| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2005 09:04:28 PM |
| Object: |
International Red Cross and Atheists |
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 01:18:29 AM |
|
|
On 5-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 5-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
By the way, the Red Cross movement is gearing up to dump the
symbol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross_%28symbol%29
That would be nice. Then they might let Israel join as a full
member.
"Until now, Israel's Star of David Society, or Magem David Adom
(MDA), has
only had observer status in the IFRC because its symbol - the Star of
David - is not recognised under Geneva Conventions. "
If Israel refuses to use, in a war zone, what is recognized under the
convention I would not want to be a member of the Red Cross there.
So I suppose you are against the Red Crescent, to, hmm?
Or is it only Israel that has to knuckle under to even subsconscious
Xian supremacy?
I would expect to find that the Red Cresent *is* recognized under the
Geneva convention.
Dodge noted.
Frankly, I have no idea why Israel *wants to be a member of the Red
Cross. Not just because of the way they have been treated, or even
because of the way the Red Cross certified the camps "humane", but
because
of the way the Red Cross allows the PLO to use their ambulances for
transporting bombs & terrorists.
I don't know how the Red Cross is run in other countries.
Here in America it is operated by citizens, who train other citizens.
*All* the money comes out of the pockets of citizens.
If the PLO Red Cross allows such things it is done with the support of
their people.
For a non-Xian organization, you are certainly calling them Pontious Pilate,
here.
As is taught to the US military, resistance fighters are like fish and the
people are the water. Without water the fish will not survive.
And I've read The Balfour Declaration and know who were the "terrorists"
in the 40's and 50's.
A non sequitur as well as a dishonest red herring.
The Balfour declaration doesn't mention anything in the slightest like
terrorist activity
The only activity that could be deemed in *any* way terroristic back
then was still being perpatrated on Jews by Arabs; the only thing you
could pin on "the Jews" - as you so obviously are - is actions against
the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets.
Susan
How sly of you to rpetend that it's the same type of activity - as well as
deliberately unfair. One has nothing to do withthe other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 02:59:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 5-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So I suppose you are against the Red Crescent, to, hmm?
Or is it only Israel that has to knuckle under to even subsconscious
Xian supremacy?
I would expect to find that the Red Cresent *is* recognized under the
Geneva convention.
Dodge noted.
There is no dodging here. The cresent and cross are recognized under the
geneva convention. The Star of David is not.
Frankly, I have no idea why Israel *wants to be a member of the Red
Cross. Not just because of the way they have been treated, or even
because of the way the Red Cross certified the camps "humane", but
because
of the way the Red Cross allows the PLO to use their ambulances for
transporting bombs & terrorists.
I don't know how the Red Cross is run in other countries.
Here in America it is operated by citizens, who train other citizens.
*All* the money comes out of the pockets of citizens.
If the PLO Red Cross allows such things it is done with the support
of their people.
For a non-Xian organization, you are certainly calling them Pontious
Pilate, here.
Pilate washed his hands of the alleged affair which is the opposite of what
I say they may be doing.
As is taught to the US military, resistance fighters are like fish
and the people are the water. Without water the fish will not
survive.
And I've read The Balfour Declaration and know who were the
"terrorists" in the 40's and 50's.
A non sequitur as well as a dishonest red herring.
The Balfour declaration doesn't mention anything in the slightest like
terrorist activity
The only activity that could be deemed in *any* way terroristic back
then was still being perpatrated on Jews by Arabs; the only thing you
could pin on "the Jews" - as you so obviously are - is actions against
the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets.
The Balfour Declaration also said nothing about a nation but aboout people
living equally and sharing the land. Isrial was formed the same way America
was. They took the land from the inhabitants and history show who were
considered terrorists at the time.
"actions against the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets." That's what the US
is saying now when they bomb people.
How sly of you to rpetend that it's the same type of activity - as
well as deliberately unfair. One has nothing to do withthe other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 02:41:35 AM |
|
|
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 5-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So I suppose you are against the Red Crescent, to, hmm?
Or is it only Israel that has to knuckle under to even subsconscious
Xian supremacy?
I would expect to find that the Red Cresent *is* recognized under the
Geneva convention.
Dodge noted.
There is no dodging here. The cresent and cross are recognized under the
geneva convention. The Star of David is not.
So you are saying that you are as hypocritical as the Red Cross & the Geneva
Convention.
Okay.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
10 Nov 2005 01:42:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
wrote:
On 5-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
So I suppose you are against the Red Crescent, to, hmm?
Or is it only Israel that has to knuckle under to even
subsconscious Xian supremacy?
I would expect to find that the Red Cresent *is* recognized under
the Geneva convention.
Dodge noted.
There is no dodging here. The cresent and cross are recognized under
the geneva convention. The Star of David is not.
So you are saying that you are as hypocritical as the Red Cross & the
Geneva Convention.
Okay.
Susan
No. I'm saying that the Geneva convention is what determines what symbols
may be used in a war zone.
The rules state that you must use a symbol approved by the Geneva
Convention.
If you don't like the rules, you don't have to join the club.
Why Israel would even want to bother is beyond me.
There is *nothing* the Red Cross does at any level, and especially at street
level, that is not done better in Israel.
This noise making seems to come from people who just want something they
don't understand because they feel it might give them a shiny new badge to
wear.
Let them join the masons or the Knights Templar or something else with facy
hats and secret handshakes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 02:47:39 AM |
|
|
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I've read The Balfour Declaration and know who were the
"terrorists" in the 40's and 50's.
A non sequitur as well as a dishonest red herring.
The Balfour declaration doesn't mention anything in the slightest like
terrorist activity
The only activity that could be deemed in *any* way terroristic back
then was still being perpatrated on Jews by Arabs; the only thing you
could pin on "the Jews" - as you so obviously are - is actions against
the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets.
The Balfour Declaration also said nothing about a nation but aboout people
living equally and sharing the land.
Which is precisely what Israel tried to do.
Who was it who rejected all the plans to share the land, and who rejected
the second-best offer of dividing the land, however unequally in their
favor?
Isrial
And are you going to pretend this isn;t deliberately disrespectful?
was formed the same way
America
was.
Completely untrue, of course.
Israel was given the land by the administrators, and then was attacked
wholesale by those who disagreed with the decision.
She won the battle & the losers have been whining ever since.
They took the land from the inhabitants
Wow, you really are deluded.
Now I see where the anti-Magen Dovid Adom comes from.
Israel took nothing from no one.
60% of the Arabs LEFT at the behest of the Arab High Committee, while
40% stayed to become the ancestors of the modern day Israeli Arabs.
and history show who were
considered terrorists at the time.
Only because the definition of terrorist was mightily different from
what it is today. But it was even more interesting to note that,
just like today, aminority of Arabs were committing what would
*still* be considered terrorism towards Jews as early as the 20's.
"actions against the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets."
Yep, precisely.
That's what the
US
is saying now when they bomb people.
Yes, and it's precisely what the US is trying to do, duh.
Ca you rove that the US or Israel or ANYONE other than
Islamofascists deliberately target civilians?
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
08 Nov 2005 05:13:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I've read The Balfour Declaration and know who were the
"terrorists" in the 40's and 50's.
A non sequitur as well as a dishonest red herring.
The Balfour declaration doesn't mention anything in the slightest like
terrorist activity
The only activity that could be deemed in *any* way terroristic back
then was still being perpatrated on Jews by Arabs; the only thing you
could pin on "the Jews" - as you so obviously are - is actions against
the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets.
The Balfour Declaration also said nothing about a nation but aboout people
living equally and sharing the land.
Which is precisely what Israel tried to do.
Who was it who rejected all the plans to share the land, and who rejected
the second-best offer of dividing the land, however unequally in their
favor?
Why should anyone agree to dividing their land unwillingly? What would
you
say if someone simply annexed part of the USA based on some
ancient mythological text?
Isrial
And are you going to pretend this isn;t deliberately disrespectful?
was formed the same way
America
was.
Completely untrue, of course.
Israel was given the land by the administrators, and then was attacked
wholesale by those who disagreed with the decision.
Who gave these "administrators" the right to hand over a land,
that already had other inhabitants, to someone else?
She won the battle & the losers have been whining ever since.
What would happen to Israel if the USA would withdraw its
support?
They took the land from the inhabitants
Wow, you really are deluded.
Now I see where the anti-Magen Dovid Adom comes from.
Israel took nothing from no one.
60% of the Arabs LEFT at the behest of the Arab High Committee, while
40% stayed to become the ancestors of the modern day Israeli Arabs.
Alas, those Arabas were already there before the colonists came.
and history show who were
considered terrorists at the time.
Only because the definition of terrorist was mightily different from
what it is today. But it was even more interesting to note that,
just like today, aminority of Arabs were committing what would
*still* be considered terrorism towards Jews as early as the 20's.
"actions against the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets."
Yep, precisely.
That's what the US is saying now when they bomb people.
Yes, and it's precisely what the US is trying to do, duh.
Ca you rove that the US or Israel or ANYONE other than
Islamofascists deliberately target civilians?
There are numerous occasions where civilians have been
killed by the Israeli army.
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
08 Nov 2005 07:25:17 AM |
|
|
On 8-Nov-2005, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I've read The Balfour Declaration and know who were the
"terrorists" in the 40's and 50's.
A non sequitur as well as a dishonest red herring.
The Balfour declaration doesn't mention anything in the slightest
like
terrorist activity
The only activity that could be deemed in *any* way terroristic back
then was still being perpatrated on Jews by Arabs; the only thing
you
could pin on "the Jews" - as you so obviously are - is actions
against
the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets.
The Balfour Declaration also said nothing about a nation but aboout
people
living equally and sharing the land.
Which is precisely what Israel tried to do.
Who was it who rejected all the plans to share the land, and who
rejected
the second-best offer of dividing the land, however unequally in their
favor?
Why should anyone agree to dividing their land unwillingly?
Why should people who don;t actually own/govern a land be allowed
to tell the owners/rulers what to do with it?
Most of them were as much "immigrants" as the Israelis were.
What would
you
say if someone simply annexed part of the USA based on some
ancient mythological text?
I would say that this is a pathetic non sequitur, and ask you to deal with
facts.
Isrial
And are you going to pretend this isn;t deliberately disrespectful?
was formed the same way
America
was.
Completely untrue, of course.
Israel was given the land by the administrators, and then was attacked
wholesale by those who disagreed with the decision.
Who gave these "administrators" the right to hand over a land,
that already had other inhabitants, to someone else?
See above re: inhabitants, and thanks for admitting that you really are
ignorant of the facts.
But if you really want an answer, look up the Ottoman Empire on Google.
She won the battle & the losers have been whining ever since.
What would happen to Israel if the USA would withdraw its
support?
Israelis would learn to have a few hundred shkolim a year, as that would
be all the difference in taxes.
They took the land from the inhabitants
Wow, you really are deluded.
Now I see where the anti-Magen Dovid Adom comes from.
Israel took nothing from no one.
60% of the Arabs LEFT at the behest of the Arab High Committee, while
40% stayed to become the ancestors of the modern day Israeli Arabs.
Alas, those Arabas were already there before the colonists came.
Alas, most of them were not, having come after *some* colonists came &
built up the industry in the area. But it is interesting to see how you
ignore
the fact that they left of their own accord and therefore had no right to
just
say "Well, we changed our minds about abandoning you to be killed, let
us back in."
and history show who were
considered terrorists at the time.
Only because the definition of terrorist was mightily different from
what it is today. But it was even more interesting to note that,
just like today, aminority of Arabs were committing what would
*still* be considered terrorism towards Jews as early as the 20's.
"actions against the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets."
Yep, precisely.
That's what the US is saying now when they bomb people.
Yes, and it's precisely what the US is trying to do, duh.
Ca you prove that the US or Israel or ANYONE other than
Islamofascists deliberately target civilians?
There are numerous occasions where civilians have been
killed by the Israeli army.
Dodge noted.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
08 Nov 2005 11:49:13 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 8-Nov-2005, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
wrote:
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Which is precisely what Israel tried to do.
Who was it who rejected all the plans to share the land, and who
rejected
the second-best offer of dividing the land, however unequally in their
favor?
Why should anyone agree to dividing their land unwillingly?
Why should people who don;t actually own/govern a land be allowed
to tell the owners/rulers what to do with it?
So if someone starts growing crops in your back yard, he is allowed to
stay there? You're not doing anything useful with it after all in his
eyes.
Most of them were as much "immigrants" as the Israelis were.
Which is of course blatantly false. The land was occupied by other
people for centuries before the Israelis arrived.
What would you
say if someone simply annexed part of the USA based on some
ancient mythological text?
I would say that this is a pathetic non sequitur, and ask you to deal with
facts.
It's not a non sequitur, since that is exactly what happened with
Israel.
Completely untrue, of course.
Israel was given the land by the administrators, and then was attacked
wholesale by those who disagreed with the decision.
Who gave these "administrators" the right to hand over a land,
that already had other inhabitants, to someone else?
See above re: inhabitants, and thanks for admitting that you really are
ignorant of the facts.
Are you denying that there were already inhabitants of that region?
If so, then *you* are blind for the facts.
But if you really want an answer, look up the Ottoman Empire on Google.
Ah, a red herring.
She won the battle & the losers have been whining ever since.
What would happen to Israel if the USA would withdraw its
support?
Israelis would learn to have a few hundred shkolim a year, as that would
be all the difference in taxes.
Nonsense. Israel simply wouldn't have any kind of army to speak of,
since it's all directly and indirectly financed by the USA.
Wow, you really are deluded.
Now I see where the anti-Magen Dovid Adom comes from.
Israel took nothing from no one.
60% of the Arabs LEFT at the behest of the Arab High Committee, while
40% stayed to become the ancestors of the modern day Israeli Arabs.
Alas, those Arabas were already there before the colonists came.
Alas, most of them were not, having come after *some* colonists came &
built up the industry in the area.
It does not matter how many there were, even if it would only
have been a few hundred. Right does not come in numbers, although
Israel likes to think otherwise.
But it is interesting to see how you
ignore the fact that they left of their own accord and therefore had no right to
just say "Well, we changed our minds about abandoning you to be killed, let
us back in."
And they had that right, because the land was *theirs* to start with.
But the simple fact that not *all* left makes the annexation of that
land
very suspect.
Only because the definition of terrorist was mightily different from
what it is today. But it was even more interesting to note that,
just like today, aminority of Arabs were committing what would
*still* be considered terrorism towards Jews as early as the 20's.
"actions against the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets."
Yep, precisely.
That's what the US is saying now when they bomb people.
Yes, and it's precisely what the US is trying to do, duh.
Ca you prove that the US or Israel or ANYONE other than
Islamofascists deliberately target civilians?
There are numerous occasions where civilians have been
killed by the Israeli army.
Dodge noted.
What dodge? There are numerous accounts, although Israel of course
tries hard to cover them up.
RS
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
09 Nov 2005 12:38:25 AM |
|
|
On 8-Nov-2005, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 8-Nov-2005, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Which is precisely what Israel tried to do.
Who was it who rejected all the plans to share the land, and who
rejected
the second-best offer of dividing the land, however unequally in
their
favor?
Why should anyone agree to dividing their land unwillingly?
Why should people who don;t actually own/govern a land be allowed
to tell the owners/rulers what to do with it?
So if someone starts growing crops in your back yard, he is allowed to
stay there?
What has this non sequitur to do with the facts?
And, as per my actual question, dodge noted.
You're not doing anything useful with it after all in his
eyes.
see previous
Most of them were as much "immigrants" as the Israelis were.
Which is of course blatantly false.
Which is, of course, completely true.
The land was occupied by other
people for centuries before the Israelis arrived.
How conveniently vague of you to say.
The facts are that not only was there a continuous Jewish presence
in the area, even the Arabs have admitted that most of those calling
themselves Palestinians are recent immigrants to the area.
What would you
say if someone simply annexed part of the USA based on some
ancient mythological text?
I would say that this is a pathetic non sequitur, and ask you to deal
with
facts.
It's not a non sequitur, since that is exactly what happened with
Israel.
Okay, prove it.
I defy you.
Completely untrue, of course.
Israel was given the land by the administrators, and then was
attacked
wholesale by those who disagreed with the decision.
Who gave these "administrators" the right to hand over a land,
that already had other inhabitants, to someone else?
See above re: inhabitants, and thanks for admitting that you really are
ignorant of the facts.
Are you denying that there were already inhabitants of that region?
Why would I try to deny something that has no bearing on what the
administrators did or didn't do - you know, the little fact that you
keep trying to dodge?
If so, then *you* are blind for the facts.
I am not only not blind as you are, I am not deliberately ignoring the
others I cannot skip, as you do.
But if you really want an answer, look up the Ottoman Empire on Google.
Ah, a red herring.
Ah, an admission that you
a) don't know the facts
b) don't want to know the facts
c) are willing to lie to cover that up.
She won the battle & the losers have been whining ever since.
What would happen to Israel if the USA would withdraw its
support?
Israelis would learn to have a few hundred shkolim a year, as that would
be all the difference in taxes.
Nonsense. Israel simply wouldn't have any kind of army to speak of,
since it's all directly and indirectly financed by the USA.
And thanks for yet another admission that you not only don;t know the facts,
but are willing to spew the wildest sorts of lies to advance your agenda.
At this point, I might as well challenge you to post the facts.
Big Hint: don't just tell me "how much we give Israel" - you are only going
to
look like an even bigger fool if you try that.
Wow, you really are deluded.
Now I see where the anti-Magen Dovid Adom comes from.
Israel took nothing from no one.
60% of the Arabs LEFT at the behest of the Arab High Committee,
while
40% stayed to become the ancestors of the modern day Israeli Arabs.
Alas, those Arabas were already there before the colonists came.
Alas, most of them were not, having come after *some* colonists came &
built up the industry in the area.
It does not matter how many there were, even if it would only
have been a few hundred.
When you translate this into English, do tell me how it contradicts what I
said.
(And, if it means what I think it does, then you are deiberately ignoring -
or are
too unwilling to look up - the fact that there were always Jews in the area)
Right does not come in numbers, although
Israel likes to think otherwise.
And since this can only have one meaning, I will simply say that it is a
lie.
No one has ever claimed the former, and the latter is simply untrue.
But it is interesting to see how you
ignore the fact that they left of their own accord and therefore had no
right to
just say "Well, we changed our minds about abandoning you to be killed,
let
us back in."
And they had that right, because the land was *theirs* to start with.
Why do you keep repeating this lie?
If they ever actually *owned* the land, they have been compensated.
But most did not.
But the simple fact that not *all* left makes the annexation of that
land very suspect.
What is suspect is your
a) lie that Israel's gaining governship through being attacked was somehow
an "annexation"
b) pretense that Israel's gaining governorship of the land somehow
dispossessed ANYONE
c) ridiculous statement that because some people saw sense that Israel was
somehow at fault???
Only because the definition of terrorist was mightily different from
what it is today. But it was even more interesting to note that,
just like today, aminority of Arabs were committing what would
*still* be considered terrorism towards Jews as early as the 20's.
"actions against the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets."
Yep, precisely.
That's what the US is saying now when they bomb people.
Yes, and it's precisely what the US is trying to do, duh.
Ca you prove that the US or Israel or ANYONE other than
Islamofascists deliberately target civilians?
There are numerous occasions where civilians have been
killed by the Israeli army.
Dodge noted.
What dodge?
I said DELIBERATELY, you pathetic little liar.
You ignored that, and are pretending that it's true about Israel, when it
isn't.
There are numerous accounts, although Israel of course
tries hard to cover them up.
Wrong again.
The Israeli army does nothing of the kind.
Whenever an accident occurs, they speak right up.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
08 Nov 2005 12:15:24 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 09:49:13 -0800, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
Most of them were as much "immigrants" as the Israelis were.
Which is of course blatantly false. The land was occupied by other
people for centuries before the Israelis arrived.
The descendants of those who stayed after the diaspora.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
08 Nov 2005 08:37:04 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 09:49:13 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Richard Smol"
<jazzcat@dds.nl> in
<1131472153.540030.246550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 8-Nov-2005, "Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote:
[snip]
Most of them were as much "immigrants" as the Israelis were.
Which is of course blatantly false. The land was occupied by other
people for centuries before the Israelis arrived.
There have been Jews there for well over 2,000 years. And the other
people have moved in and out over time. There are reasons people move
other than that the Jews kick them out.
What would you
say if someone simply annexed part of the USA based on some
ancient mythological text?
I would say that this is a pathetic non sequitur, and ask you to deal with
facts.
It's not a non sequitur, since that is exactly what happened with
Israel.
Really? What was the *country* that Israel was carved out of?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
08 Nov 2005 08:34:36 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 03:13:45 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Richard Smol"
<jazzcat@dds.nl> in
<1131448425.250863.287190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I've read The Balfour Declaration and know who were the
"terrorists" in the 40's and 50's.
A non sequitur as well as a dishonest red herring.
The Balfour declaration doesn't mention anything in the slightest like
terrorist activity
The only activity that could be deemed in *any* way terroristic back
then was still being perpatrated on Jews by Arabs; the only thing you
could pin on "the Jews" - as you so obviously are - is actions against
the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets.
The Balfour Declaration also said nothing about a nation but aboout people
living equally and sharing the land.
Which is precisely what Israel tried to do.
Who was it who rejected all the plans to share the land, and who rejected
the second-best offer of dividing the land, however unequally in their
favor?
Why should anyone agree to dividing their land unwillingly?
Because they lost a war? Because it was not their land?
What would
you say if someone simply annexed part of the USA based on some
ancient mythological text?
How about you try something reasonable. The U.S. is an existing
established country, there has never been a Palestinian state, never
in history.
Isrial
And are you going to pretend this isn;t deliberately disrespectful?
was formed the same way
America
was.
Completely untrue, of course.
Israel was given the land by the administrators, and then was attacked
wholesale by those who disagreed with the decision.
Who gave these "administrators" the right to hand over a land,
that already had other inhabitants, to someone else?
They won it off them in a war, the traditional way people take land.
And, to answer your next question, the Turks took it off of someone
else. So how far back do you want to go?
She won the battle & the losers have been whining ever since.
What would happen to Israel if the USA would withdraw its
support?
Millions of Jews would die.
They took the land from the inhabitants
Wow, you really are deluded.
Now I see where the anti-Magen Dovid Adom comes from.
Israel took nothing from no one.
60% of the Arabs LEFT at the behest of the Arab High Committee, while
40% stayed to become the ancestors of the modern day Israeli Arabs.
Alas, those Arabas were already there before the colonists came.
Yeah, they won the land off someone in a war.
Oh, and there have been Jews there for pretty much all of recorded
history in the area.
and history show who were
considered terrorists at the time.
Only because the definition of terrorist was mightily different from
what it is today. But it was even more interesting to note that,
just like today, aminority of Arabs were committing what would
*still* be considered terrorism towards Jews as early as the 20's.
"actions against the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets."
Yep, precisely.
That's what the US is saying now when they bomb people.
Yes, and it's precisely what the US is trying to do, duh.
Ca you rove that the US or Israel or ANYONE other than
Islamofascists deliberately target civilians?
There are numerous occasions where civilians have been
killed by the Israeli army.
Targeting by the Army? Very few. And this is mostly because as a
deliberate policy the PLO and Hamas has hidden itself in civilian
areas, they have made themselves look like civilians, they have used
civilians as cover. Israel is not perfect, but they have acted in
response to deliberate policy by the Palestinians leadership. What
would the U.S. do if there were several terrorist bombings in the U.S.
every year?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 02:50:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:47:39 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And I've read The Balfour Declaration and know who were the
"terrorists" in the 40's and 50's.
A non sequitur as well as a dishonest red herring.
The Balfour declaration doesn't mention anything in the slightest like
terrorist activity
The only activity that could be deemed in *any* way terroristic back
then was still being perpatrated on Jews by Arabs; the only thing you
could pin on "the Jews" - as you so obviously are - is actions against
the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets.
The Balfour Declaration also said nothing about a nation but aboout people
living equally and sharing the land.
Which is precisely what Israel tried to do.
Who was it who rejected all the plans to share the land, and who rejected
the second-best offer of dividing the land, however unequally in their
favor?
Taking the land six months before the UN timetable, when it wasn't
even the UN's to give?
By following it up with ethnic cleansing?
<plonk?
Isrial
And are you going to pretend this isn;t deliberately disrespectful?
was formed the same way
America
was.
Completely untrue, of course.
Israel was given the land by the administrators, and then was attacked
wholesale by those who disagreed with the decision.
She won the battle & the losers have been whining ever since.
They took the land from the inhabitants
Wow, you really are deluded.
Now I see where the anti-Magen Dovid Adom comes from.
Israel took nothing from no one.
60% of the Arabs LEFT at the behest of the Arab High Committee, while
40% stayed to become the ancestors of the modern day Israeli Arabs.
and history show who were
considered terrorists at the time.
Only because the definition of terrorist was mightily different from
what it is today. But it was even more interesting to note that,
just like today, aminority of Arabs were committing what would
*still* be considered terrorism towards Jews as early as the 20's.
"actions against the MILITARY or other MILITARY tagets."
Yep, precisely.
That's what the
US
is saying now when they bomb people.
Yes, and it's precisely what the US is trying to do, duh.
Ca you rove that the US or Israel or ANYONE other than
Islamofascists deliberately target civilians?
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 08:36:14 PM |
|
|
On 7-Nov-2005, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:47:39 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Nov-2005, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The Balfour Declaration also said nothing about a nation but aboout
people
living equally and sharing the land.
Which is precisely what Israel tried to do.
Who was it who rejected all the plans to share the land, and who rejected
the second-best offer of dividing the land, however unequally in their
favor?
Taking the land six months before the UN timetable, when it wasn't
even the UN's to give?
Getting it from the British, who were administering it? DUH!
(Big Hint: if you are goping to argue from the Balfour Declaration,
you have to stick with it)
By following it up with ethnic cleansing?
A total lie.
<plonk?
yeah, spout your lies then run away.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
09 Nov 2005 12:17:11 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 08:28:50 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in <dOedneYOxLkRXPHeRVn-pw@megapath.net>
wrote:
In <eJqdnZmp1elZvPHeRVn-gw@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
The Swede Henry Dunant is the Christ? I did not know that.
By the way, the Red Cross movement is gearing up to dump the symbol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross_%28symbol%29
That would be nice. Then they might let Israel join as a full member.
Sorry, but nations are NOT members of the ICRC. Affiliate organisations
are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
09 Nov 2005 01:53:53 PM |
|
|
On 9 Nov 2005 10:17:11 -0800, in alt.atheism , in
<1131560231.219489.42400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 08:28:50 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in <dOedneYOxLkRXPHeRVn-pw@megapath.net>
wrote:
In <eJqdnZmp1elZvPHeRVn-gw@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
The Swede Henry Dunant is the Christ? I did not know that.
By the way, the Red Cross movement is gearing up to dump the symbol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross_%28symbol%29
That would be nice. Then they might let Israel join as a full member.
Sorry, but nations are NOT members of the ICRC. Affiliate organisations
are.
Yeah, I wrote that wrong. It is the MDA that they won't allow in as a
full member.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
04 Nov 2005 11:18:59 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization.
Too bad that it _is_ a secular organization, no?
Tell you what, here in Germany there are four major organizations in the
volunteer medical services branch. Two of them (St. John's and the
Maltesers) are officially christian (protestant and catholic,
respectively), and the Samaritan workers' alliance and - gasp! - the red
cross don't care for faith or lack thereof.
But aaaaah, who needs facts when he's a fundy and "liar" is thus his middle
name?
To quote from your Paul's letters to the Romans: "For the name of the lord
is blasphemed among the Gentiles _through_ _you!"!_ "Christians" like you
are the best reason for people to _not_ join your cult.
By the way, I'm an active member of St. John's myself, though I am not a
christian. I am a member because I want to _help_ people, and as long as
the jebus cult is not forced on me by my superiors, I don't care whether
I'm part of something christian. In the higher levels of the St. John's
administration you will eventually get in trouble if you aren't officially
protestant, but these higher levels are far away from the ones doing the
actual work (one of our most popular local platoon leaders was a muslim and
no one cared - he did good work, so why should we kick him out?).
And again, reality beats fundyism over the head, then points at it and
laughs.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
.
|
|
|
| User: "David H." |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 08:26:50 AM |
|
|
"Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" <MAILTOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:dkhfc2$cvj$1@online.de...
J Young wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization.
Too bad that it _is_ a secular organization, no?
Tell you what, here in Germany there are four major organizations in the
volunteer medical services branch. Two of them (St. John's and the
Maltesers) are officially christian (protestant and catholic,
respectively), and the Samaritan workers' alliance and - gasp! - the red
cross don't care for faith or lack thereof.
But aaaaah, who needs facts when he's a fundy and "liar" is thus his
middle
name?
To quote from your Paul's letters to the Romans: "For the name of the lord
is blasphemed among the Gentiles _through_ _you!"!_ "Christians" like you
are the best reason for people to _not_ join your cult.
By the way, I'm an active member of St. John's myself, though I am not a
christian. I am a member because I want to _help_ people, and as long as
the jebus cult is not forced on me by my superiors, I don't care whether
I'm part of something christian. In the higher levels of the St. John's
administration you will eventually get in trouble if you aren't officially
protestant, but these higher levels are far away from the ones doing the
actual work (one of our most popular local platoon leaders was a muslim
and
no one cared - he did good work, so why should we kick him out?).
And again, reality beats fundyism over the head, then points at it and
laughs.
As an atheist, I am primarily anti-stupid - which is why I have no
problems with any organization that helps others in a secular and organized
way. I don't care if they are the "People of Purity Coming onto Red Newts",
( POPCORN). If they can use my money and help those in need without
condition or preaching, and do it with a relatively low administrative
overhead, then I'll donate.
J's shortcomings are many-dimensional. J doesn't see the absolute
*immorality of his xian only mindset, but that is part of the xian disease.
David H.
aa #2217
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
09 Nov 2005 12:11:14 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
So, anything that looks like a cross is a reference to Jesus?
And could you please point to ANY part of Red Cross literature that
claims they do ANYTHING in Christ's name?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 11:52:21 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
The Red Cross is a secular organization, dimwit.
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 01:08:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:04:28 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
The name Red Cross was derived from the Swiss flag. They reversed the
colours. This was intended to imply neutrality. The Red Cross in
entirely secular and Independant. They are seriously considering
changing their name because they find that people like you are making
a leap of belief that it is religious based. You would know this if
you cared to check the Red Cross web site
We contribute to VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas) which boasts that
it is the largest - non-religious - Independant of government - aid
charity in the world
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 06:15:34 PM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:04:28 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism,
condone within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an
organization that makes no pretentions about being a secular
organization. This is not called "Red X", as atheists love to refer
to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does an atheist reconcile within
themselves that they are donating or accepting work that is being
done in Christ's name?
The name Red Cross was derived from the Swiss flag. They reversed the
colours. This was intended to imply neutrality. The Red Cross in
entirely secular and Independant. They are seriously considering
changing their name because they find that people like you are making
a leap of belief that it is religious based. You would know this if
you cared to check the Red Cross web site
We contribute to VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas) which boasts that
it is the largest - non-religious - Independant of government - aid
charity in the world
Les Hellawell
Is it bigger than the Red Cross? In America at least, the government
mandates that the Red Cross exist but all money comes from the private
sector
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 04:50:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 00:15:34 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:04:28 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism,
condone within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an
organization that makes no pretentions about being a secular
organization. This is not called "Red X", as atheists love to refer
to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does an atheist reconcile within
themselves that they are donating or accepting work that is being
done in Christ's name?
The name Red Cross was derived from the Swiss flag. They reversed the
colours. This was intended to imply neutrality. The Red Cross in
entirely secular and Independant. They are seriously considering
changing their name because they find that people like you are making
a leap of belief that it is religious based. You would know this if
you cared to check the Red Cross web site
We contribute to VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas) which boasts that
it is the largest - non-religious - Independant of government - aid
charity in the world
Les Hellawell
Is it bigger than the Red Cross? In America at least, the government
mandates that the Red Cross exist but all money comes from the private
sector
Well I wondered that but that is what I have heard they claim.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 12:26:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:04:28 -0500, J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
How much of the red cross's money goes into evangalization compared to
obviously christian organizations such as 'save the children' or 'the salvation
army?'
Does the red cross insist that the natives receive christian literature if they
are to receive aid?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
04 Nov 2005 10:57:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:04:28 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> in <eJqdnZmp1elZvPHeRVn-gw@giganews.com>
wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
How can you support a bigoted organization like the International
Committed of the Red Cross? They refuse to allow the Israeli Mogen
David to join them since they don't use a cross. But the ICRC did make
exceptions for the various Moslem organizations.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 06:42:55 AM |
|
|
In article <0seom1h2l377fa8ng7q5an8boqnochvof6@4ax.com>, Matt
Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:04:28 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> in <eJqdnZmp1elZvPHeRVn-gw@giganews.com>
wrote:
How does any person, so vehement in their dedication to Atheism, condone
within themselves to either offer help or accept help to an organization
that makes no pretentions about being a secular organization. This is not
called "Red X", as atheists love to refer to "X-ians" or "X-mas". How does
an atheist reconcile within themselves that they are donating or accepting
work that is being done in Christ's name?
How can you support a bigoted organization like the International
Committed of the Red Cross? They refuse to allow the Israeli Mogen
David to join them since they don't use a cross. But the ICRC did make
exceptions for the various Moslem organizations.
FWIW, the American Red Cross is working to have the Magen David Adom
recognized:
http://www.redcross.org/mda/background/
You are correct that it is merely a matter of symbology that the
remaining 180 recognized National Societies that insist on adherence to
all 10 conditions of membership, of which #5 is in contention:
Conditions for recognition of National Societies
In order to be recognized in terms of Article 5, paragraph 2 b) as a
National Society, the Society shall meet the following conditions:
1. Be constituted on the territory of an independent State where the
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded
and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field is in force.
2. Be the only National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society of the
said State and be directed by a central body which shall alone be
competent to represent it in its dealings with other components of the
Movement.
3. Be duly recognized by the legal government of its country on
the basis of the Geneva Conventions and of the national legislation as
a voluntary aid society, auxiliary to the public authorities in the
humanitarian field.
4. Have an autonomous status which allows it to operate in
conformity with the Fundamental Principles of the Movement.
5. Use the name and emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent in
conformity with the Geneva Conventions.
6. Be so organized as to be able to fulfil the tasks defined in its
own statutes, including the preparation in peace time for its statutory
tasks in case of armed conflict.
7. Extend its activities to the entire territory of the State.
8. Recruit its voluntary members and its staff without
consideration of race, sex, class, religion or political opinions.
9. Adhere to the present Statutes, share in the fellowship which
unites the components of the Movement and co-operate with them.
10. Respect the Fundamental Principles of the Movement and be
guided in its work by the principles of international humanitarian law.
You will have to agree that the red crescent is a special case. The
connotations of an organization under the banner of a red cross are
simply too historically sensitive in Muslim countries.
What symbol doe the ICRC use in Japan or India, which are not Christian
majorities and do not have the same visceral reaction to a red cross as
Muslim countries?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 02:31:42 PM |
|
|
In article <061120050442559054%chib@nospam.com>, chibiabos wrote:
What symbol doe the ICRC use in Japan or India, which are not Christian
majorities and do not have the same visceral reaction to a red cross as
Muslim countries?
red cross though I heard that India had at one time requested a
separate symbol
I think one key point is that the number of symbols used by the Red
Cross societies should be highly limited (ideally 1) just so no one
can claim ignorance of not knowing what the symbol means (e.g., do not
bomb or otherwise attack). The more symbols the more chance of
confusion.
If another symbol needs to be added it should be one usable by most if
not all other countries that might have historical or future anxieties
about using either the red cross or the red crescent (e.g., India,
Japan, Sri Lanka, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand). This means it
must, as far as possible, be neutral in regards to religion or
politics and it must be simple. Perhaps a red O or a red hollow
triangle or turning the cross by 45 degrees to make it a red X. Also
the new symbol should be added by amending the appropriate Geneva
Convention so as to ensure that it gets the same protection as the red
cross and the red crescent from the International community.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 06:24:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 20:31:42 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , Emma Pease
<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> in <slrndmvedd.fcc.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>
wrote:
In article <061120050442559054%chib@nospam.com>, chibiabos wrote:
What symbol doe the ICRC use in Japan or India, which are not Christian
majorities and do not have the same visceral reaction to a red cross as
Muslim countries?
red cross though I heard that India had at one time requested a
separate symbol
I think one key point is that the number of symbols used by the Red
Cross societies should be highly limited (ideally 1) just so no one
can claim ignorance of not knowing what the symbol means (e.g., do not
bomb or otherwise attack). The more symbols the more chance of
confusion.
If another symbol needs to be added it should be one usable by most if
not all other countries that might have historical or future anxieties
about using either the red cross or the red crescent (e.g., India,
Japan, Sri Lanka, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand). This means it
must, as far as possible, be neutral in regards to religion or
politics and it must be simple. Perhaps a red O or a red hollow
triangle or turning the cross by 45 degrees to make it a red X. Also
the new symbol should be added by amending the appropriate Geneva
Convention so as to ensure that it gets the same protection as the red
cross and the red crescent from the International community.
So, since they already have two religious symbols they should stop
now.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 08:15:46 PM |
|
|
In article <kdrvm1t2tnpak9kvdaicq6tju6vpm2g681@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 20:31:42 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , Emma Pease
<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> in <slrndmvedd.fcc.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>
wrote:
In article <061120050442559054%chib@nospam.com>, chibiabos wrote:
What symbol doe the ICRC use in Japan or India, which are not Christian
majorities and do not have the same visceral reaction to a red cross as
Muslim countries?
red cross though I heard that India had at one time requested a
separate symbol
I think one key point is that the number of symbols used by the Red
Cross societies should be highly limited (ideally 1) just so no one
can claim ignorance of not knowing what the symbol means (e.g., do not
bomb or otherwise attack). The more symbols the more chance of
confusion.
If another symbol needs to be added it should be one usable by most if
not all other countries that might have historical or future anxieties
about using either the red cross or the red crescent (e.g., India,
Japan, Sri Lanka, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand). This means it
must, as far as possible, be neutral in regards to religion or
politics and it must be simple. Perhaps a red O or a red hollow
triangle or turning the cross by 45 degrees to make it a red X. Also
the new symbol should be added by amending the appropriate Geneva
Convention so as to ensure that it gets the same protection as the red
cross and the red crescent from the International community.
So, since they already have two religious symbols they should stop
now.
I suggest you reread what I wrote. I said if they add another sign it
should be one that has no religious or political significance and so
can be used by people who read the red cross as religious and don't
want to use the crescent which does have religious connotations (note
that the standard depiction of the Christian cross is more like a
lower case t than a plus sign +).
Emma
who can just imagine a gunnery officer looking through his booklet of
do not fire at sign (nope not the red cross, red crescent, red magen
david, red Indian sign, red Chinese sign, red Japanese sign...).
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
08 Nov 2005 12:34:29 AM |
|
|
On 7-Nov-2005, Emma Pease <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
In article <kdrvm1t2tnpak9kvdaicq6tju6vpm2g681@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
wrote
So, since they already have two religious symbols they should stop
now.
I suggest you reread what I wrote.
Why? How did it differ from what he wrote above?
I said if they add another sign it
should be one that has no religious or political significance and so
can be used by people who read the red cross as religious and don't
want to use the crescent which does have religious connotations
So, IOW, just like what he said: you think it's okay for the Red cross to
accomodate only 2 religions.
(note
that the standard depiction of the Christian cross is more like a
lower case t than a plus sign +).
Then why don't they call it the "Red Plus Sign"?
The fact is that the "plus sign" on the Swiss flag was meant to be a cross,
and, in taking their flag, the Red Cross knew it was co-opting a religious
symbol for their own - hence the very name of the organizaton.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
