I'm not surprised you got a kneejerk reaction from the Right, that's what they do. But this change to a neutral symbol is entirely reasonable and it should be a good thing.

The use of a Christian symbol leads to obvious problems, and artificial divisions among people who should be united in a humanitarian effort regardless of their religion. That the cross has always been a problem is obvious from the fact that Muslims had to invent a parallel sign, the Red Crescent, under which they could do the same work. Then there's the problem of Jewish organizations unwilling to use either religious symbol, but whose own symbol is rabidly offensive to one of the others and a bit alien to the other. As if that weren't enough, the American Red Cross has been withholding money from the International Red Cross to protest Israel's exclusion. As the article points out, this problem sets a precedent of multplying the relief symbols that soldiers are supposed to recognize and respect, watering down recognition to the point that nobody will end up protected.

Congratulations to all these relief organizations for rising above religious sectarianism and keeping their eye on their goal. They're setting an example that more people should follow.

It tells you a lot about the Right that cooperation among humanitarian relief agencies inspires them to hoot and cackle and caper around flinging feces. So guys, if you're ever in a natural or manmade disaster, are you going to refuse help from an aid worker wearing the Red Diamond? Probably not, huh? Can you say "hypocrites"? Nice try...