1
   

The noose in the news

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 11:01 pm
Freedom of speech requires responsibility of the speaker to distinguish that which can be interpreted as hateful.
Swastikas on synagogues

cross burnings on blacks or quaker lawns.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Nov, 2007 11:26 pm
Every citizen is free to entertain any emotion of his choice.
No one has any right to prevent that; he has autonomous jurisdiction over that.

Every citizen is rightfully entitled to openly express his thoughts.
Suppose that a Jew tells u that he hates nazis; maybe a concentration camp survivor.

Do u have a right to prevent him from hating ??






( Personally, I believe that he 'd be better off without the hate,
but that is HIS private decision. )
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 04:45 am
Quote:
Swastikas on synagogues


although i certainly would agree that adding a swastika to a synagogue would be a hate crime, it's interesting to point out there are some old synagogues that included them in the design.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 09:26 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
Quote:
Swastikas on synagogues


although i certainly would agree that adding a swastika to a synagogue would be a hate crime,
it's interesting to point out there are some old synagogues that included them in the design.


1. That is vandalism of someone else 's property.
The First Amendment does not say that anyone can
damage anyone else 's property, in an effort to express himself.

2. It is unAmerican for a legislature to endeavor to influence
any citizen 's emotions; there is no jurisdiction for what occurs between the ears.
We r not supposed to have thought police.
David
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 04:25 pm
i said it was a hate crime. this doesn't necessarily mean i support the specific legislation around hate crimes.

it's one of those really difficult decisions, and i think laws like that tend to pose a significant threat to the 1st amendment. on the other hand, as you point out in your reply, there are ways of expressing an idea that is protected under the 1st amendment that are not legal, such as defacing property. (generally speaking though, graffiti is pretty cool.)
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 06:10 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
... there is no jurisdiction for what occurs between the ears.

David


In this case, nothing of significance occurs between the ears.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:25 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
i said it was a hate crime. this doesn't necessarily mean i support the specific legislation around hate crimes.

it's one of those really difficult decisions, and i think laws like that tend to pose a significant threat to the 1st amendment. on the other hand, as you point out in your reply, there are ways of expressing an idea that is protected under the 1st amendment that are not legal, such as defacing property.

There are indeed,
for example, murder of an advocate of the hated idea.
Suppose that in 1932, when Hitler was campaigning for office,
a Jew had reasoned:
" Oooo, that Hitler is a bad guy.
I m gonna express my hatred of his philosophy
by shooting him between the ears " and fatally did so.
David
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 04:02 pm
Bush calls nooses and lynch threats deeply offensive
Quote:
"As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive," Bush said at a White House celebration of African-American history month. "They are wrong. And they have no place in America today."
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 12:35 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
Quote:
Swastikas on synagogues


although i certainly would agree that adding a swastika to a synagogue would be a hate crime, it's interesting to point out there are some old synagogues that included them in the design.


Please give some documentation to the above. The swastika was originally a symbol from India. The Nazis borrowed it. The only symbol on synagogues are Stars of David (aka, Jewish Star; just the shape of King David's battle shield).

But, since Halloween is All Saint Hallows Eve, how would "hanging a scarecrow" reflect this holiday?

For those who are not serious students of American history, the image of a noose is very offensive and might even be threatening to an African-American, since lynchings were the way African Americans were intimidated into the Jim Crow segregated existence after the Civil War. A lynching could occur for even looking at a white woman on main street of some towns.

And, as far as what is offensive to Jews, I find it hard to believe that with all the periodic television documentaries on the Holocaust there could be any adult that doesn't realize that a Swastika would be offensive and threatening to a Holocaust survivor. Most Americans never saw the old Holocaust survivors wearing short sleeved shirts in summer, with a concentration camp number tatooed on his/her forearm. It's very sad, knowing what these older individuals went through, as just children. Oh yeah, it would be offensive and threatening to an American born Jew too.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 12:50 pm
Foofie wrote:
Please give some documentation to the above. The swastika was originally a symbol from India. The Nazis borrowed it. The only symbol on synagogues are Stars of David (aka, Jewish Star; just the shape of King David's battle shield).


Quote:
The synagogue at Ein Gedi dates from the Roman-Byzantine period ... . When first built at the beginning of the 3rd century, it was a modest, trapezoidal structure. In its northern wall, facing Jerusalem, were two openings. The floor was of simple white mosaic with a swastika pattern in black tesserae in the center. This pattern has been interpreted as a decorative motif or as a good luck symbol.
source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 01:08 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Please give some documentation to the above. The swastika was originally a symbol from India. The Nazis borrowed it. The only symbol on synagogues are Stars of David (aka, Jewish Star; just the shape of King David's battle shield).


Quote:
The synagogue at Ein Gedi dates from the Roman-Byzantine period ... . When first built at the beginning of the 3rd century, it was a modest, trapezoidal structure. In its northern wall, facing Jerusalem, were two openings. The floor was of simple white mosaic with a swastika pattern in black tesserae in the center. This pattern has been interpreted as a decorative motif or as a good luck symbol.
source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs


My computer is not getting the website, but regardless, the meaning of the swastika is currently seen as a symbol the Nazis used, so there really is no argument, I would think. But, thank you for the information.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 01:17 pm
Foofie wrote:
My computer is not getting the website, ...


http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early%20History%20-%20Archaeology/Ein%20Gedi%20-%20An%20Ancient%20Oasis%20Settlement

Or: go to www.mfa.gov.il then > History of Israel > Early history/Archeology > Ein Gedi - An Ancient Oasis Settlement




Foofie wrote:
... but regardless, the meaning of the swastika is currently seen as a symbol the Nazis used, so there really is no argument, I would think. But, thank you for the information.


No doubt, besides you read about/refer to e.g. pre-Christian European cultures or today's Balinese Hinduism etc.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 03:28 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

This Halloween, a Reed College (known for being pretty liberal) student group set up a display of several scarecrows hanging by nooses from a tree. School officials took the scarecrows down and issued an apology to students. It seems that there were many complaints about racial insensitivity.

Despite the nooses long and gruesome history, have nooses become so symbolic of lynching that they have no place in even a Halloween display in America?

Do you think people are being overly-sensitive or do you think they have a point?

I suppose that the college can DO that, on its own land,
the same as it can choose to plant roses, but not petunias.

HOWEVER, it cannot logically claim to be a place of free speech.

If I were an alumnus thereof, I 'd be influenced
by its oppression when I get another letter in the mail hitting me up.



David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 03:31 pm
@tinygiraffe,
tinygiraffe wrote:

it would probably be racist for me to assume that most of the people
that won't be offended are white, right?

don't get me wrong, i'm not calling it a hate crime,
but to say it's in poor taste is an understatement, especially considering jena lately.

In the spirit of free speech,
my college invited a nazi, George Lincoln Rockwell to speak.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 10:29:21