My suspect was that of secularism because such world view, in practice,
advocates for the
disappearing of all religious' practice, teaching and symbolism from the public
square for the sake
of equality among creeds and practices(!). I don't know exactly with what
objective, sometimes I
hear it is made so so no one gets offended (i.e.: European institutions order
hospitals/schools to remove their crosses from all rooms so "Muslims don't get
times I hear it is done so no religion is "favored" over another (i.e.:
nativities scenes or other
Christian religious imagery are forbidden from public government institutions
in Europe and USA).
At the end, it just seems to me that all that is ideological-driven, powered by
often I see that secularism is sold to people as something miraculous that will
bring harmony and
equality to people indifferently of their religion, but that's the trap,
because what in fact it
searches is for the disappearing from the public and private square or taming
of religion to
subjugate it to secularism.
That's why I question the removal.
And more than questioning the removal of such Taoist symbol, I would question
correctness"-oriented attitude that drives people, such as coadde for instance,
to bring these kind
of topics to the table when there is no necessity to bring them. Political
correctness, as it is
nowadays understood and portrayed by SJW, is a poisonous thing anyone should
be faraway from
otherwise it would cloud your mind and your thinking.
Again, there is no need to any removal or modification, not even in favor of
such apparent good as
: Social Justice Warriors
El domingo 10 de enero del 2016 a las 1308 horas, André Silva escribió:
> On 01/09/2016 08:25 PM, Jorge Araya Navarro wrote:
>> In my opinion, secularism is not neutrality (if that is what you mean by
>> neutrality), if you ask me,
>> it would be an unfair imposition on those parabolers who do practice a
>> religion as secularism holds
>> a set of doctrines about the world that are contrary to, i.e.: mine.
> I'm catholic like you, however consider Ying Yang, star of David, Nazar
> amulet, cross for symbolizing an icon as "a symbol for all images" 
> is a non-impartial point of view, also sounds imperative for a software
> as GIMP that is being used for a lot of users with different point of
> views around the world, i think coadde means it, not secularism.
> Since GIMP is a raster graphics editor software, why don't use a symbol
> that represents it? (eg. ink brush or Wilber), you could create
> different ink brushes and/or Wilbers in one image for symbolizing an icon.
> Also that, coadde says "create a new one based on classic GIMP theme"
> isn't a bad idea too :)
👋 Pax et bonum.
Jorge Araya Navarro