On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM, James Ewen <[email protected]> wrote: >> No matter what we end up doing, someone will find a reason to object. >> It's a never ending battle to try and make something that is >> everything to everyone. > > Maybe. But that's not a reason to continue using a blatantly Christian > symbol and pissing off *every* other religion.
I'm going |o |ry and refrain from using |he le||er |ha| comes af|er "s" so I don'| offend anyone... You don't get it do you? No matter what you do, someone won't like it... Yes, I understand that the cross is a Christian symbol. So you remove the symbol, and just fill with green... then someone complains because green symbolizes something special to them, and it's an affront to their sensibilities, or it clashes with their eyes or whatever. So, let's say we choose a "generic" tombstone as the symbol... look what I found with a quick search. http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/284,1972149/What-is-the-origin-of-erecting-a-tombstone-over-a-grave.html <quote> The custom of placing a monument over the grave of a departed person is an ancient Jewish tradition. The Book of Genesis records that Jacob erected a tombstone over the grave of his wife Rachel. <unquote> So, now the tombstone symbol can be attributed as a Jewish symbol, an affront to every other religion besides Judaism. I am in no way trying to promote one religion over another, and I have no affiliation with any religion myself. Nor do I intend to disrespect anyone's religion, although just discussing the matter has surely offended some. For that I apologize. All of these symbols are just that to me, just ideograms or pictographs... that's probably my problem, as I don't ascribe any special religious meaning to these symbols. I know that some symbols are affiliated with specific religions, but that's about it. People in general tend to associate specific ideas and concepts to symbols, and no matter how hard we try, someone somewhere will find a way to object to whatever is done. While we are making symbols generic, let's make sure that a bank doesn't use a dollar sign in the icon... that doesn't represent all the world currencies... it would be an affront to Pounds Sterling, Yen, Dinars, the Euro, etc. I doubt that the monetary symbol would elicit as passionate a debate... religion is a very personal thing, and is probably one of the most common reasons behind wars. (I would think money being a close second) Everyone has the right to believe in whatever they like, but everyone also needs to remember to be tolerant of the fact that not everyone believes what you believe. I agree that the Christian cross is inappropriate to represent grave sites of every religion. But it's going to be extremely difficult to try and come up with a non-denominational non-confrontational way of depicting the area on a map. Would having just a plain fill colour be acceptable, and if a religion is specified, and a symbol is available, fill with that? Would there then be a problem because some religions get symbols of their faith while other religions just get a generic fill? This is a very complex issue, not easily solved. That's all I'm trying to point out. James VE6SRV _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
