I recently ran across some little articles with
pictures of Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and Karoline Leavitt, the White
House Press Secretary, wearing necklesses with gold crosses. As you might imagine, those attract responses
from ardent supporters and ardent haters, going from “lovely and devoted” to “cartoonishly
large cross.” It is nearly impossible to
conceal an opinion. I found that when I
selected “automatically” the words “supporters” – a largely neutral term – and “haters”
– a negatively loaded term - in the last sentence. But I decided to keep it there both because I
like them and to make this minor point.
One of those articles asked “should be it allowed”
for them to wear the crosses.
OK, that’s one’s easy in the U.S. Certainly it’s “allowed.” That is the First Amendment in action.
A better question is whether it is appropriate,
and that’s where the juice of the matters of the symbols that we wear and
display lies.
We wear and display on our cars, our homes, our
walls and anywhere else we please various symbols. Some symbols are obvious – Cross equals
Christian; Star of David or yarmulke or menorah, Jewish; star and crescent
(Hilāl) or hijab or Arabic calligraphy for Allah or the color green, Islam. Let’s see, the Maltese cross (fire fighters),
the Star of Live (EMS), the square and compasses (Masonic), the gavel or Scales
of Justice (the law), the Rainbow (LGBTQ, etc.), the beehive (Mormon), the
Eagle, Globe & Anchor (Marine Corps), and on and on. If one chooses to wear a symbol, one
identifies themselves[1]
with a particular identity and a set of rough ideas.
One big issue is that symbols are not static. In my lifetime, the rainbow has gone from either
a pretty little symbol or the solemn promise of the God (pre-Christ) to not
flood the earth again (which if you think about it was globally impossible and
valid only regionally) to a symbol for the LGBTQ part of society. A few years ago, some folks bought a clapboard
home right across the street from the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. That Church was known at the time for
traveling across the US to protest at anything remotely connected to the LGBTQ
life. (The churches website is at “GodHatesFags.com,”
which is just another demonstration of how far the First Amendment truly goes.) The folks across the street painted the
clapboards in a rainbow. (I thought it
looks nice and happy and sunny, and I love bright colors.) The church freaked, but there was nothing
they could do about it. (Other than
bitch.)[2]
Have you ever seen a swatiska displayed seriously? Some few guys have swastika tattoos, and we
know what they mean. I mean, we know
NOW. If one had a swatiska tattoo around
1900, we might have said “Nice tattoo” or even “What’s that?” The swastika was then known as the
hakenkreuz, a common symbol used by Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and other as a
symbol of good luck. The Finns used it
as a national symbol. When the Soviet
Union tried to invade Finland in the 1930’s (frequently a forgotten conflict
buried in WWII), the aircraft of the Finns bore the swastika. The Finns had zero to do with racism,
anti-semitism, and the rest of the German-Aryan stuff at the time. But if you were to see some picture or
painting of one of those aircraft, you would – naturally – assume the worst.
I play strange little games with myself and
occasionally share them. Sometime back,
I posted two flags:
And
Nobody bit.
The first symbol is the “Bonnie Blue Flag,” which
was one of the flags of the Confederate States of America. It even had a lively song written about it, “The
Bonnie Blue Flag.” The second symbol is
the flag of Somolia with the five-pointed “Star of Unity.” So do you salute one and abhor the
other? OK, which?
They are just flags. The represent something in each case but they
do not of themselves mean squat. Neither
does the swastika or hakenkreuz. Neither
does the bald eagle holding arrows and olive leaves. Neither does any symbol. They only remind us of things,
That is not to say that symbols are not important
TO HUMANS. I might wear a cross or
chalice (the latter being the symbol of my brand of Christianty.) I have one tattoo:
Works for me.
If you don’t want one, don’t get it.
It won’t bother me.
I display other symbols - the EMS Star of Life, the world and
American Scouting symbol, Masonic symbols (in some cases foggy ones, for instance
a visual demonstration of the 47th problem of Euclid, which I find
funny for some odd reason). I have a
Gadsden flag that I wear on some lapels, and I resent the fact that some
radical people have tried to reduce that to a simplistic political badge. If people misread what I mean when I wear it,
screw ‘em ‘cause I know what I mean.
I use other symbols for no reason at all, they are
just pretty.
Some symbols that I see are obscure. There is this:
I think only Gary will immediately recognize that
one. It’s maritime flag codes for
India-November-Romeo-India, in turn a REALLY cryptic Christian symbol. It’s impossible to use commonly because it
take too many bytes to use as part of a signature and so forth. But the thought counts.
There are times when the use of some symbols are
ill-advised. I never wear any symbol
when I have a jury trial. That might
lead an odd juror to make conclusions contrary to the facts of whatever case I’m
trying. I resent that and I should not
have to do that but I don’t make the rules and as long as I practice law I have
to live with it whether I like it or not.
And sometimes, symbols are merely pretty and nice
to look at. I was at a luncheon put on by
the local Scout council this weekend.
The fine lady sitting across from me had a delightful lapel pin, a large
(an inch or so) yellow rose. Maybe she
spent time in Texas. Or maybe it was
just a pleasant decoration. I might copy
it.
It’s not for me to say what symbols you wear or
display. I try not to care, but I have
to work at it occasionally. In an ideal
world, people would tolerate symbols and ideas commonly associated with them.
It’s not an ideal world. That doesn’t mean that we don’t quit trying
and stop to try to understand one another.
Mizpah!
[1]
Yes, I know that’s technically bad grammar as the little gremlin stuck in my
computer points out. I don’t know how to
get the little bastard out without deleting my whole word processor and I might
not choose to just so I can grump and grumble.
In any event, I’m not yet happy with my screed on the need for our
language to include “permissible” gender-neutral words, so I will continue to
use the plural. So there.
[2]
That remind me of the time that the Westboro Baptist Church came to Fairmont
after a gay guy was killed for being gay.
A lady deputy friend told me to “Cut the shit and leave, Roger, or I’m
going to arrest you for inciting a riot.”
Doris was serious, but mistaken.
I was NOT trying to incite a riot.
I was trying to provoke the head Westboro guy into a fight. I accused Doris of being a spoil sport, but I
settle down ‘cause she was serious.
Anyway, I was younger and having some fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment