The Red cross who gives support all over the globe is considering chsnging its logo from the the red cross with white background to a diamond.
Why, because it upsets muslims.
Its been the Red cross since it was founded about 1863 and now religion creeps in as it does with everything these days.
Whens it all going end.
Talk of banning Christmas trees and Santa Claus and God ( woops! better not say that word ) knows what else its becoming a farse.

Thats fcuking stupid!!

EVERYONE in the world knows what that symbol means and what it stands for- help and aid!!!

dont muslims use the sister "company", red crescent?

Can you please give a news source?

Originally posted by NatalieSheff
dont muslims use the sister "company", red crescent?

yes, so are they gona change theirs as well so as not to upset christians?

i suppose in some respect it makes sense to change em all to diamonds but will anyone like calling em the red diamonds? sounds like a display team!

dave

It was in The Sunday Times printed edition.

In recent years there have been more incidents of people firing on Red Cross vehicles.

Also, the Red Cross is reminiscent of the symbol used by the Knights Templars, who spent a lot of time occuipying the Holy Land and providing support and protection for Christian pilgrims against the Muslims in that part of the world.

The new symbol suggested is a red diamond on a white field, and whilst it rankles with me that we appear to be changing things to suit a particular world viewpoint, the thing that matters is the meaning behind the symbol, and the protection it can offer the wounded and non-combatants, and not teh precise symbol itself.

Joe

A diamond? Surely that will just upset the triangles and circles?

It may stop muslims attacking red cross vehicles but better that than then attacks by mobs of angry hexagons... the're dangerous they are!

It scares me how many times I've seen Americans arguing that the Iraq was positive because it has given American an opportunity to spread Christianity in a Muslim land, this obviously wasn't the reason for the Iraq war but it makes the Red Crosses job a lot easier and safer if they can distance themselves from people who genuinely are excited about the potential opportunity for a modern day crusade.

This nothing new.

The International Society of the Red Cross have been discussing this for many years and a summary paper was produced in 2003:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/p0778/$File/ICRC_002_0778.PDF!Open

I've got a friend who works for the Red Cross and I think it goes back further then that.

After some workers in Afghanistan were nearly executed for distributing bibles secretly, this was before September 11th, He told me that in the future the Red Cross would need to be clearly identified as the secular organisation it had become and shed it's crusade era connotations. If they were going to operate in a country were Islamic extremists could use their connections with the crusades to stop their work. Might see if he's in the country and ask him about this.

"The risk of a proliferation of emblems is a very real one. In 1936 the ICRC opposed an Afghan proposal aimed at adopting a red mosque on a white ground as a distinctive sign."

from the above paper.

Originally posted by cgksheff
"The risk of a proliferation of emblems is a very real one. In 1936 the ICRC opposed an Afghan proposal aimed at adopting a red mosque on a white ground as a distinctive sign."

from the above paper.

A similar plea for the recognition of the Star of David was also tuned down by the ICRC.

change everything, ban everything, say nothing

its the only way :D

ahhh religion...how i love it so :gag: