British Red Cross

[smudge]

I read in the paper this morning, that the 'over a hundred year old' British Red Cross emblem, is to be replaced with a Red Triangle.

The reason given, is so that it does not offend Muslims. What do you think of yet another politically correct move?

[smudge]

* I meant Red Diamond not triangle!

[gerry]

In what way does it offend Muslims?

[smudge]

Allegedly, it is because it is a 'Cross' & not a 'Crescent'. 

A few professional moaners, associate the Cross as an offensive symbol because of the Crusades. It is possible that there are certain people in this Country with little better to do, other than to sit around waiting to be offended by 'something'.

Believe me, if this is to happen, I'm sure it won't be too long before the Crosses on Steeples are changed to whatever suits. That is my personal opinion.

[mike1222]

So are they going to rename the Red Crescent as that name may offend Christians?

[inferno]

This idea has been around for some time. If there was a change it could apply to both the Red Cross and Red Cresent societies, which are the same thing in practice. This would mean one international symbol rather than the current two. The red cresent has been in use since the 1870s so it is hardly modern political correctness gone mad!

The following is from a web site about the Red Cross ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement) "a proposal has been put forth to create a new emblem which would be acceptable to all nations regardless of culture or religion. According to the proposal, individual nations could choose to use the new emblem instead of the cross or the crescent, although the cross and crescent would continue to be permitted and recognized. The new emblem was at one point thought to be the red diamond, which would be neutral yet simple and recognisable (and might perhaps be used in conjunction with an a local symbol, such as the red Star of David used by Israel's Magen David Adom), but little progress has been made to implement this idea. It is not a simple undertaking, since it would require a modification of the Geneva Conventions as well as agreement of all Red Cross and Red Crescent societies"

Don't get your knickers!

[inferno]

Oops - don't get your knickers in a twist.

 

Full weblink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross_and _Red_Crescent_Movement

[smudge]

inferno - Thank you for that website, I may peruse it later. Also, why do you assume I might get my knickers in a twist? Surely I am allowed to voice my own opinion without you assuming I am literally jumping up & down! Nothing surprises me these days, but I'm just asking other people's opinions!

In A Pickle - Thank you for the compliment, but I just see myself as a middle of the roader! As for the Cross & Crescent article, they can keep what they like in other countries, but I don't see why it has to change here, just for change sake either.

mike1222 - You are so right. Why do we always have to bow down to (as I said before) all these professional moaners,  just to keep the peace?

[FP]

LMAO  Inferno!

[jills]

WHO CARES WHAT IT'S CALLED?   As long as they continue to do the same job, I couldn't give two hoots. 

[smudge]

LMAO? At inferno's Knickers in a twist, or the website?

[smudge]

Well it's good job some of us do care & not just make inane remarks!

[FP]

Laughing at inferno's error in his posting!  Smudge.

However, I don't mind what they are called in any country as long as they carry on with their stirling work. 

[diddy]

It seems like an eminently sensible idea to me! The Red Cross is a humantarian organisation, not a religious one and neither the cross nor the crescent emblems have any religious significance - they simply portray neutrality. It seems like a good idea to change the emblems to one that cannot be mistaken for a religious symbol by anybody.  

Incidentally, I have no idea whether any Muslims are offended by a cross, but if they were, then I cannot see how it would be politcal correctness to respect the fact that they were offended. Just because we live (in the UK) in a society where religion no longer plays a central role for the majority of people, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand and respect the wishes of those for whom religion is central to their lives.

[smudge]

That's absolutely fine to change the symbol to something more globally satisfactory.

I, along with many others, wouldn't want want to see the cross changed to a crescent, just to suit one creed. It has to be one for all - or leave well alone.

Thank you for all your replies.

[natalie_1982]

I'm a little confused now, who said it was being changed to a crescent?  I thought this thread was about the fact that it was, illegedly, changing to a Diamond, so that neither the crescent or cross would offend anybody? 

It sounds to me like tabloids stirring again, just like the Christmas lights' stories.  It didn't ruin my Xmas!  

I agree with Jills - as long as they are doing the same job I don't see as it matters.  Nobody kicked off when Marathon changed it's name to Snickers!  The top cats at Red Cross are merely trying to please everyone, and offend as few people as possible, and in doing so have displeased, it seems, lots of other people.

[Conradius]

This is ridiculous; I fail to see how a Cross can be offensive to Muslims. The Cross, for the British Red Cross in particular, represents an organisation of Chairty, Support, Aid, and anything else good you want to list.

What's next? England�s national flag? BRC was established by Christians... That in itself is reason enough to maintain the symbol. It reflects the ideals of the religion that founded it, and that founded the Red Crescent... If that is a source of tension for Muslims... I for one couldn't care less.

Who decides these things anyway? I'm sure if I did the rounds in Muslim communities they would shrug it off and declare they didn't care what the symbol was. I can say with some certainty that an organisation such as the British Red Diamond shall not be getting of my money just on general principle. The Salvation Army can have my charity instead. I just have to check if the two are affiliated in any way, and if they are, I�ll find some other charity instead.

[El D]

How eminently Christian of you - perfect :)

[Englishbird]

It's an over-used phrase but I think the world has gone completely crazy!!!!

I'm going to struggle writing this without swearing - as someone has pointed out, the cross of the red cross has no religious significance. The charity is not a christian charity. SO WHY ON EARTH SHOULD IT OFFEND ANYONE!!!!!

As a non-religious person, I am thoroughly offended by all this change for religious purposes.  It is attitudes which are distructive, not words, not shapes.

People who are offended by things which are not meant to be offensive need to be educated and people who go round changing things, just in case someone else is offended need to be given something constructive to do!!!!! grrrrrrr.