Stolen icon say Hindus
Can the Hindus Switch to this??
BBC NEWS | Europe | Hindus opposing EU swastika ban Geez. FYI
Hindus in Europe have joined forces against a German proposal to ban the display of the swastika across the European Union, a Hindu leader said.
Ramesh Kallidai of the Hindu Forum of Britain said the swastika had been a symbol of peace for thousands of years before the Nazis adopted it.
He said a ban on the symbol would discriminate against Hindus.
Found by London Correspondent Sergio Gasparrini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Here is some more info on the 5000 year old symbol used by Hindus, Jains and Buddhists.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/HinduSwastika.svg/142px-HinduSwastika.svg.png
This is the Swastik used by Indians.
#34
I think Indian Hindus/Buddhists/Jains don’t use the Swastika in public life. It’s mostly used only in weddings and other such auspicious occasions. You can find this symbol in temples, too.
Well, we’ve faced 700 years of invasion from Central Asia, an invasion which almost destroyed the culture of this country. We couldn’t do anything back then, and I don’t think Hindus/Buddhists/Jains would use violent means to react. It’s because the religion is very personal, and generally these three religions aren’t true religions like Christianity and Islam are. They’re more like a culture than a true religion.
>So it many Germans believe in it, it’ll be true?
No, but it’s possible that Hitler would adopt the symbol based on a myth. Saying that the Aryan invasion theory is false doesn’t change the fact that Germans at the time believed the theory, and that this would lead to adoption of the swastika, from the country that had Aryans and white supremacy(in their mind)
#19 –
“I’m appalled that the admins allow such racial comments on this site.”
I would direct your attention to the name of this weblog, which may be found at the top of the page.
I would particularly direct your attention to the second word.
Disagreeable or unpleasant statements can either be dealt with by censorship and oppression or allowing them to be aired and refuted in public.
The first, the route taken by Germans (and to be fair, others – but we’re discussing Germany) of an authoritarian bent, has a long history of being counterproductive and contributing to unacceptable loss of freedom. The second, the American model, respects the right of free expression while relying on democratic rejection and refutation of false and / or destructive speech instead of governmental coercion.
I suspect I already know which strategy you subscribe to.