General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs the cross today's version of the hakenkreuz?
Because I think it is.
Keep on identifying yourselves, MAGAts.

Ocelot II
(127,242 posts)of one of the Fascist Blonde Barbies, absolutely. When on a bumper sticker, possibly. When it's on a church it isn't, because that's where it belongs.
Walleye
(42,503 posts)We would probably get arrested for impersonating a Christian.
Ocelot II
(127,242 posts)Celerity
(52,054 posts)The Monks, referred to by the name monks on record sleeves, were an American garage rock band formed in Gelnhausen, West Germany in 1964. Assembled by five American GIs stationed in the country, the group grew tired of the traditional format of rock, which motivated them to forge a highly experimental style characterized by an emphasis on hypnotic rhythms that minimized the role of melody, augmented by the use of sound manipulation techniques.
The band's unconventional blend of shrill vocals, feedback, and guitarist David Day's six-string banjo baffled audiences, but music historians have since identified the Monks as a pioneering force in avant-garde music. The band's lyrics often voiced objection to the Vietnam War and the dehumanized state of society, while prefiguring the harsh and blunt commentary of the punk rock movement of the 1970s and 1980s. The band's appearance was considered as shocking as its music, as they attempted to mimic the look of Catholic monks by wearing black habits with cinctures symbolically tied around their necks, and hair worn in partially shaved tonsures.

Aviation Pro
(14,767 posts)Weak. Men.
sop
(16,056 posts)TommyT139
(1,903 posts)On a site with faithful progressive Christians, you're equating the cross to a swastika?
Wednesdays
(20,753 posts)Church chorister for 33 years. I'm not offended by the assertion.
A lot of evil has been committed by people bearing the cross for centuries.
sop
(16,056 posts)TommyT139
(1,903 posts)TommyT139
(1,903 posts)Sounds like you're not challenging a blanket assertion, which is fine if you personally agree with that. If you do, wow, sorry that's been your experience.
But if Democrats in large numbers are fine with this, it's a losing strategy, in the short term and in the long term. Abdicating entire domains of progressive values because of an inability to conduct respectful and nuanced discussions hasn't worked in the past -- for instance during the rise of fundamentalist power in the US; leaves lots of people outside the diversity of a democratic, progressive movement (LGBT people, but likely others, perhaps Black people who grew up in the church); and appears to provide evidence for the rightwing talking point that "Democrats hate Christianity."
Irish_Dem
(74,934 posts)OP is making a legit point.
The facts are the facts whether we like them or not.
TommyT139
(1,903 posts)Christianity isn't a monolith.
Those of us progressive Christians who have always challenged the misuses of Christianity have already been targeted by the Trumpist regime. A notable example of that was the reaction to Bishop Budde's sermon. But others are putting themselves on the line, getting arrested and jailed for feeding homeless people, giving water to people crossing borders, and putting their bodies in between ICE agents and immigrants following the law.
Promoting the OP's stereotypes if Christianity, without having an actual intelligent conversation, sounds like evidence for the right-wing "Democrats hate Christianity" slur.
Note that this is very different than someone's personal experiences of the harm that they have felt from a conservative "Christian" upbringing. Those of us in the queer and trans communities are looking at the regime's legalizing and even funding "conversion therapy." I personally have had friends who were put through so-called exorcisms, re-education camps, and worse. Events I've run have been attended by fundies hoping to hijack the narrative (unsuccessfully).
Whether someone is a person of faith or not, it does not benefit the Democrats to shut out progressive Christians, sling slurs, and, frankly, lie by oversimplifying and stereotyping. That's a dynamic that is not specific to this board, but it's hard for me to think of a more clear example.
marble falls
(68,603 posts)... I do hold the LDS thought on the cross: there is no reason to wrap around a symbol of death, asking if Christ were executed today, would we be wearing syringes or little electric chairs, or rifles? So I don't wear one, but I don't fault anyone else who wears does. I do note it and watch to see it's jewelry/dog whistle or a commitment to being a christian. You know: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, educating the young in truthful and factual methods, comforting the imprisoned, treating others as we would be treated ourselves. Don't lock us up in one stripe.
dalton99a
(90,291 posts)
(Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Blue Full Moon
(2,870 posts)Is Visica Pieces the fish. If someone would have shown a cross to early Christians they would have recoiled in horror of the symbol death. According to Jesus there is only one commandment that you love one another. Followers will be known by the love they have for one another.
Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, & I will give you a heart of flesh.
2 Corinthians 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not in ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart.
DavidDvorkin
(20,355 posts)Christians don't see it that way, but non-Christians have long had a different view.
Buns_of_Fire
(18,755 posts)returning to a place where people wear symbols of His suffering and death as amulets of their faith.