Swastika banner flies over NJ beaches

**darthsinatra** · 06-25-2012, 09:38 AM

Anybody else see this story today?

Flying swastika causes alarm at Jersey Shore

**DocAwesome** · 06-25-2012, 09:55 AM

I saw it, told myself to look up the website it referenced as it was kind of odd, then never bothered. In another few hundred years the symbol will have lost its emotional punch and do the work for this group regardless. I'm not sure the plan for this group is that well developed or advisable, but hey, freedom of speech.

**lemko** · 06-25-2012, 10:00 AM

Was this the plane towing the banner?

**phillyaggie** · 06-25-2012, 12:23 PM

The Hindu Swastik, which is what that is, is offensive how? People need to get a brain.

Then again, cultural symbols of other cultures and faiths are so easily abused and trampled upon. Yoga is no longer connected to its Hindu history to most white gals and dudes in tights on their yoga mats. And such is the case with some nincompoop down the shore who see a good luck charm and yell, "offense! Nazis!"... the Philly.com article's comments are truly abusive and sadden me. Not a single one of them was on the mark, not even the one who said something about "Sanskrit Swastika"... which is actually like saying something to the effect of "English pudding"... the very word "Swastika" is in Sanskrit language.

**DocAwesome** · 06-25-2012, 12:56 PM

Some people can't step out of their self and ethnocentric circles. Seeing a swastika (forwards or backwards) emblazoned on a good percentage of foods, temples and art in many different countries (including somewhat the US) would undoubtedly injure them for life.

**seand** · 06-25-2012, 01:20 PM

The Raelians have a lot weirder/more offensive beliefs than wanting to rehabilitate swastikas.

Like that we should clone people in the hope of transfering their "minds" onto the unlucky clone's body.
Raëlism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**DocAwesome** · 06-25-2012, 01:30 PM

You had me at "Raëlism (or the Raëlian Church) is a UFO religion that was ..."

**seand** · 06-25-2012, 01:41 PM

Its pretty f'd up that they claim to have secretly actually cloned a human being with our existing technology, though the whackos may be lying.

Dolly the sheep was the first succesfully cloned sheep after 227 failures, many of which were born with severe birth defects (organs on the outside, etc). She lived half the life expectancy of sheep of her breed.

**thoth** · 06-25-2012, 03:08 PM

I was ready to see something weird about KSS or something, but as soon as I read "Raelian" i closed the tab. I'm surprised the plane company was down with this idea, even though it is fundamentally harmless. It just seems like something a business would not want to be associated with.

**OffenseTaken** · 06-25-2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by seand

Its pretty f'd up that they claim to have secretly actually cloned a human being with our existing technology, though the whackos may be lying.

Dolly the sheep was the first succesfully cloned sheep after 227 failures, many of which were born with severe birth defects (organs on the outside, etc). She lived half the life expectancy of sheep of her breed.

Yet people show more outrage about other quirky beliefs like "baptism by proxy," in which they see all kinds of problems that aren't really problems.

**seand** · 06-25-2012, 03:39 PM

It is a weird disrespect to someone's memory to pretend draft them into your version of heaven without the deceased or the deceased family's permission. One could hardly more clearly say "I don't care what you think. I'm going to pretend to magically force you into my religion anyway". I don't see how anyone does not perceive that as potentially very offensive.

If the Raelians really are doing cloning experiments on human subjects and not just saying they are doing it, they are well beyond offensive and doing plenty enough to give swastika's a bad rep all by themselves, forget the Nazis. Its generally suspected that they couldn't possibly have the technology to do the totally unethical and monstrous thing they claim to have done however. But somewhere, according to them, they have a baby girl named Eve who will be the first of many human beings made to harvest new bodies to keep Raelians alive after death by somehow magically trading minds with the people who have been cloned.

Every single part of it, even if the science weren't completely whacky, however screams being totally unethical. Like even if you could produce viable human beings this way, why does the source of the clone have the right to "take over" the clone, even if it were possible? Hows that different from say killing your younger sibling to force them to be an organ donor?

**OffenseTaken** · 06-25-2012, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by seand

I don't see how anyone does not perceive that as potentially very offensive.

Because if sometime in the 22nd century, someone in a Mormon temple reads my name off a computer monitor and then rote-performs a little ritual, this has absolutely no effect on me or my descendants, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. If anything I'm appreciative of their small effort to do what they think is a favor, but even if they were damning me to hell, I wouldn't even care enough to shrug. Anyone who gets worked up over it needs a chill pill.

But yes: what the Raëlians are doing, or even claiming to be doing, isn't getting the scrutiny it deserves. It's hard to take a "UFO cult" seriously but we should, then laugh at them later.

**seand** · 06-25-2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by OffenseTaken

Because if sometime in the 22nd century, someone in a Mormon temple reads my name off a computer monitor and then rote-performs a little ritual, this has absolutely no effect on me or my descendants, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. If anything I'm appreciative of their small effort to do what they think is a favor, but even if they were damning me to hell, I wouldn't even care enough to shrug. Anyone who gets worked up over it needs a chill pill.

I have to disagree. As a skeptic, I'm sure it has no actual effect but clearly the dead, their memory deserves the honor of letting them keep their beliefs about their afterlife their own. Its rude to their memory to be "where you believe you are going is wrong and I'll fix it for you without your permission because you were too stupid to find the real God while you were alive". Its an incredibly offensive act to the dead's memory to appoint yourself their caretaker in the afterlife without their permission and an underhanded diss of the beliefs they held in life to boot.

Its rude and imperialistic to take away someone's belief about their afterlife from them because you believe you know better. Even if the whole thing is symbollic.

**seand** · 06-25-2012, 04:15 PM

Even if you don't believe in any after-life at all, the dead deserve the respect of holding onto whatever heaven/afterlife they picked as their belief system in life. Its a total dick move to be "your chosen religion was stupid, I'll fix it for you now that you can't complain about it".

**loveisnoise** · 06-25-2012, 04:25 PM

And then we have the uber smart who are all too eager to say, "people need to get a brain. I'm smarter than you because I know the swastik."

People like that need to get a brain instead of attempting to show that they have one. Our modern society was generally introduced to the swastika through Nazi Germany. It evokes a certain, emotion-even if incorrect. Any group that puts a swastik inside of a Star of David? They know damn well what they're doing, and are merely using it for shock value to get more publicity than their bizarre tinfoil convention would usually attain.

If you don't get any of this mr. genius, here's a symbol to let you know that you are number one. It has been used for generations as something else, but trust me-it means that you're number one.

Originally Posted by phillyaggie

The Hindu Swastik, which is what that is, is offensive how? People need to get a brain.

Then again, cultural symbols of other cultures and faiths are so easily abused and trampled upon. Yoga is no longer connected to its Hindu history to most white gals and dudes in tights on their yoga mats. And such is the case with some nincompoop down the shore who see a good luck charm and yell, "offense! Nazis!"... the Philly.com article's comments are truly abusive and sadden me. Not a single one of them was on the mark, not even the one who said something about "Sanskrit Swastika"... which is actually like saying something to the effect of "English pudding"... the very word "Swastika" is in Sanskrit language.

**loveisnoise** · 06-25-2012, 04:30 PM

BTW-Rael is nothing but a con artist who started out as a race car driver and journalist, then created his own religion with this jackass symbol while claiming that the leaders of all religions contacted him personally to retranslate all sacred texts.

**OffenseTaken** · 06-25-2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by seand

I have to disagree. As a skeptic, I'm sure it has no actual effect but clearly the dead, their memory deserves the honor of letting them keep their beliefs about their afterlife their own. Its rude to their memory to be "where you believe you are going is wrong and I'll fix it for you without your permission because you were too stupid to find the real God while you were alive". Its an incredibly offensive act to the dead's memory to appoint yourself their caretaker in the afterlife without their permission and an underhanded diss of the beliefs they held in life to boot.

Its rude and imperialistic to take away someone's belief about their afterlife from them because you believe you know better. Even if the whole thing is symbollic.

I guess I'm only speaking for myself, then: I really just don't get it. If they asked me for my consent, I would say "Really you don't need to bother, but if it makes you feel better, don't let me stop you." My beliefs or non-beliefs are left 100.0% intact.

**phillyaggie** · 06-25-2012, 04:41 PM

I couldn't care in the least about Raelians; the swastik inside the star of david is their own symbol, been there since the 1970s founding of that tradition (call it cult if you want).

The fly-by also had a separate swastik, along with the universal peace sign. Swastik was used by Native Americans too, and its Hindu/Sanskrit version was brought to America LONG before Nazis usurped it. So just because some ********s (you included, mind you) only relate "swastika" to "Nazi" obviously need to be educated. Now you can cry like a baby when you are schooled in new information, but I suggest you take it and learn.

Or you can keep showing the middle finger to the world...

**seand** · 06-25-2012, 04:56 PM

But this wasn't a Swatstika in the cultural context of a Bhuddist, Hindu, or Native American ceremony. It was a swastika in the middle of a star of David on a giant ad banner with little explanation or context.