Red Cross Symbol

[Jas]

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=6287224&cKey=1133718364000

Under the change, countries would be able to place their own symbols inside the red crystal, as long as they have been in use for some time.

This would open the door for Israel's Magen David Adom (MDA) to finally join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement after more than 50 years.

The Israeli emergency service refuses to use either of the two globally recognised symbols, opting instead for a red Star of David.

Arab countries have previously resisted any attempt to accommodate the Israelis within the international movement.

But last week's recognition by Israel of the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the improved situation in the occupied territories has led to a softening of their stance.

So why was it okay to have a cross, a crescent, but not a Star of David? Iw as hearing about this on the radio this morning, and I'm still not sure of the reasoning behind it.

 

[David Swidler]

Oh, I see; you're expecting a reason for excluding Jews. Right. I think you might be waiting for a while.

 

[Darat]

I think the argument should be more why does such an organisation want to retain any symbol with religious connotations (albeit it is probably hard to find any symbol that doesn't have some religious connotations)?

 

[Jocko]

I think the argument should be more why does such an organisation want to retain any symbol with religious connotations (albeit it is probably hard to find any symbol that doesn't have some religious connotations)?

No, I think it's more why one specifically is getting the shaft. Imagine if it was the crescent being excluded, and the hue and cry that would engender.

I don't think you really need a dissertation on the ancient connection between religion and philanthropy? It often gets lost behind the connection between religion and war, but it's there.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Cynic that I am, I had just assumed that painting a Star of David on an Israeli ambulance would be the equivalent of painting a big ole target on it.

 

[Jocko]

Cynic that I am, I had just assumed that painting a Star of David on an Israeli ambulance would be the equivalent of painting a big ole target on it.

You know, that's the most insightful thing I've heard all day.

 

[Jas]

Cynic that I am, I had just assumed that painting a Star of David on an Israeli ambulance would be the equivalent of painting a big ole target on it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but...I guess it makes it kind of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

I think the argument should be more why does such an organisation want to retain any symbol with religious connotations (albeit it is probably hard to find any symbol that doesn't have some religious connotations)?

I don't think any international relief organization should be associated with a religion, but why would you go out of your way to exclude one? The cross and the crescent moon are both religious symbols, as is the Star of David - so what good reason is there for excluding one of them?

 

[Darat]

No, I think it's more why one specifically is getting the shaft. Imagine if it was the crescent being excluded, and the hue and cry that would engender.

I don't think you really need a dissertation on the ancient connection between religion and philanthropy? It often gets lost behind the connection between religion and war, but it's there.

But the crescent is already accepted so it's not part of the argument.

It should either be any religious symbol is OK to be used or none. Those are the only two arguments that can be logically supported.

 

[Freakshow]

But the crescent is already accepted so it's not part of the argument.

It should either be any religious symbol is OK to be used or none. Those are the only two arguments that can be logically supported.

Whoa whoa whoa...huh? Those two statements seem to contradict each other. I disagree with the 1st argument, and agree with the 2nd.

 

[Darat]

Am I wrong? My thoughts go

"Any religious symbol is OK therefore the Star of David is OK to use"

or

"No religious symbol is OK therefore the crescent and cross need to go"

 

[Jocko]

But the crescent is already accepted so it's not part of the argument.

Not my point, but then I suspect you already know that.

 

[Jocko]

Am I wrong? My thoughts go

"Any religious symbol is OK therefore the Star of David is OK to use"

or

"No religious symbol is OK therefore the crescent and cross need to go"

Only the first argument is relevant to the actual issue at hand. The second, while reasonable, is moot here.

That said, why do you think it's obviously NOT considered okay to use the Star of David?

 

[Manny]

Point of information, please. How did the (or "a") cross come to be on the Swiss flag? Because the original Red Cross was apparently based on the Swiss flag and was supposed to denote their neutrality, not a religion. It was apparently only when Muslims objected that it looked and awful lot like a cross to them that this whole Crescent thing came up. I guess if the Swiss flag's cross was itself religious in origin they have a point.

 

[Jas]

But the crescent is already accepted so it's not part of the argument.

But if the crescent was accepted, why can't they accept the Star of David.

It should either be any religious symbol is OK to be used or none. Those are the only two arguments that can be logically supported.

And I agree with you on that, but the thing is, they've already accepted religious symbols, so why not this one?

 

[Darat]

Don't get me wrong I believe that the refusal to adopt a star of David whilst still retaining the crescent and the cross is wrong. All I am saying is that you can't, if you've allowed the crescent or cross to be used for religious reasons, then argue from a point of logic (there may be of course practical or pragmatic reasons - they do not have to be logical) against adopting the star of David as well.

However as I say this to me seems to be wrong way around, surely the sensible approach is to campaign to get the Red Cross to drop all religious symbols not to argue that it should adopt more?

What is the argument or reason for wanting it to adopt more? Political correctness?

 

[Euromutt]

I'm not sure everyone entirely gets the point of this "red crystal" symbol. The idea is that, because it has a space in the middle, any national organization can stick its own symbol in the center, whatever the import of that symbol. It doesn't just allow the Israelis to stick a Shield of David in the center, but Canadian military ambulances to have a Red Crystal with a maple leaf, Japanese military Self-Defense Force ambulances to have a rising sun, etc. Any hostile belligerent would not be under any obligation to honor that symbol per se, but he would be obliged to honor the Red Crystal which surrounds it.

I think the Red Crystal is a great idea; by introducing a symbol which has no religious overtones, either to the bearer or the perceiver, you remove ideological considerations from the question of whether or not to respect humanitarian symbols, while permitting everyone to also use their own accepted symbols for medical vehicles and personnel.

 

[Jas]

Arab countries have previously resisted any attempt to accommodate the Israelis within the international movement.

And I agree with them getting rid of all religious symbols, Darat. But I don't think anyone should be forced to operate under a religious symbol that's contrary to their ideologies, nor do I think that someone should be barred from operating under their own religious symbol.

 

[Jas]

I'm not sure everyone entirely gets the point of this "red crystal" symbol.

I understand why it's the red crystal symbol, but I still can't figure out why they weren't allowing a Star of David if they were allowing the other two.

 

[punchdrunk]

Someone had to do it...

 

[Darat]

I understand why it's the red crystal symbol, but I still can't figure out why they weren't allowing a Star of David if they were allowing the other two.

Well you have to discount the original symbol since that was never allowed, The crescent I believe is quite old so the world was different place back then and perhaps back then it made sense.

I think before we can conclude that this is prejudice just against the Jewish religion we need to know the history of adoption of new symbols. Perhaps it isn't uncommon for them to refuse to add a new symbol, perhaps many countries/religions/other groups have tried and also been rejected. Anyone know?