Should the swastika be banned in the US?

It isn't just Pagans though, it's also a significant symbolism of Hinduism. So for example, if you were to travel to India it would be very prominent. If you were to travel there, would you understand its truer(and much more peaceful) meaning?

Basically, there's the swastika and there's the Nazi flag. These should be seen as two very different things.

 

I think it has no place in public.Just historic.It personified the
worst part of Germany and it's Nazi Movement.Don't forget it was
feared by many germans.Hitler killed off The *Berlin Communists in order
to ascend his Nazi throne.Therafter unleashing his Historic Reign of Terror.
That Swastika was emblematic of the Terror.

* The biggest Political Party in Germany at the time.

 

Hindu's are pagans. For that matter the closest you get to pure blooded Aryans are Pakistanis and Iranians. Please note almost none of them are blue eyed and blonde haired to say nothing of Nordic Caucasian.

 

Historic connotations are irrelevant. If we are to ban everything that has negative connotations, then we would have to ban everything; The American flag is just as "hateful" as that of the NSDAP. Concentration camps, nukings, warfare, slavery, Guantanamo, interventionism and you-name-it. Should we ban 'The Star Spangled Banner'? More than once there have been rapists who've worn jeans. Denim is thus offensive and has to be banned too. English is a "colonial remnant" to people of Asia and Africa, therefore English has to be banned as well.

As you can see the logic is proven to be absolutely ridiculous when pushed in absurdum.

Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what is offensive and what is not in a world of subjective, individual opinions? If we want a collectivist society, then we have to respect diversity of opinion. Simple as that. If the Swaztika offends you, then just close your eyes. Geez.

 

Wrong.

 

Turn your head away

 

Um ... I believe they { the Ban People } Banned Lenny Bruce,way
back in the 60's.

 

No, easier to spot the scum.

 

There were many True Germans like those in Bavaria and Vienna
who very much disliked Hitler.
If anything,the Swastika represented Hitler.And his loathsome :
NaZis

 

WHO CARES?

 

Our government cannot, and it should not take legal steps to 'ban' the routine reproduction, sell, purchase, or public use of any political symbols. It can do what it pleases with respect to its own paid or salaried staff wearing them on the clock. I am fine with public expressions of outrage that make it mighty uncomfortable and unprofitable for private parties to produce, sell purchase or public use of same.

 

No the symbol shouldn't be banned just the knuckledraggers who use it and their spawn....

 

Agreed, There was a German as well as a French Resistance.

 

Rational people.

 

Yes you are.

 

Yeah, right. Whatever, m8.

Nope. Just because Indians and Persians live in areas that were once conquered by the Aryans does not make them Aryan. There is huge phenotypic variation amongst Indians and Persians and only a small minority have actual, Aryan lineage. The people closest to Aryan are probably Eastern Europeans. But, I do not really care about race because it is completely uninteresting to me. However, facts are facts and fact is that modern Iranians and Indians are not Aryan.

 

Only if they ban the fist of solidarity and Che Guevara pics I see all over the place as well.

 

Nope Medo Persians were the Original Aryans Even the current ones They were Originally called Indo Aryans for a reason. And we aren't talking races here we are talking ethnic groups. Last I checked there are only four races. There thousands of ethnic groups all with fairly distinctive cultures. Eastern Europeans are mostly slavic, But let it be said the entire notion of racial purity was pretty much a dead issue by the time Hitler started Yelling about it. Eastern Europe Pakistan and Iran have been major trading cross roads for millennia and those who trade with each other will eventually make babies with each other as well.l

 

I say no. Not only for the reasons given above related to free speech, but also because It allows us to identify America's enemies more easily.

 

No, turn these scum away.

 

That's not how liberty works.

If your mind is too underdeveloped to ignore words you don't like, grow up

 

The Gay Islamic Christian Communist Nazi Satanic Coalition of Concerned Nationalist Confederate Heritage Multiculturalists of America will not allow a Police state to be imposed upon them by a Globalist Capitalist Corporate elitist 1% Totalitarian Monopoly.

 

Individual rights and freedoms end where the nose of another begins. It is also where the legitimate purview of Gov't begins and ends with respect to individual liberty as per the social contract.

The legitimate authority of Gov't is for protection of harm .. direct harm.. one person on another ( Murder, Rape, Theft an so on).

This does not mean the Gov't can not petition "we the people" to change that contract - just that it is not supposed to step outside that purview by making laws that mess with individual liberty on its own volition.

The bar in this case is "overwhelming majority" ... at least 66%. We can get into "the why" later if you like. For now I will just state that "simple majority" was viewed both in Republicanism and Classical Liberalism as "Tyranny of the Majority".

There are then two questions:
1) is this within the legitimate purview (protection from direct harm). I would say no but there is a bit of grey in this case.

2) Is there an overwhelming majority that find this symbol so offensive that it should be banned as hate speech. The "grey" in (1) is also solved by this.

The social contract - construct by which Gov't gets authority from "we the people" dictates that Gov't should only be entrusted with as much power as necessary ... "limited Gov't".

An overwhelming majority believes that murder, rape, theft should be illegal. The bar is no different for any other law that messes with individual liberty.

If there is a reasonable expectation that such a majority is in place then a law banning the symbol is legitimate. If there is some grey ... then it should go to a referendum requiring 66% to pass.

 

The words used by these people may well turn into violence, especially when accompanied by weapons. And liberty doesn't entitle you to threaten others with words accompanied by weapons. Your mind could use a little tweaking.

 

As long as the jackass wearing the swastika doesn't swing at you you have no right to throw one at him. And If you throw the first punch it doesn't matter a damn how much of a scum bag you think he is he still has every right to defend himself against the assault you launched. Offending your precious sensibilities does not rise to the level of a criminal offense, hitting some one or attempting to hit some one does.