Offensive signature

Is my sig offensive too? I mean, it's kind of dreadful.

Is my sig offensive too? I mean, it's kind of dreadful.

 -- Ivan

There's one thing, I f I posted something like

JESUS LOVES YOU

JOHN 3:16

LONG LIVE TO THE POPE BENEDICTUS XVI

And here ends tha case for the prosecution, M'lud!

I cannot consider it is a offensive signature actually. What do you think about most covers of metal album than? Quite a few of those are demonic/satanic, would you like to see those removed from signatures as well?

There are hundreed of white supremacy Rock bands that use this symbols in their concerts. And worst, this groups use Religion as an excusre to justify their acts saying ythat God is white and only a WASP nation must exist.

Would you like to see those banners remoived from their covers as well.

There are lots of Southern Rock bands admired by many people here using confederate flags and a racist discourse in their songs, is that OK???? No IMO.

We can't do anything against those bands, but we can do something here.

I agree that if it is deliberatly insulting to groups by writing things that are hurting people than it should be removed but this banner does not.

The use of satanic symbols in signatures is a deliberate attempt to hurt people with religious beliefs.

Why can't a racist talk? Why can't an homophobic talk? Because it's offensive to some peopleif AND I 1005 AGREE, IF a member would make a signature against homosexuals or Latins and I'm sure everybody will disagree.

I believe something like that would be repulsive, as I believe this symbol is repulsive.

That's valid perspective.

But I also was raised in a country where everyone is free to practice whatever religion they choose,and are free from prosecution because of it.

I really can't understand you, if your info is correct you live in USA.

A country in which school principals can loose their jobs if the word God is mentioned, a country where God can't be mentioned in public institutions, a country where a Circuit Judge was fired and sued because he commited the sin of hanging the Ten Commandments over his head (Even when he argued that it was a reference to a legal code).

I don't believe people is allowed to practice whatever religion they want, at least not in Public places.

But at the same time a country that accepts that a bunch of Fundamentalists force the Governments of several States to place before any book about evolution "This is only a theory, as valid as Creationism".

So what irrestricted Religious freedom are you talking about?

Sorry Wizard, but his is as absurd as saying to a guy that signs with The Nazi Flag: "It's just a picture, if the Svastica offends you, don't join the Nazi party"

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Sorry not offending, only an example which I hate as much as any normal human being: Tristan Mulders: And what if any member changes his signature to: (obvious Nazi flag deleted) Would you find it offensive enough??????? Iván

Isn't Satan a symbol which has understandably gained much power as an icon of evil?

The swastika, as a symbol, however, existed LONG before Adolf Hitler. Symbols are powerful tools, but they must be combined with an ideology in order to be fully effective. I don't see anything in that signature that openly attempts to spread a particular ideology.

Sorru man, the Svastica is a Nazi symbol and is oriented towards rthe right side.

The Hindu symbol is oriented towards the left.

And if it's just a symbol, why did you deleted it???????

Here's what truly bothers me. Has anyone actually PM'ed or otherwise contacted DeepPhreeze to ASK him what the signature means to him? Or were the Thought Police immediately invoked?

That's what Trotsky PM'd me yesterday's night before all this avalanche of ´posts started.

This is my issue with "political correctness"... if any personal conviction or message that could _potentially_ offend is banned, what of any importance is left to say?

Don't talk me about political correct, I live in Perú, a third world country in which the Government has more urgent issues to worry about than what is correct or not, like what is 40% of the population going to eat tomorrow.

There's no ACLU, and some small groups are not taken in consideration, because if people don't have enough to eat, won't care if their religious rights are affected.

Here people go to a determined Church and pretend not to be Catholic just because this people feed them is they swear they're Jehova Witness or Evangelists.

When  the police makes a document, one of the questions they ask is your religion.  The President swears in front of a crucifix when he accepts trhe office (well 90% of the people is Catholic), so I never worry about political correct.

The only political correct thing here is having enough to eat tomorrow.

Certainly, the easy solution is to ban any direct religious or philosophical discussion from this forum (and that's what I suspect will continue to be the solution), but is that the right decision? I say no.

Have you read my previous posts? I believe political and Religious debate must be admited, I've posted in several, but in the right place, a lounge for themes not related with music.

A place where anybody who feels offended by religion may avoid a determined thread or a person that considers political discussion is searching for troubles can never visit, without being forced to recieve oiffensive messages everywhere.

Iván