A predictably nonsensical response, Boaz, logical only to your good self, I'm afraid.

We were talking about symbols, and their power. You selected a few that you felt symbolized something by illustrating some acts that you determined were performed under their influence. In that context, it is totally appropriate to point out a few deeds that were perpetrated under the influence of the cross.

You are once again being selective in your presentation of evidence to support your views. A familiar aspect of your rabble-rousing tendency, I'm afraid.

For example:

>>The Swastika was symbolic of Mein Kampf<<

Oh, puhleeaze!

Take a quick look at Wikipedia and discover the true historic significance of the swastika. The fact that it was hijacked in the twentieth century by the Nazi party is merely a footnote to its history.

>>The Crescent (and head scalf) is symbolic of Islam<<

So, in your logic, you would be unsurprised if the eleventh century Saracens were to march to war under a banner depicting a headscarf?

Yeah, I'm certain that would have the troops fired up.

Symbols are easily manipulated by fanatics, as you have illustrated perfectly with your post. The Christian's symbol is the cross, the Jews' is the star of David, and the Muslims' is the crescent moon. All have been used and abused throughout their history.

>>failure to distinguish between inherrant [sic] meaning and historical would be intellectually irresponsible and bordering on bigotry<<

That is utter nonsense, and you know it. There is absolutely no inherent meaning in a symbol, only that which is attributed to it - as the history of the swastika clearly and unequivocally shows. To pretend otherwise is to act under a massive delusion.

>>I report, you decide<<

No you don't, my friend, you present a one-sided picture that tries to glorify your own religion and denigrate others.

Pericles wisely noted:

“There is absolutely no inherent meaning in a symbol, only that which is attributed to it”

Brilliant.. absolutely correct and spot on. I have not the slightest bit of disagreement with that statement, which on closer inspection fits in perfectly with what I am saying.

What I neglected to emphasize sufficiently in my previous post was this.

ATTRIBUTED_BY_WHO..and FOR_WHAT? this is probably the more important question.

This is where I would have to agree that the Cross (which is not ‘the’ Christian symbol, it is ‘a’ symbol) holds any “official” position as a physical object as such, in terms of New Testament teaching. The Church and the Body of Christ would be not the slightest bit more or less healthy if there were no ‘symbols’ allowed by a government. The meaning of the Cross is in our hearts, not as an emblem amblazened on our backs.

The Swastika was given a particular meaning by the Nazis ‘separate’ from its original and thus became ‘their’ symbol with a dominant meaning to all today. This is different from the Cross having true “Christian” meaning based on Christ then flawed of historic ChristenDOM.. People can spot the difference.

ISLAM and SYMBOLISM. I suggest that while it can be convincingly argued that the cross has been given some dark meaning to non Christians by the Crusades, the same cannot be argued for Islamic symbolism. i.e. Islamic symbolism has inherent darkness and evil associated with the symbols from the very outset of the religion and the behavior of its founder. It has not accrued such darkness by later misdeeds of its followers, that was already set in concrete by Mohammad and the Caliphs.

That is also the core of my argument. (and has been all along) So, while it may be argued also that the Cross was given flawed meaning by misdeeds of’Christendom’, the Crescent (and associated symbolism such as headscalf/burkah/mosque) had it from day 1.

Mohammed (himself)=Militant_expansion+torture of prisoners/apostates on earth. (based on earliest sources)
Christ (Himself)=Compassion and forgiveness to the repentant. (based on earliest sources)

Can you disprove this ?

Gawd - not only is Boazy an expert in Islamic hermeneutics and functionalist anthropology, but he's an authority on on semiotic analysis as well! What a legend!

Just out of interest, Boazy - what in your analysis does the headscarf routinely worn in public by your Exclusive Brethren cousins symbolise? I've seen numerous photos of EB women, resplendent in frumpy 19th century dresses, and always sporting headscarves.

Is this another symbol of pernicious Mohammedanism - or is it just good old Abrahamic patriarchy expressed sartorially?

It has just been revealed that George Bush, in a last role of the dice, will attack Iran in four days time.

Should this happen, no doubt John Howard with little Alex at his shoulder, will meet the press and announce the US action has his full support although he had yet to receive orders from Washington concerning increased military commitments. However, due to increasing vulnerability of Australian warships in the Straits of Hormuz to missile and torpedo attacks, it may become necessary.

Should these events unfold, will Australia become more or less likely to suffer a terrorist attack at home or will the Muslim community be more or less vulnerable to reprisals from fascist elements in our midsts?

Boaz, you are becoming a past master of logical tap-dancing, for which I has to tip me lid.

But even the lightning speed of your bespoke Capezio Coppolas can't get you out of this one.

>>I have not the slightest bit of disagreement with that statement, which on closer inspection fits in perfectly with what I am saying<<

On the closest possible inspection, Boaz, you have been caught out. You cannot both insist that "[s]ymbols have an 'inherrant' meaning based on their origin", and then agree with me that "[t]here is absolutely no inherent meaning in a symbol, only that which is attributed to it”

Sorry, but these are absolutely 100% mutually exclusive.

So, please decide. Is the symbolism of a headscarf inherent in the object itself, or is the symbolism merely attributed to it by the wearer, or the observer?

>>What I neglected to emphasize sufficiently in my previous post was this. ATTRIBUTED_BY_WHO..and FOR_WHAT? this is probably the more important question.<<

You are perhaps a little closer to the truth here, Boaz, but unfortunately it still supports my "no inherent symbolism" point, rather than your proposition that they "have an 'inherrant' meaning based on their origin".

The wearer attributes to the headscarf their own symbolism which, if I read it correctly, has more to do with dressing modestly than waging war.

You, on the other hand, attribute to it a series of ancient crimes, and hold it to be an abomination in your sight.

There is no, repeat no, symbolism inherent in, for example, a leek, shamrock or thistle. But to the Welsh, Irish and Scot it contains a wealth - watch their eyes mist over as they contemplate their national symbol.

Incidentally, I'm fascinated at your suggestion that the cross is not ‘the’ Christian symbol. Certainly the message never got through to the happy folk who built all those churches, nor the Christians I know who wear it around their neck.

Perhaps you have an alternative in mind that means more to a Christian than a cross?

A pair of Capezio Coppolas, perhaps?

An insightful article by Paul Sheehan today:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/small-fry-in-irans-big-picture/2007/04/01/1175366077772.html

<<.... The first sign of what was to come arrived within days of the mullahs and their followers taking control of government. Women were "invited" to wear the veil. Those who declined found themselves beaten and abused by the gangs of self-appointed revolutionary guards who roamed the streets....>>