Red Cross and Red Crescent Need to change!

[nfn]

To Red Crystal! Because some countries feel that religious symbols are offensive. Well I'm sorry, but isn't the Red Cross a Christian based organisation? Shall we call the Anglican Church a place where people can sing? St John Ambulance Eye Hospital in Jerusalem, an opthalmology centre. PLEASE when will all this nonsense stop? I have respect for believers of all faiths, I'm not a Buddhist but I respect their views, as I do of Shintus, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. I am a Christian, I respect other religions, I believe in one God, and do not wish to push Him onto you if you believe differently. Your belief is just as valid as mine. EACH TO HIS OWN!

[brachiopod]

The proposal of a neutral 'red crystal' is designed to end the years of controversy over symbols used by relief workers and medical workers throughout the world.

You have unwittingly demonstrated the very reasoning behind the proposal in your rant of a question.

There are only two symbols (for relief / medical workers) recognised under the Geneva Conventions - the Red Cross and The Red Crescent.

Almost by definition, these operations usually operate in war zones and politically unstable areas - (hence their protection under the Geneva Convention) - conflicts often arising from religious or ethnic differences.

If, as you say, "EACH TO HIS OWN", you would have a different symbol for every "Shintu, Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, and Jehovah's Witness" relief / medical organisation.

This would lead to, at best, confusion - at worst (say, in a war zone between Shintus and Jehovah Witnesses), probable deliberate targeting of vehicles bearing "the enemy's" symbol. This would not only be against the Geneva Convention, but surely, against the whole purpose of showing a symbol that is supposed to afford some sort of protection?

Take the Daily Mail-esque "PC-gone-mad" spin off the issue, and ask yourself whether you still think having one, unified, neutral symbol would not be good idea?

[nfn]

brachiopod, i do not rant. I merely cannot understand the neeed for de-religionising (if such a term exists) an organisation borne out of Christianity. Why shouldn't each help organisation have it's own banner? Should Save the Children change its name simply because it is a Christian organisation? Surely aid is aid! If the despots of the world are going to aim at will, they will not discriminate - as has been proven.

[nfn]

oh, and changing the symbol is going to fool the bad guys is it? They aim at a red cross, red crescent or red crystal. They will still aim

[rojash]

Actually, if you check out their web site there is no reference to them being, or having ever been a Christian based organisation. The problem is not that "the bad guys" target the emblem, it is that the emblem can be misconstrued as a religious symbol in areas where there is religious strife.

Did you know that the Scouts had to change one of their emblems for a similar reason. Up until the rise of Nazism, the swastika was one of the badges given for services to Scouting. The badge was changed only because it could be misconstrued as standing for something other than its true meaning.

[kempie]

The Red Cross was never intended to signify any religious affiliation. It was adopted by what became known as the International Committee of the Red Cross as a simple reversal of the colours of the Swiss flag in honour of the home country of founder Henry Dunant.

During the Russo-Turkish War from 1876 to 1878, the Ottoman Empire used a Red Crescent instead of the Red Cross because its government believed that the cross would alienate its Muslim soldiers.

From 1924 to 1980, Iran used a 'Red Lion with Sun' symbol for its national society, based on the flag and emblem of the Shah dynasty. The Red Lion with Sun was formally recognised as a protection symbol in 1929, together with the Red Crescent.

Magen David Adom, the national society of Israel, has used the Red Shield of David as its organization emblem since its foundation. They argue that the symbol should be recognised by the ICRC, citing the clear religious meaning behind the Red Crescent.

It is partly because of Israel's use of the Red Shield of David and both Sri Lanka & India wishing to use a Red Swastika that the Red Crystal is being proposed as a single, unified symbol.

[Dolly1308]

Is there anything that does not offend Muslim ''soldiers' ?

[Grunty]

The Red Cross symbol was adopted by the Geneva Convention by reversing the Swiss flag as a compliment to the host country. It therefore has no religious significance unless you count the origin of the Swiss flag centuries ago. However, combatants are often reluctant to let the truth get in the way of a good dispute, and it therefore seems to me to be a good idea to have a symbol acceptable to everyone. If it was universally adopted, it would immediately solve the current problem in the Golan Heights where Israel intends to use the Star of David, which is not respected by the other side, and both sides consider that they are on their own territory.

[Supernick]

At the end of the day you only need to look at one thing. Will this change mean that aid can get through quicker, and will it protect those delivering it a bit better. The answer is most probably yes. What is the argument against it? Some people might get a little stroppy about tradition and a perceived political correctness. No case to answer for if you ask me.

[brachiopod]

>> "oh, and changing the symbol is going to fool the bad guys is it? They aim at a red cross, red crescent or red crystal. They will still aim " <<

You miss the point completely, nfn. Who made any mention of 'bad guys'? I suggested there would be "probable targeting of vehicles bearing the enemy's symbol". This could be deliberate or in error.

Where there are opposing sides with different symbols for their respective medical outfits, then flying your symbol in the face of the enemy may be asking for trouble.

If both sides used the same, universal, neutral symbol, then deliberate targeting would be less likely, as they could not be sure that it was not one of there own medical vehicles.

If this also reduced the chances of being targeted in error (someone mistaking the enemy's 'relief symbol' for that of their military insignia), then is that not a good thing?

[brachiopod]

kempie has raised a good point.

In the Second World War, there were many soldiers from all over the 'Empire' fighting for the Allies. Including those from the Indian sub-continent.

Now, it would have been really useful if, instead of Red Cross ambulances, Indian Regiments serving in Malaya, Burma and North and East Africa etc., used ambulances with their own relief symbol on it. ('Each to their own', as you say.)

So you would have ambulances with bloody great big swatikas on the sides. How useful would that have been?

[El D]

The red cross exists to serve to provide aid where it is needed - who cares what flag it goes under? What sad times we live in . . .

[bernardo]

In answer to your first question: No, the Red Cross is not a Christian-based organisation. If it were, then it would have chosen a Christian symbol, such as a Christian cross. The cross which is used as a symbol by the Red Cross would be pretty useless for crucifying someone, unless you cut their legs off first.