That's no doubt correct, but rather beside the point. People have come to associate the Red Cross symbol with Christianity, right or wrong; and it's hardly surprising: We call the symbol a cross, not an "X" or "+" or "intersection" or something literal. Maybe it's all a big misunderstanding, but we're stuck with it.

But certainly, knowing that the symbol might have been intended to be non-religious originally only emphasizes the need to agree on a recognizably religious-neutral symbol. Like most of us have been saying, it's ridiculous to burden relief efforts with religious squabbles.

Several people expressed the stereotypical Christian underdog position ("if you're not actively supporting my religion, you're discriminating against it"). Interesting how it connects with American politics. To me, seeing religion confusing secular issues that ought to be straightforward, like disaster relief, only reinforces my view that the intrusion of "faith-based initiatives" into government is poison, as is the determination of many (but not all, I concede) on the Right to weaken the separation of church and state. Holding that line seems to me a matter of defending civilization itself. Government needs to be relentlessly and ostentatiously neutral on religion.