Talk:Religious symbol

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a huge difference between

• symbols which take some meaning within a certain religious tradition
• symbols that are intended to represent a specific religious tradition (as it were as a whole, to non-members)

The article as it stood not only conflated the two things, it also naively listed "symbols for religions" as if they were, ahem, God-given. In fact, the idea that each religion must have a symbol is entirely born from secular society, and appears from about the 1970s. In the wake of "politically correct" "non-discrimination", there is a more recent trend to the effect that absolutely every religion must have its symbol, to be listed on equal footing along one another; this can be observed since the 1990s, I think. Obviously, our job is to document this, but to document it based on well-informed sources. --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point, I wish to draw attention to the fact that a religion needing "a symbol" is a very recent idea. Searching "symbol of Buddhism", I find about 260 hits after 1990, many after 2000 or so talking about the Dharmacakra. For 1970 to 1990, I find about 130, many referring to the swastika/manji, or to a stupa. Similar in the 1945 to 1970 range, with about 100 results for the phrase. 1900 to 1945, the phrase is found some 80 times, but it is often used with qualifiers and reservations. I do find "perhaps the real significant symbol of Buddhism is the Wheel", but more often discussions within specific contexts discussing monuments or the like, "This great image of brass, some forty-seven feet in height, in its colossal proportions, is a fit symbol of Buddhism". About 30 hits for the period 1800 to 1900, with stuff like "In the background of the central space is the shrine, with the constantly recurring symbol of Buddhism, the so- called Dagoba". This can well be discussed, in detail, in a page about Buddhist symbolism, but the simplistic "Veterans Association" approach of "list one symbol per religious tradition" does not fit, and there cannot be a "list of symbols per religion" because the concept isn't applicable accross the board. --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if there is some literature to that effect that can be cited and discussed in the article. It may be that there are religions with no symbol, for which the idea of having a symbol would be considered contrary to their doctrines. bd2412 T 12:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see the literature and then we can discuss it. But I think you misunderstand. Of course all religions "have symbols". Religions basically are systems of symbols. This doesn't mean that religions have "logos", i.e. they do not usually have graphical symbols intended to represent the entire religious system as a whole; instead they have symbols representing notions within their systems of theology or mythology. E.g. the eight-pointed star is a symbol of Ishtar, and the crescent is a symbol of Sin, but there is no "symbol of ancient Mesopotamian religion". --dab (𒁳) 09:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess. It should either be about all symbols of religions, whether official or not, or what the US military uses as official symbols. The original author seems to have intended the latter, but if that's the case, this article needs a ton of revamping.

I have added Hinduism. The Om is used on WP as a symbol of Hinduism and the note even admits that it is now used in general. There is no reason to exclude it. I also added "CE" to centuries for specificity. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the article is misguided from the start. WP:TNT and rebuild not quite so glaringly based on misconceptions.

The article needs to distinguish between

1. a "religious symbol" (which can be anything, and which means a symbol with some meaning or other within some religion). This should go under religious symbolism for a comparative description, and discussion of individual symbols should of course be divided up by religious tradition
2. a symbol used to represent a specific religion within a multi-religious society. This idea is mostly recent, although there are precedents in the Roman Empire (viz., because the Roman Empire was also multi-religious, just like "multicultural" societies today).

The "Om" glyph can now easily be found as being described as "a symbol of Hinduism". This was not widely the case prior to the 1990s or so. Very similar observations hold for most other symbols discussed here, with just the exception of

1. the Christian cross (Roman era, when Christiantiy was a minority religion in Rome)
2. Thor's hammer, from the time where Norse paganism and Christianity were just striking the balance in northern Europe
3. the Star of David (early modern period, Judaism was a minority religion in Europe)

There are some arguable cases from the earlier 20th century, but the obsession with "each religion needs a logo" is indeed born from the "headstone" issue in the US military. Only in multi-cultural societies does the need to come up with a logo for your religion even arise.

Note, search "symbol of Hinduism" in google books. You find some references to cows, and Shiva's trident, and rebirth, etc., in 19th to early 20th century books. The first time the syllable Om pops up is in the 1960s and it seems to become more widespread in the 1970s. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its recency doesn't mean we don't include it thought. But I agree, this page needs revamped. So... do we make it page of symbols used in religions? Or ones that represent the entire religion? I am kind of in favor of the former. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can include it if we can base this on decent literature. Not online clipart, not "religions for dummies", and not Unicode character charts, but scholarly literature from the field of religious studies. Or failing that, serious literature about modern typography or logo-culture or the like, but not simply nothing, and not just {{linkrot}}. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would be happy if we would just rephrase this explicitly as pertaining to "United States culture since the 2000s", as clearly this is what the page is about to begin with. Then we can quote the various "headstone" court cases etc. and it will all make sense. Just as long as we do not pretend this is about anything else than the US "culture wars" of the last 20-30 years. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Wicca was more of a satanic-fringe cult, not a religion. Does it belong on this page? Schuddeboomw (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how even a "satanic-fringe cult", granting the description for the sake of argument, fails to qualify as a "religion". The more fringy a religion is, the more it will be in need of a graphical symbol (you will note that the actual major religions do not have "symbols" in this sense). The Christian cross may be an exception, because it dates to the 2nd century, i.e. the time when Christianity was a fringe cult in the Roman Empire. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mithraic mystery traditions and Roman imperial cult are both missing their symbols. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swayamsiddh (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]