Gervase Markham wrote:
>> 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)).
>
> You have this the wrong way round. Christianity is not claiming
> exclusive use of the cross symbol. The problem arises because
> non-Christians see a cross symbol and assume Christianity. The problem
> is in their minds, not the Christians. If they have a hateful reaction
> to that symbol, that is a further problem that they have.
Maybe I do have it the wrong way around. But the only other person
opposing my viewpoint (CHRISTopher Jahn) is saying that the Red Cross IS
an "adaptation from their [Swiss] faith". The Swiss I have talked to and
the website referred to stronly contradict this "assimilative"
statement. Even if Christianity was perifferally involved (1-10%),
Christopher's statement makes it seem like a "primary" causality
(50-100%) - which it was not.
So you see, Christians are encouraging the misconception of
non-christians that every cross has its "roots" in Chritianity. Both are
to blame (one for assimilation, the other for defending a *perceived*
threat to 'their' world dominance plans). It's all so petty and at the
same time extremely dangerous to those who value their freedoms.
Although this is a highly interesting and important topic, it is WAY off
topic here. Therefore (for me at least) -> THE END.
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
