Good analogy Ferox13, though usually sun cross when worn by Buddhists and a few other religions that use it have it turned the other way, but yes basically the same symbol as the swastika though given a different meaning.

Before the nazis sullied the image of the swastika the Boy Scouts used it as a good luck symbol. I came across an old boy scout "good luck" swastika coin as a kid and was kind of confused. Had to have my father explain it to me. Sorry for going off topic but that post just reminded me of that.......lol

Actually the whole thing with the sun cross piss me off. It is actually illegal to wear the symbol in public in Norway which is in reality religious persecution. I mean many Buddhists have this symbol as one of their most holy and they can not wear it in Norway. However there have happened allot of shit under the banner of the cross to, I wonder what would happen if they tried to forbid that.

Also as a side note I think it is wrong to forbid people who are Nazi to wear the symbol, I think Neo Nazis are messed up in the head and I could not disagree with them more. However part of the freedom of speech is that even idiots get to express themselves. If they harm anyone throw their asses in jail but if they just want to go around and hate and wear the swastika then by all means let them, it also makes it easier to identify them to keep an eye on them.

That's an interesting point. At what point does something become offensive enough that it has to be banned? I mean, the swastika literally means good luck. Hindus have used it for years as well as boy scouts.

But as for its use in relation to Nazi beliefs, I wonder. Consider this. Racism is illegal, or at least, public racism is illegal. As in, you can have your views, however the second they leave your mouth you are guilty of prejudice biggotry and if it offends, you can get in serious shit. The swastika has unfortunately come to represent views precisely of that nature, and therefore, in wearing it, a neo-nazi is physically displaying their hostile views with intention of letting others know. Is that different from announcing publicly in the streets "I hate n*****s and Jews!"? It has potential to offend many.

The issue with freedom of speech is that there is no way to "measure" offensiveness. Anything has the potential to offend anybody. And when it does, you're breaching their freedoms. Something as widely offensive as racism is publicly recognised as outrageous and therefore it is controlled. However the classic argument is "I have a right to my views!" and therefore in suppressing them you are removing the racist's freedoms, because they have in turn breached the offended person's freedoms.

It's a continuing cycle. I don't know. To be honest, I don't think broad laws can be put on matters which are entirely based on personal reactions such as how offended people are, because it differs so much from person to person. I just hope people aren't so disrespectful of their fellow humans that they would do something so widely recognised as offensive.

I think that one of the most important rights we have is the right of free speech, and I see it as a breech of this that Nazis and other racists can not express their views. Granted I mean there is limits to what should have been allowed, for example bothering people on the streets for example is out of the question, posting racist messages on billboards and the like to is out of the question. However wearing person symbols of one's views that should be allowed, the same with having websites or writing books and so on as long as they do not encourage people to hurt one another.

Again I do not support racism, I think it is both stupid and indescribably ignorant, however if people want to be fools I think they should be allowed to be fools as long as they do not harm anyone. I think that if someone want to say publicly I hate such and such people, that is their business what is not okey is to incite to violence or try to tarnish other's reputation or walk up to people in the streets bothering them.

I see your point, but again, the issue is that it is likely to result in public unrest. Being homosexual, if I were to see somebody with a placard telling all queers to go to hell, I'd probably get fairly pissed and start an argument. Whilst I'm aware there's a difference between holding a placard and wearing a symbol, to some they will have the same effect. Arguments, fights, street brawls and perhaps even deaths could ensue.

A religious symbol usually won't have this effect because these are simply symbols of spiritual belief - for the most part they are used in a positive way. However a racist person using a racist symbol is outwardly displaying generalised hatred towards a great deal of people. Freedom of speech is important, however it must be weighed against the result and if the cost is too great, I can understand the censorship.

Yeah, it is funny! In the UK our society says to the fascist 'we accept your right to express your beliefs of repression and control and we would fight to the death to defend these rights'. That's democracy for you. I also love consumerism and capitalism with proper taxation, imports and exports.

FYI Rudyard Kipling's works were initially released with the elephant and swastika crest on the cover but he soon stopped when National Socialism took off. It seemes strange that a symbol of Hinduism for 2000 years can be hijacked and ruined after 30 years of a distasteful association.

It's a fine line between exercising your right to free speech and inciting a riot. If some moron decides to preach white supremacy in the middle of Harlem, he's going to cause big trouble that will inevitably involve the police. That sounds like inciting violence to me. I don't know the story behind banning the swastika in Norway, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that every time some fool decides to wear one, he gets his butt kicked and has to be rescued by the cops. Maybe they got sick and tired of all the trouble it was causing.

The Reverend Phelps seems to know exactly where that line is drawn. He's managed to avoid any legal trouble as far as I know.

Exactly.
...

Well I'd say neither but you make an interesting point as to who the god (or leader or whatever) of the horror cult could be. Who is the spiritual leader of horror? Who do members of the horror cult worship? We could say anything really-HP Lovecraft, Dario Argento, Freddy Krueger etc-any horror writer, director, character, producer, artist, filmmaker-another question could be=do we worship such people when we are self confessed fans? Especially as fan is short for fanatic...