Army symbol is religious, should be changed

[ironsides]

DENVER – A religious watchdog group says a cross and motto on the emblem of an Army hospital in Colorado violate the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state and should be removed.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation asked the Army this week to change the emblem of Evans Army Community Hospital at Fort Carson, outside Colorado Springs.
The emblem says "Pro deo et humanitate" or "For God and humanity."
Fort Carson commanders will review the complaint, Lt. Col. Steve Wollman said.
He said the emblem had been approved by the Army Institute of Heraldry and has been in use since 1969.
Wollman said references to doctors serving God and humanity date to the time of Hippocrates, a pre-Christianity Greek physician.

Group: Army symbol is religious, should be changed - Yahoo! News

 

[ironsides]

My feelings about this is: This is a hospital serving the sick, wounded and dying. Religion just might offer them hope. Leave it alone.

 

[bailan]

I am amazed as to how little is necessary to get some people's panties in a bunch.

I hope the army will refuse, in the name of tradition.

 

[lone wolf]

It's a sword....

 

[DaSleeper]

These politically correct numbnuts need a hobby .....I would suggest holding up the 300 yds targets for the army target practice:lol:

 

[Risus]

These politically correct numbnuts need a hobby .....I would suggest holding up the 300 yds targets for the army target practice:lol:

Good idea!!

 

[lone wolf]

This year there might be lots of opportunities for them in the Northern Ontario bush.... Tree-hugging with handcuffs (just in case the peacenick crowd feels offended)

 

[Tonington]

It's a sword....

Used as a symbol by Emperor Constantine, the sword is imperial Christianity.

 

[Colpy]

Used as a symbol by Emperor Constantine, the sword is imperial Christianity.

Ah yes....quite fitting for the lead nation in the clash of civilizations.......the Crusade to defend western Christian freedom from the fascist eastern hordes, don't ya think????

 

[Tonington]

Now see, you had to go and say defend western Christian freedoms. That is ostensibly making the point for the watchdog groups that look for this stuff. What's more, it's ironic. If all we had were Christian freedoms and no secular separation, our freedoms wouldn't exist as they do now.

 

[Colpy]

Now see, you had to go and say defend western Christian freedoms. That is ostensibly making the point for the watchdog groups that look for this stuff. What's more, it's ironic. If all we had were Christian freedoms and no secular separation, our freedoms wouldn't exist as they do now.

Everything is relative, and I issue a challenge...

Find me a free nation, a liberal society that did NOT spring from western Christian tradition.........

It's not impossible, but it ain't easy.

The very premise of the Rights of Man" sprang from the philosophy of John Locke, who believed that if all men were equal in the eyes of God.............then they must be equal in society as well.

And, I had my tongue firmly in cheek in the original post.

 

[Tonington]

Japan.

So your irony was intentional? It wouldn't seem so, given your follow-up...

 

[Praxius]

Separation of church and state applies.... it doesn't matter if they used the logo since 1969.... a lot of things were done in 1969 that aren't done today.

The logo isn't that great anyways. Just change the motto and replace the christian cross with a medical cross and everybody's happy.

I'd bet that if some medical group made a islam logo with some islamic saying in their logo, the whole situation would be different with some in here.... there'd be people freaking out that they're not adopting to our culture and western way of life, or they'd say they'd refuse treatment from them based on principle.

Just goes to show the huge contrast between our tolerance for Christians compared to Muslims.... we've been around Christians for so long, we give them more breathing room for things like this then we do with Muslims.

I think they should change the logo and I hope they do.

They're supposed to be treating patients who need medical attention, not advertising for God... and not every person at that hospital are Christian I imagine.

I imagine the cross stayed on the logo for so long because back in 1969, people were too high to notice.

 

[Machjo]

Everything is relative, and I issue a challenge...

Find me a free nation, a liberal society that did NOT spring from western Christian tradition.........

It's not impossible, but it ain't easy.

The very premise of the Rights of Man" sprang from the philosophy of John Locke, who believed that if all men were equal in the eyes of God.............then they must be equal in society as well.

And, I had my tongue firmly in cheek in the original post.

At one point Jews and non-Catholic Christians fled to Muslim Spain to avoid religious persecution. In fact one Pope had studied at the University of Madrid while it was under Muslim rule, prior to becoming Pope.

 

[Machjo]

DENVER – A religious watchdog group says a cross and motto on the emblem of an Army hospital in Colorado violate the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state and should be removed.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation asked the Army this week to change the emblem of Evans Army Community Hospital at Fort Carson, outside Colorado Springs.
The emblem says "Pro deo et humanitate" or "For God and humanity."
Fort Carson commanders will review the complaint, Lt. Col. Steve Wollman said.
He said the emblem had been approved by the Army Institute of Heraldry and has been in use since 1969.
Wollman said references to doctors serving God and humanity date to the time of Hippocrates, a pre-Christianity Greek physician.

Group: Army symbol is religious, should be changed - Yahoo! News

Who determines what a symbol means in the law?

For example, a Swastika means something very different to a Nazi, a Jain, a Buddhist, and a Hindu. Even in pre-Nazi Europe, many Europeans used the Swastika. A case in point is Rudyard Kipling. He is well known as a British Imperialist of the traditional variety, which were firmly anti-Nazi. At one point he had the Swastika removed from one of his books as Nazism was growing so as to not be associated with its ideology. I remember reading about another occasion when underneath the floor of a church they'd found an older floor covered with a repetitive pattern of Swastikas and it pre-dated Nazi Germany.

Now looking at the cross. It's usually used as a symbol of Christianity, but it has been confused with other meanings to. For instance, the Red Cross was intended not to represent the Christian Faith but Switzerland. Many Muslims, ignorant of the appearance of the Swiss Flag and so imposing a Christian interpretation of the symbol, demanded the parallel Red Crescent Society. Some Jews had likewise misinterpreted it and established the Red Star of David Society.

The question then becomes: Who has the legal right to impose a particular meaning, religious or otherwise, on a symbol other than the person using it?

So if the Army says that it's even pre-Christian, then do we have the right to impose a Christian meaning onto it? Is that not equal to imposing a Nazi meaning onto the Swastika when the user may intend a whole other meaning?

Personally, I'd say the user of the symbol reserves the right to impose his own meaning on it. As such, if the military says it has a pre-Christian meaning, then it's not up to us to impose a Christian meaning onto it.

Another example is the green five-pointed star, which again can have a number of meanings depending on the intended meaning of the user of the symbol. And again, who reserves the right to impose a meaning on another person's use of a symbol?

 

[DurkaDurka]

I'd bet that if some medical group made a islam logo with some islamic saying in their logo, the whole situation would be different with some in here.... there'd be people freaking out that they're not adopting to our culture and western way of life, or they'd say they'd refuse treatment from them based on principle.

What do fictional medical groups have to do with this? It seems you are dragging Islam into this in order to falsely label the US as being hypocritical & xenophobic.

 

[Praxius]

What do fictional medical groups have to do with this? It seems you are dragging Islam into this in order to falsely label the US as being hypocritical & xenophobic.

It was a hypothetical... when I look at this logo and the words around it.... it speaks more of Christianity then it does Medical service.

And if it was Islamic graphics and islamic sayings, I'd view it the exact same way.... that was the hypothetical.... but the other hypothetical wasn't geared at labeling the US as anything.... I was labeling those who posted in here saying it's not a big deal and those who disagree with them should be used for target practice.

If they're supposed to separate church and state, then technically speaking, this logo is inappropriate. It's as simple as that.

 

[Mowich]

My feelings about this is: This is a hospital serving the sick, wounded and dying. Religion just might offer them hope. Leave it alone.

Ditto. :smile:

 

[Praxius]

..... The question then becomes: Who has the legal right to impose a particular meaning, religious or otherwise, on a symbol other than the person using it?

So if the Army says that it's even pre-Christian, then do we have the right to impose a Christian meaning onto it? Is that not equal to imposing a Nazi meaning onto the Swastika when the user may intend a whole other meaning?

Your argument would hold substance if it was just a picture of the cross with the bottom point... it indeed could be interpreted as a few different things.... however the slogan around the logo pretty well tells you what it means.

Personally, I'd say the user of the symbol reserves the right to impose his own meaning on it. As such, if the military says it has a pre-Christian meaning, then it's not up to us to impose a Christian meaning onto it.

It's pretty much up to the courts/law to determine. If they feel a logo/symbol can be viewed as offensive or it breaks rules/laws in the community, they can determine this and force it to be changed/removed.

If I make a logo that's the shape of a penis pointing downwards but say it's supposed to be a tree or an elephant of some kind.... if it can be viewed and thought of as being a penis, then I can be told to change it/take it down because it resembles a penis.

^ This large native statue is in Truro NS.... originally it was erected with both its hands in a downward position.... but due to the angle and positioning it was placed, when many motorist drove by on the highway, it looked like the statue was masturbating. More and more people noticed this and all said the same thing, that it looked like he was masturbating.

The artist then went back and replaced the "Offending" arm so that it was raised and was holding a torch.

The artist didn't intend it to look like he was masturbating, but that's what the majority of the community saw.

 

[lone wolf]

How many military hospitals were staffed by nursing Sisters?