Dan Hartung wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>>UHH, isn't the RED CROO from the Swiss flag and not from christianity? I
>>thought the Swiss created the "red croos" organization - nothing to do
>>with religion.
>>
>
> The Red Cross was formed at the original Geneva Convention, succeeding
> the International Committee for the Relief of the Wounded. It was
> never specifically Swiss, though its founder Dunant was. One could say
> that it went hand in hand with Swiss neutrality and internationalism. The
> Red Cross symbol (enshrined in the text of the Geneva Convention) was
> chosen as a symbol of neutrality; it was only much later that they ran
> into the problem of Islamic nations.
>
> Interestingly, the ICRC *still* will not certify an organization in
> Israel, because Israel rejects both the cross *and* the crescent, and
> would prefer to use a Star of David emblem. Also, Kazakhstan would like
> to be certified as "Red Cross and Red Crescent" in a combined emblem. The
> ICRC has been looking at revising the symbol to a red diamond instead
> that could be used worldwide; the American Red Cross, among others,
> oppose this.
All this just prooves how religeous nuts pervert the meaning of
neutrality and humanitarianism. A cross is a basic (geometric?) shape.
There is no reason for one group to claim sole rights to it (and every
variation thereof). That's just silly (actually, it's calculated
demonstration of power through symbology - THAT symbol is MINE)). The
other side (extremist moslems) then have something they can claw into
and hate. It's all to petty and destructive.
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
