBLOOD Aryans are White, Blonde, Enlarged fore head, blue eyes, and tall but of course there are dominant and recessive traits some Aryans are born with black hair or brown hair or hazel eyes or green eyes. But the diversity in Aryans and races in general is all due in part in the sad story of interbreeding.

[Daeseong]

Though the reason I disagree with even NationStates ban on swastika is it an impediment on free speech
I mean if people are going to Jews and Holocaust survivors and trolling them with it I can understand banning the user but banning the symbol is ignorance of what it means and stands for and his an impediment upon human history, white history

The Aryans Civilizations
Sumer
Iran
Nords
India

These are all Aryan civilizations, these are all Aryan civilization White, Usually Blonde, and Blue Eyed people, the word Swastika comes from the Sanskrit word SVASTIKA which is the Wheel of Mithra, a symbol of fire it has been used for thousands of years of human history of the white race
If you look at TRUE Iranians they are not Arab they are white, the Arab nations simply invaded Iran many years ago. The reason Hitler wanted the Jews dead is that not all of them but some of them wants the Aryans destroyed their race is called the Semetics the ones that understand human evolution know how different they are from us, the idea of "white" is just a way to make the Semetics and Aryans get along with each other so their are Semetics who like Aryans and us Aryans like them.
Both Aryans and Semetics have white skin but FULLBLOOD Aryans are White, Blonde, Enlarged fore head, blue eyes, and tall but of course there are dominant and recessive traits some Aryans are born with black hair or brown hair or hazel eyes or green eyes. But the diversity in Aryans and races in general is all due in part in the sad story of interbreeding.

Most of this post is factually wrong.

[Neanderthaland]

Though the reason I disagree with even NationStates ban on swastika is it an impediment on free speech
I mean if people are going to Jews and Holocaust survivors and trolling them with it I can understand banning the user but banning the symbol is ignorance of what it means and stands for and his an impediment upon human history, white history

The Aryans Civilizations
Sumer
Iran
Nords
India

These are all Aryan civilizations, these are all Aryan civilization White, Usually Blonde, and Blue Eyed people, the word Swastika comes from the Sanskrit word SVASTIKA which is the Wheel of Mithra, a symbol of fire it has been used for thousands of years of human history of the white race
If you look at TRUE Iranians they are not Arab they are white, the Arab nations simply invaded Iran many years ago. The reason Hitler wanted the Jews dead is that not all of them but some of them wants the Aryans destroyed their race is called the Semetics the ones that understand human evolution know how different they are from us, the idea of "white" is just a way to make the Semetics and Aryans get along with each other so their are Semetics who like Aryans and us Aryans like them.
Both Aryans and Semetics have white skin but FULLBLOOD Aryans are White, Blonde, Enlarged fore head, blue eyes, and tall but of course there are dominant and recessive traits some Aryans are born with black hair or brown hair or hazel eyes or green eyes. But the diversity in Aryans and races in general is all due in part in the sad story of interbreeding.

Most of this post is factually wrong.

Putting it mildly.

It's like bad fan-fiction for PIE. Next we'll be hearing that the Iron Cross is actually a Kurgan fertility symbol.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Eh, if you look at it like that. There is some more radical centrism popping up, though, and the alt-right. Not Nazis, per say, but are easily becoming the more extreme side of American politics.

The alt-right programme is almost identical to that of FDR, the US's war leader in WWII. Might as well ban this flag:

or this:
UK(who killed the most in the world)


or this:


or:


or what about:

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

Swastikas should be allowed, since commie symbols are also allowed as 'freedom of speech', even though the reds killed a LOT more people than the Nazis ever did.
Freedom of speech applies to ALL ideologies, regardless if you like it or not.
So if people claim that Swastikas are banned for 'promoting a murderous ideology', then shouldn't the same also go for communist symbols?

[Cannot think of a name]

Swastikas should be allowed, since commie symbols are also allowed as 'freedom of speech', even though the reds killed a LOT more people than the Nazis ever did.
Freedom of speech applies to ALL ideologies, regardless if you like it or not.
So if people claim that Swastikas are banned for 'promoting a murderous ideology', then shouldn't the same also go for communist symbols?

Please point to the part of communism that says "kill all X".

You little Jr. McCarthy's always drag this whiny ass bullshit out like a fucking Trump card every time and for some reason it just keeps getting more and more tedious in its disingenuousness. Maybe that's what chaps my fucking hide, is that these discussions are disingenuous to begin with, no one anywhere is more than momentarily put out by a religious swastika for more than a second and a half before someone explains once the context and then this adult goes, "Huh" and moves about on their fucking day never to be troubled by it again. The only people who complain about this are people trying to find loopholes or are new to the word 'hypocrisy' and think it applies to everything.

And then, like some sort of hop on, comes this cold war relic of a bullshit argument. Totalitarian governments who have adopted communism as an economic model have killed people, but as a function of their totalitarianism, not their economic system. Nothing in communism says 'kill a bunch of specific people.' Nazis actually codified the eradication of specific populations and then systematically went about it. Not political enemies. Not dissidents. Jews. Homosexuals. Roma. There is nothing like that in Communism. Apples <-> oranges.

I get it. You want to be a big man, hip firing your big ass machine gun against the mean ol' commies Chuck Norris/Stallone style. Big bad communism. No rhetoric is too over the top for that completely stupid enemy of an idea. Except the hyperbole is tedious. And tired. And the only reason you're not challenged on it every time it farts out of your keyboard is because people are just so. fucking. tired. of dealing with it that it gets as much attention as a child running across a field with a toy plane in their hand going "Take that!"

[Farnhamia]

Swastikas should be allowed, since commie symbols are also allowed as 'freedom of speech', even though the reds killed a LOT more people than the Nazis ever did.
Freedom of speech applies to ALL ideologies, regardless if you like it or not.
So if people claim that Swastikas are banned for 'promoting a murderous ideology', then shouldn't the same also go for communist symbols?

Please point to the part of communism that says "kill all X".

You little Jr. McCarthy's always drag this whiny ass bullshit out like a fucking Trump card every time and for some reason it just keeps getting more and more tedious in its disingenuousness. Maybe that's what chaps my fucking hide, is that these discussions are disingenuous to begin with, no one anywhere is more than momentarily put out by a religious swastika for more than a second and a half before someone explains once the context and then this adult goes, "Huh" and moves about on their fucking day never to be troubled by it again. The only people who complain about this are people trying to find loopholes or are new to the word 'hypocrisy' and think it applies to everything.

And then, like some sort of hop on, comes this cold war relic of a bullshit argument. Totalitarian governments who have adopted communism as an economic model have killed people, but as a function of their totalitarianism, not their economic system. Nothing in communism says 'kill a bunch of specific people.' Nazis actually codified the eradication of specific populations and then systematically went about it. Not political enemies. Not dissidents. Jews. Homosexuals. Roma. There is nothing like that in Communism. Apples <-> oranges.

I get it. You want to be a big man, hip firing your big ass machine gun against the mean ol' commies Chuck Norris/Stallone style. Big bad communism. No rhetoric is too over the top for that completely stupid enemy of an idea. Except the hyperbole is tedious. And tired. And the only reason you're not challenged on it every time it farts out of your keyboard is because people are just so. fucking. tired. of dealing with it that it gets as much attention as a child running across a field with a toy plane in their hand going "Take that!"

And when you get that pissed off, stop typing and step away. Seriously, put him on Ignore and rein in your temper.

[The Black Forrest]

Swastikas should be allowed, since commie symbols are also allowed as 'freedom of speech', even though the reds killed a LOT more people than the Nazis ever did.
Freedom of speech applies to ALL ideologies, regardless if you like it or not.
So if people claim that Swastikas are banned for 'promoting a murderous ideology', then shouldn't the same also go for communist symbols?

Sorry. The owner of the site made his ruling.

[The Batorys]

Swastikas should be allowed, since commie symbols are also allowed as 'freedom of speech', even though the reds killed a LOT more people than the Nazis ever did.
Freedom of speech applies to ALL ideologies, regardless if you like it or not.
So if people claim that Swastikas are banned for 'promoting a murderous ideology', then shouldn't the same also go for communist symbols?

You don't have freedom of speech here.

This site is private property. The owner can set what rules about what things people can post without getting kicked out of his house. One of his rules is no swastikas. If you think that's unfair, you're free to leave and go start your own site.