There has been talk about changing the symbol of the Red Cross to something less Christian.
I am familiar with the sister organisation, the Red Crescent, which operates in Islamic countries.
The proposed replacement (at least, the one I have seen) looks sort of like a hash.
Are non-Christians seriously put off by this symbol? Historically, it was meant to be an inversion of the Swiss flag (which is, I guess, bvased on the Christian cross, but I don’t know).
I’m all for accomodating non-Christian sensitivities, but this seems to me to be a little too precious, especially as the Red Cross’ cross doesn’t seem to obviously resemble a Christian cross.
I’m all for secularization of institutions, but that’s ridiculous - the Red Cross symbol is so far removed from any notion of religion - I’d like to know where this talk comes from…I mean, have RC workers been shot at or endagered because of the symbol? (I must admit I find the idea of the Red Crescent amusing too…gotta separate us from the Allahless heathen, dontchaknow!)Pha!
Yes, it’s an inversion of the Swiss flag, but nevertheless a cross. It’s because the cross is a christian symbol that it was a so prevalent and common symbol and appeared so often on the flags, coats of arms, etc…
It may not be that obvious for us, because we are accustomed to it, but for people living in non-christian countries, the cross, even the red cross, tends to appear as such, especially since not everybody knows why it has been chosen.The fact that the muslim countries, for this reason, have obtained to replace the cross by a crescent doesn’t help to dissipate the idea that both are religious symbols.
Also I believe that the red cross already had to deal with the demands of several countries wishing another distinct symbol (I remember having read that at least another one was used, only in one country, but I can’t remember which.). After all, since the crescent is used in muslim countries (hence on a religious basis) why not a distinct symbol in an hinduist country? What the red cross could answer to this reasonning? And why not a red star in China, instead of all these religious symbols? And then a red eagle in the US, etc…
So, my understanding is that, to avoid any misunderstanding about its supposed religious nature/origin (which can have some consequences in case of conflict…) and to avoid that multiple and various symbols appear everywhere (the symbol must be immediatly recognized by everybody), the red cross/red crescent envisionned to adopt a new, more neutral and universal flag. However, I didn’t know they had already decided to change, nor that they had chosen the future flag.
Years ago, when I was a teenager, my synagogue got a plaque from the red cross for exceeding the quota for blood donations. Of course, the plaque had a red cross on it - which the rabbi promptly covered over with a piece of masking tape.
BTW, the agency symbol in Israel is a red, six pointed star. It’s called “Magen David Adom,” which means “red shield of David.” (In hebrew, the six pointed star is officially called a “magen david.”)
Another BTW - the Israeli Magen David Adom is not recognized by the International Red Cross. I’m not sure why (although I’m sure someone out there knows), but the fight for recognition has been going on for many years:
When I read the OP I thought, “How silly… I dislike rampant Christian iconography as much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous!!”
But clairobscur raises a good point. The cross icon is probably seen in Muslim countries just as we see their crescent here-- blatantly religious.
And I like the idea of all the Red Cross-like organizations worldwide having the same logo. It presents unity and non-sectarianism on an important front–saving peoples’ lives or comforting them after decidedly non-religious disasters.
So what symbol/logo should the related worldwide organizations adopt? What symbol is universal enough to please nearly everyone?
I don’t want to sound too mushy, but it seems a good candidate would be a simple red heart.
Actually, the Red Cross is a front for the Rosicrucians, and they’ve finally realized that the choice of symbol is a little bit too obvious for their sinister conspiracy.
Well, I’m a Christian and I don’t see the Red Cross as a particularly Christian symbol, probably because it’s not a true Christian Cross (south leg longer than other legs). But then, I don’t see the Red Crescent as a particularly Islamic symbol either. I do recognize, however, that the Red Crescent is allowed to be a Crescent and not a Cross because Muslims, at least, equate the cross (in any form) with Christianity. By the same token, it seems to me obvious that the Jews should be allowed their Magen David under the same rationale. (Why not? What do you say? Muslims are allowed not to use Christic iconography but the rest of you must?)
It seems to me that if it’s a secular symbol then everybody should use it. But not everybody does, in light of at least the perception that it is not a secular symbol. In that case, either pick a secular symbol for everyone to use or don’t kick when people want to modify or change it to suit their own mores or beliefs.