| 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: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 10:09:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 04:42:55 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
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:
That seems to support my own opinions of Israel's desire to be recognised.
The MDA, as a branch of the CIA
Wonderful
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 03:01:22 AM |
|
|
On 6-Nov-2005, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
FWIW, the American Red Cross is working to have the Magen David Adom
recognized:
That seems to support my own opinions of Israel's desire to be recognised.
Only to hatemonger would Israel "need to be recognized."
The MDA, as a branch of the CIA
Wonderful
Your biased paranoia does NOT cancel out the US' attempt to be fair.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 04:32:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 04:42:55 -0800, in alt.atheism , chibiabos
<chib@nospam.com> in <061120050442559054%chib@nospam.com> wrote:
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.
And in Israel. Do you think that somehow Jews in 1948 were less
sensitive to the use of the Cross as a symbol than were Moslems?
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?
In India and Japan it is the Red Cross Society. Ignoring the
"visceral", I think that they have no cultural reaction at all to
crosses and so it is just the symbol of the Red Cross.
--
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: "Shark school missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 03:53:38 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> suddenly
spluttered:
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.
Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with global realpolitik,
you know that, stop being dishonest.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 07:34:32 PM |
|
|
On 5-Nov-2005, Shark school missionaries <yournamehere@martyrdom.org>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> suddenly
spluttered:
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.
Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with global realpolitik,
you know that, stop being dishonest.
Eveything to do with the religious bigotry of those Islamic countries,
& the Red Cross is meekly caving into them - to the point of firing the
one high-placed employee who insisted on telling the truth about the
situation.
YOU stop being dishonest.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 11:49:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:53:38 +0000, in alt.atheism , Shark school
missionaries <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> in
<830pm19r0k3a7vi1s9p8jfsoqbfpdspjqo@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> suddenly
spluttered:
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.
Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with global realpolitik,
you know that, stop being dishonest.
I see, they are craven cowards, not religious bigots. And disagreeing
with your view is dishonest. Well, there is something to have a
simplistic world view.
--
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: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
04 Nov 2005 09:47:34 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Here's the homepage of the IRC.. Show me where they state they are a
Christian organization. If you can do that, I will donate $50 to any
charity you name.
If you can't, you make a donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Home?OpenDocument
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 02:44:27 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:ckaom1ts9a4llj373cu1a7sbls6mjsnao9@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Here's the homepage of the IRC.. Show me where they state they are a
Christian organization. If you can do that, I will donate $50 to any
charity you name.
If you can't, you make a donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Home?OpenDocument
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Upon further review of the evidence you provided, I must admit that I was
indeed wrong. Thankyou. [ for future reference, I do not partake in the vice
of gambling ]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 05:20:05 AM |
|
|
Congratulations to J. Young for admitting his mistake.
We don't often see people do that in this NG
Keep it up!
However Muslims around the world are still making it
Using a red Half-moon in stead of the red cross.
Wish they would be so wise.
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
November 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 06:18:28 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Upon further review of the evidence you provided, I must admit that I
was indeed wrong. Thankyou. [ for future reference, I do not partake
in the vice of gambling ]
There was no gambling involved.
I make lots of bets like this, but never gamble.
I'll bet you $5.00 that if you give me $25.00, I'll give you $50.00.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 04:43:50 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 15:44:27 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:ckaom1ts9a4llj373cu1a7sbls6mjsnao9@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Here's the homepage of the IRC.. Show me where they state they are a
Christian organization. If you can do that, I will donate $50 to any
charity you name.
If you can't, you make a donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Home?OpenDocument
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Upon further review of the evidence you provided, I must admit that I was
indeed wrong. Thankyou. [ for future reference, I do not partake in the vice
of gambling ]
A great many life decisions are gambles. Do I drive by car bearing in
mind accident statistics? Do I take that operation knowing that the
risk of dying may be 10% (or whatever)? Which god do I believe and
follow knowing the risk of choosing the wrong one etc etcy.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 10:34:13 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:ckaom1ts9a4llj373cu1a7sbls6mjsnao9@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Here's the homepage of the IRC.. Show me where they state they are a
Christian organization. If you can do that, I will donate $50 to any
charity you name.
If you can't, you make a donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Home?OpenDocument
Nice try, Douglas, but I can personally attest that insane "J" is definitely
not a person who honors his wagers.
Not, of course, that he'll even bother responding.
LC~ "Honor" and "J Young" are mutually exclusive:
"I have agreed to leave Usenet entirely for one year if he can
convince a simple majority of a panel of people who dislike me
immensely to begin with ( that's being kind in some cases ), if he can
PROVE that J Young and Iben Getiner are one and the same person."
From: "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>, talking big just days before being
found *unanimously guilty*, then backing out and running away.
Newsgroups:
alt.abortion,alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality,rec.music.beatles
Subject: "LC" cannot prove that J Young and Iben Getiner are the same person
Date: 31 Jul 2005 13:13:30 -0700
Message-ID: <1122840810.778345.22250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 07:27:59 PM |
|
|
On 4-Nov-2005, Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Even tho' the rest of his tripe is...tripe, the fact is that the Red Cross
is
a bigoted organization, but not *because* the cross is a Xian religious
symbol (as it was meant to be even on the Swiss flag at first). The Red
Cross *still* refuses to allow a "Magen Dovid Adom" in the same way
that they have a "Red Crescent" & *because* of the Islamic countries.
Susan
Here's the homepage of the IRC.. Show me where they state they are a
Christian organization. If you can do that, I will donate $50 to any
charity you name.
If you can't, you make a donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Home?OpenDocument
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 05:02:00 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 01:27:59 GMT, wrote:
On 4-Nov-2005, Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Even tho' the rest of his tripe is...tripe, the fact is that the Red Cross
is
a bigoted organization, but not *because* the cross is a Xian religious
symbol (as it was meant to be even on the Swiss flag at first). The Red
Cross *still* refuses to allow a "Magen Dovid Adom" in the same way
that they have a "Red Crescent" & *because* of the Islamic countries.
There is nothing to stop the Jews from setting up an aid organisation
and calling it whatever they like. Israel is a client state of the USA
and the USA usually does whatever it wants to do.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 02:54:02 AM |
|
|
On 6-Nov-2005, Les Hellawell <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 01:27:59 GMT, wrote:
Even tho' the rest of his tripe is...tripe, the fact is that the Red
Cross is
a bigoted organization, but not *because* the cross is a Xian religious
symbol (as it was meant to be even on the Swiss flag at first). The Red
Cross *still* refuses to allow a "Magen Dovid Adom" in the same way
that they have a "Red Crescent" & *because* of the Islamic countries.
There is nothing to stop the Jews from setting up an aid organisation
and calling it whatever they like.
"We" already have. Or, ratherm the Israelis have.
But their reasoning is that the whole set-up is unfair, and it is.
Israel is a client state of the USA
Not really.
and the USA usually does whatever it wants to do.
True. We're a bit like a Saint Bernard dog; forceful if only by virtue of
our size, overbearingly friendly by virtue of the same, but you wouldn;t
want to mess with us once you got us ticked off - for the same reason.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
04 Nov 2005 11:07:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:47:34 GMT, in alt.atheism , Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> in
<ckaom1ts9a4llj373cu1a7sbls6mjsnao9@4ax.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Here's the homepage of the IRC.. Show me where they state they are a
Christian organization. If you can do that, I will donate $50 to any
charity you name.
If you can't, you make a donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Home?OpenDocument
Why do you think they reject the Israeli star then?
--
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: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 02:06:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:07:26 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:47:34 GMT, in alt.atheism , Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> in
<ckaom1ts9a4llj373cu1a7sbls6mjsnao9@4ax.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Here's the homepage of the IRC.. Show me where they state they are a
Christian organization. If you can do that, I will donate $50 to any
charity you name.
If you can't, you make a donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Home?OpenDocument
Why do you think they reject the Israeli star then?
Because they are non religious, and non political.
The Israeli star, is both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 07:32:56 PM |
|
|
On 5-Nov-2005, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:07:26 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:47:34 GMT, in alt.atheism , Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> in
<ckaom1ts9a4llj373cu1a7sbls6mjsnao9@4ax.com> wrote:
Why do you think they reject the Israeli star then?
Because they are non religious, and non political.
The Israeli star, is both.
Then you have just pointed them out as hypocrites of MASSIVE
proportions, because they *do* have the "Red Crescent" for
Islamic countries who know a cross when they see one.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 04:38:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:06:49 GMT, in alt.atheism , Dubh Ghall
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> in <974qm11dtegs3nl7qe6qk44erlbrq53g8c@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:07:26 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 03:47:34 GMT, in alt.atheism , Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> in
<ckaom1ts9a4llj373cu1a7sbls6mjsnao9@4ax.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
22:04:28 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
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?
My, but you are an idiot. The IRC symbol is the Swiss flag with the
colors reversed.
Here's the homepage of the IRC.. Show me where they state they are a
Christian organization. If you can do that, I will donate $50 to any
charity you name.
If you can't, you make a donation to the charity of my choice. Deal?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Home?OpenDocument
Why do you think they reject the Israeli star then?
Because they are non religious, and non political.
The Israeli star, is both.
How is the Israeli star religious and political and the Moslem
crescent is not? Declaring your cross non-religious is sort of like
saying that the 10 commandments on a court wall is not religious and
that a creche on city hall property is non-religious. Waving your
hands does not make the symbolism go away. It was offensive in 1948 to
demand that Israelis adopt the use of the cross to be allowed to join
an organization. Particularly when Moslems are allowed to use a
crescent.
--
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: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
05 Nov 2005 08:56:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:38:40 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
How is the Israeli star religious and political and the Moslem
crescent is not?
The cross, and the crescent, are both religious symbols, it is true. It is also
true that both symbols carry some political connotations but : Both the Red
Cross, and the Red crescent, act globally, secularly, and apolitically.
Neither, is directly responsible to any single country's government.
For this reason, they can both work where other, more politically or religiously
biased organisations, could not.
The Star of David, is the current symbol of both Israel, and judaism., and
Israel has never been known to act apolitically.
Besides, apart from Israel, where could the Star of David work, and be as
trusted as the Red Cross, or the Red crescent?
Declaring your cross non-religious is sort of like
saying that the 10 commandments on a court wall is not religious and
that a creche on city hall property is non-religious. Waving your
hands does not make the symbolism go away. It was offensive in 1948 to
demand that Israelis adopt the use of the cross to be allowed to join
an organization.
So they were offended: Oh dear, What a pity.
Atheists have to accept the cross and the crescent: What makes the Israelis, so
special?
There are more atheists in the world, than there are jews.
Particularly when Moslems are allowed to use a
crescent.
There are a lot more muslims, than jews, as well.
Face it Matt, they wouldn't be allowed into a muslim country, if they were
admitted this minute, and I have grave doubts about the number of xtian
countries who would allow them across their borders.
The Star of David is directly controlled by the Israeli government, and there
aint many countries going to let an arm of the Israeli government have free run
of their countries, no matter what the crises
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 01:27:51 AM |
|
|
On 5-Nov-2005, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:38:40 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
How is the Israeli star religious and political and the Moslem
crescent is not?
The cross, and the crescent, are both religious symbols, it is true. It is
also
true that both symbols carry some political connotations but : Both the
Red
Cross, and the Red crescent, act globally, secularly, and apolitically.
Neither, is directly responsible to any single country's government.
Are you saying that only in Israel would a Red Cross affiliate be political?
Where is your proof for such a statement?
For this reason, they can both work where other, more politically or
religiously
biased organisations, could not.
Again, I ask you how you can make this statement.
What proof do you have that a Magen Dovid Adom would be
More political/religious" than the Red Crescent?
This is pre-judging on your part.
The Star of David, is the current symbol of both Israel, and judaism.,
As the Crescent in the symbol of Islam & Islamic nations.
You are *not* making any sort of case here!
and
Israel has never been known to act apolitically.
How disingenuous!
Show me ANY government that EVER has!!
Besides, apart from Israel, where could the Star of David work, and be as
trusted as the Red Cross, or the Red crescent?
Are you saying that because there will be bigots in other countries that
Israel should be penalized?
Declaring your cross non-religious is sort of like
saying that the 10 commandments on a court wall is not religious and
that a creche on city hall property is non-religious. Waving your
hands does not make the symbolism go away. It was offensive in 1948 to
demand that Israelis adopt the use of the cross to be allowed to join
an organization.
So they were offended: Oh dear, What a pity.
yes, how dare anyone have manners, or expect others to have them.
Atheists have to accept the cross and the crescent:
You do?
Is anyone really forcing you to go to the Red Cross or the Red Crescent?
Is anyone keeping you from making an atheist version of the Red Cross?
If so, then please add me to your list of supporters; you are as entitled as
anyone not to be offfended.
What makes the
Israelis, so
special?
The fact they they, alone, are being kept from having an appropriate symbol
for their Ree cross affiliation, *that's* what.
There are more atheists in the world, than there are jews.
Particularly when Moslems are allowed to use a
crescent.
There are a lot more muslims, than jews, as well.
So might makes right? The majority rules just "because"?
Face it Matt, they wouldn't be allowed into a muslim country, if they were
admitted this minute, and I have grave doubts about the number of xtian
countries who would allow them across their borders.
The Star of David is directly controlled by the Israeli government,
And your proof is....?
(And, even if it is so, you are being 2-faced. To say that they can't
affiliate
with the Red Cross, so they have to be supported by the government (if
they are), but then blame them for that? Incredibly unfair, to say the
least.)
and
there
aint many countries going to let an arm of the Israeli government have
free run
of their countries, no matter what the crises
Now you are just lying.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 06:28:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 02:56:49 GMT, in alt.atheism , Dubh Ghall
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> in <60pqm19hc5u6k6dh7pakqmq4uj7st83stc@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:38:40 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
How is the Israeli star religious and political and the Moslem
crescent is not?
The cross, and the crescent, are both religious symbols, it is true. It is also
true that both symbols carry some political connotations but : Both the Red
Cross, and the Red crescent, act globally, secularly, and apolitically.
Neither, is directly responsible to any single country's government.
Are you claiming that Mogen David Adom is?
For this reason, they can both work where other, more politically or religiously
biased organisations, could not.
The Star of David, is the current symbol of both Israel, and judaism., and
Israel has never been known to act apolitically.
ROTFLMAO.
Besides, apart from Israel, where could the Star of David work, and be as
trusted as the Red Cross, or the Red crescent?
Tsunami relief?
Declaring your cross non-religious is sort of like
saying that the 10 commandments on a court wall is not religious and
that a creche on city hall property is non-religious. Waving your
hands does not make the symbolism go away. It was offensive in 1948 to
demand that Israelis adopt the use of the cross to be allowed to join
an organization.
So they were offended: Oh dear, What a pity.
Atheists have to accept the cross and the crescent: What makes the Israelis, so
special?
There are more atheists in the world, than there are jews.
So we now shift from a claim that the Cross is not religious to whine
about atheists.
Particularly when Moslems are allowed to use a
crescent.
There are a lot more muslims, than jews, as well.
So it is a popularity contest. It is ok to discriminate against small
religions, we won't even notice. And we can still call them totally
non-religious.
Face it Matt, they wouldn't be allowed into a muslim country, if they were
admitted this minute, and I have grave doubts about the number of xtian
countries who would allow them across their borders.
So let's let the bigots win. After all, there are more atheists and we
have to care about them, not the Jews.
The Star of David is directly controlled by the Israeli government,
Say what?
and there
aint many countries going to let an arm of the Israeli government have free run
of their countries, no matter what the crises
Please show that Mogen David Adom is more controlled than the Red
Crescent organization from, say, three Arab countries.
--
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: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
06 Nov 2005 09:56:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:28:27 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Besides, apart from Israel, where could the Star of David work, and be as
trusted as the Red Cross, or the Red crescent?
Tsunami relief?
Provided it is not muslim communities that are suffering.
But there is no reason that they cannot offer aid, on their own initiative.
snip
Please show that Mogen David Adom is more controlled than the Red
Crescent organization from, say, three Arab countries.
You are presuming that, because they have the same religion, they have the same
political agenda.
It is the political differences, between the participating countries, that
ensures the neutrality, of the Red Crescent, and the Red Cross.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 02:59:38 AM |
|
|
On 6-Nov-2005, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:28:27 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Besides, apart from Israel, where could the Star of David work, and be
as
trusted as the Red Cross, or the Red crescent?
Tsunami relief?
Provided it is not muslim communities that are suffering.
Huh?
But there is no reason that they cannot offer aid, on their own
initiative.
She does.
But why should *she* be excluded just because of Arab countries?
snip
Please show that Mogen David Adom is more controlled than the Red
Crescent organization from, say, three Arab countries.
You are presuming that, because they have the same religion, they have the
same
political agenda.
Actually, that is *your* assumprion, and you have dodged the question.
It is the political differences, between the participating countries,
that
ensures the neutrality, of the Red Crescent, and the Red Cross.
Specious & unproven; also an "argument" FOR the Red Star.
Why did you skip all the questions Matt put to you in his previous post
(below)?
Susan
On 6-Nov-2005, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 02:56:49 GMT, in alt.atheism , Dubh Ghall
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> in <60pqm19hc5u6k6dh7pakqmq4uj7st83stc@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:38:40 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
How is the Israeli star religious and political and the Moslem
crescent is not?
The cross, and the crescent, are both religious symbols, it is true. It
is also
true that both symbols carry some political connotations but : Both the
Red
Cross, and the Red crescent, act globally, secularly, and apolitically.
Neither, is directly responsible to any single country's government.
Are you claiming that Mogen David Adom is?
For this reason, they can both work where other, more politically or
religiously
biased organisations, could not.
The Star of David, is the current symbol of both Israel, and judaism.,
and
Israel has never been known to act apolitically.
ROTFLMAO.
Besides, apart from Israel, where could the Star of David work, and be as
trusted as the Red Cross, or the Red crescent?
Tsunami relief?
Declaring your cross non-religious is sort of like
saying that the 10 commandments on a court wall is not religious and
that a creche on city hall property is non-religious. Waving your
hands does not make the symbolism go away. It was offensive in 1948 to
demand that Israelis adopt the use of the cross to be allowed to join
an organization.
So they were offended: Oh dear, What a pity.
Atheists have to accept the cross and the crescent: What makes the
Israelis, so
special?
There are more atheists in the world, than there are jews.
So we now shift from a claim that the Cross is not religious to whine
about atheists.
Particularly when Moslems are allowed to use a
crescent.
There are a lot more muslims, than jews, as well.
So it is a popularity contest. It is ok to discriminate against small
religions, we won't even notice. And we can still call them totally
non-religious.
Face it Matt, they wouldn't be allowed into a muslim country, if they
were
admitted this minute, and I have grave doubts about the number of xtian
countries who would allow them across their borders.
So let's let the bigots win. After all, there are more atheists and we
have to care about them, not the Jews.
The Star of David is directly controlled by the Israeli government,
Say what?
and there
aint many countries going to let an arm of the Israeli government have
free run
of their countries, no matter what the crises
Please show that Mogen David Adom is more controlled than the Red
Crescent organization from, say, three Arab countries.
--
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 |
07 Nov 2005 08:39:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:56:31 GMT, in alt.atheism , Dubh Ghall
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> in <054sm1h1kcdv4ntu7nbhqs5onujktobeip@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:28:27 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Besides, apart from Israel, where could the Star of David work, and be as
trusted as the Red Cross, or the Red crescent?
Tsunami relief?
Provided it is not muslim communities that are suffering.
If you are claiming that Israel does not help Muslims then you should
back up your claim with some evidence.
But there is no reason that they cannot offer aid, on their own initiative.
Separate but equal is equal, right? And the ICRC is useless anyway.
snip
Please show that Mogen David Adom is more controlled than the Red
Crescent organization from, say, three Arab countries.
You are presuming that, because they have the same religion, they have the same
political agenda.
No, I am asking you to defend your claims
It is the political differences, between the participating countries, that
ensures the neutrality, of the Red Crescent, and the Red Cross.
You have claimed that the MDA is an arm of the Israeli government in a
way that differs from other countries relief organizations. Please
back up your own claim.
--
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: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 04:00:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:39:23 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:56:31 GMT, in alt.atheism , Dubh Ghall
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> in <054sm1h1kcdv4ntu7nbhqs5onujktobeip@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:28:27 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Besides, apart from Israel, where could the Star of David work, and be as
trusted as the Red Cross, or the Red crescent?
Tsunami relief?
Provided it is not muslim communities that are suffering.
If you are claiming that Israel does not help Muslims then you should
back up your claim with some evidence.
Well, let me see. There is the land they stole off the Palestinians. Then
there is the murder of Palistinians.Knocking down their homes. Locking
Palestinians up in concent H^H^H^ sorry, looking after Palestinians in refugee
camps.
All for their own good, I'm sure.
So anyway: Where did I say that Israel, was unwilling to help muslims?
You are reading only what you want to see.
But there is no reason that they cannot offer aid, on their own initiative.
Separate but equal is equal, right? And the ICRC is useless anyway.
So what are you bitching about?
snip
Please show that Mogen David Adom is more controlled than the Red
Crescent organization from, say, three Arab countries.
You are presuming that, because they have the same religion, they have the same
political agenda.
No, I am asking you to defend your claims
You seem to have snipped, whatever claim you want me to defend.
It is the political differences, between the participating countries, that
ensures the neutrality, of the Red Crescent, and the Red Cross.
You have claimed that the MDA is an arm of the Israeli government in a
way that differs from other countries relief organizations. Please
back up your own claim.
Well there I do have a problem. I can't prove what I have seen, but I don't
suppose that 50 years has changed anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 04:34:32 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:67ivm19oq69gb21qae35m1csjeubtsnijn@4ax.com:
Well, let me see. There is the land they stole off the Palestinians.
Then there is the murder of Palistinians.Knocking down their homes.
Locking Palestinians up in concent H^H^H^ sorry, looking after
Palestinians in refugee camps.
It is the other Arab states keeping them in refugee camps, loon, not
Israel. Even their fellow Arabs don't seem to want the Palestinians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 07:42:55 PM |
|
|
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9707947865BA7retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:67ivm19oq69gb21qae35m1csjeubtsnijn@4ax.com:
Well, let me see. There is the land they stole off the Palestinians.
Then there is the murder of Palistinians.Knocking down their homes.
Locking Palestinians up in concent H^H^H^ sorry, looking after
Palestinians in refugee camps.
It is the other Arab states keeping them in refugee camps, loon, not
Israel. Even their fellow Arabs don't seem to want the Palestinians.
It isn't so much that they don't want them (the
Palestinians) as much as they are more useful to
them where they are.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 04:37:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:34:32 GMT, Dave Lister <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is the other Arab states keeping them in refugee camps, loon, not
Israel. Even their fellow Arabs don't seem to want the Palestinians.
Of course it is.
And it is the other Arab states that stole their land, knocked down their
homes, killed their families, and herded them into camps, in the first place, as
well; I suppose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: International Red Cross and Atheists |
07 Nov 2005 04:49:39 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:grlvm1h5spbjb4aijttjhhaqlaoba883ee@4ax.com:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:34:32 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is the other Arab states keeping them in refugee camps, loon, not
Israel. Even their fellow Arabs don't seem to want the Palestinians.
Of course it is.
And it is the other Arab states that stole their land, knocked down
their
homes, killed their families, and herded them into camps, in the first
place, as well; I suppose.
The Arab states certainly play a role in all of that, by keeping the heat
on under the Palestinians who they see as cannon fodder for their own
designs against Israel.
Bottom line is that the land has changed hands so many times in history
nobody has clear title. The Arabs need to make due with the 99% of the
middle east they already possess, and leave the 1% that is Israel and
occupied terrirtories alone.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
