It's classic that you'd see a proposal to make relief efforts nondenominational as anti-Christian, and ironic the way it illustrates the need for the change. These relief organizations should not be wasting their time and the resources we give them fighting over religious misperceptions. You're right about that; yet you're also caught up in the problem yourself.
I don't think that the Red Cross is going to change its name, and it's not a given that the Red Cross symbol is going away. This is only about adopting a standard operating symbol to minimize confusion under battlefield/crisis conditions, and I didn't read anything about forcing a name or logo change on participating organizations. My crystal ball says that aid workers in the field and their vehicles will be marked prominently with the red diamond for easy recognition, while the various Red Cross, Crescent, and Star of David logos will remain, albeit smaller, to identify the relief "brand". Corporate identities won't go away.
Are you serious about donating only to organizations that dispense aid with religious strings attached? How....un-Christian of you. Ironic, though I'm sure you don't see that. That's sad.
Current Events » in reply to Well I'm sure it probably started as a Christian organization...
Illustrating the problem
The whole thread (24 posts)
- The Red Crystal
- I have a better idea: The Red Dollar Sign meaning: Give 'til it hurts. (n/t)
- How about a simpler non controversial symbol
- Reasonable
- You people need to grow a backbone
- Glad Switzerland likes the idea... ;) (n/t)
- re: I didn't know there was any controversy.
