With our current cosmopolitan population, the religious significance of the cross of st George, is no longer representitive, maybe the cross should be similar to that of St Andrew?
This would also mean changing the Union Flag.
2006-10-01 20:35:53 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I don't see why we need flags at all, they played a part in our barbaric past, but are obsolete these days. I say lets get rid all together
2006-10-01 22:13:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I hope you are trying to take the mickey out of political correctness - if so, well done. If not, why should a country change its ancient symbols for newcomers who may not like it? The Crusades were 800 years ago - people should get over it. If they really hate the flag that much, they shouldn't come here. For most people in the country the England flag today means football, and while I'm not a football fan I respect that it's been around a long time. And the Union Jack is one of the best-known flags on earth; most organisations would love to have the brand recognition that the UK has. The flag represents everything about a country, not just some aspects, and this includes those things which attracted newcomers to Britain. Would you destroy everything that shows us where we come from? And replace it with what? Something naff and happy-clappy, I suspect, that would symbolise nothing.
2006-10-01 22:13:57 · answer #2 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was created at a time when religion was significant and I expect a lot of other country's flag creations at that time was also based on some religious symbolism.
Yes, as religion slowly fades out across the world ,and people become more educated and knowledgable about fact rather than fiction, the origin of the flag starts to become meaningless but its no reason to change over to the latest fad in flag design (a picture of a politician taking a backhander? ) just because we are in a differant time.
I'm not religious but I wear a St Christopher, because I like it. I dont see the requirement to stop doing that ?.
2006-10-02 00:40:53 · answer #3 · answered by Jon H 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO WAY St George is the paintron saint of England its is part of this country's heritage and identity and if people get offended by the English flag Ive got the solution get out of England so they don't have to look at it
p.s
this question is like saying ban all Islamic symbols because it might offend survivors and and the dead peoples family's of 9/11 or7/7
2006-10-02 00:04:17 · answer #4 · answered by doc_holliday (enoch was right) 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Negative, while the historical significance of the flag is religeous, nowadays, it's like the word's "in god we trust" on a US dollar. It's just too "generic" to really have religeous meaning to anyone. It's just the flag to people. Yeah, it's a cross, but that was a long time ago. Most countries only change the flag when there is a new form of government or revolution. Neither is happening in your case.
2006-10-01 20:45:40 · answer #5 · answered by shogun_316 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
As a historical figure, there should be no objections to him being "adopted" in the thirteenth century by England.
He was born in Turkey (280) and enlisted in the roman army at 17. He later fought against the persecution of the religious minorities (including christians) by the romans and was beheaded by them in Palestine (303). This was before the council of Nicea in 329 where the Romans created the "official" version of christianity with the trinity etc.
The problem is that he was later associated with the bloodthirsty invasions and loot/pillage/rampage of the middle east by europeans who were exempted from taxes and given leave by the catholic church to commit sins during service.
I think it is the image of St George as fighting for freedom to worship free of tyranny that needs to be changed from the current false associations..
Perhaps he should be "adopted" by the Palestinian Christians and muslims as well.
2006-10-01 21:24:26 · answer #6 · answered by Nothing to say? 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We have given in to too many things which were once normal for us. If change the Union Flag, when will we start to demolish the abbeys and cathedrals? After all, they are in the shape of a cross.
2006-10-01 22:17:42 · answer #7 · answered by Alex 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NO WAY. If people find it offensive then they can go live where there's a pretty politically correct flag. We should change the Union Flag to just a plain white background with a £ on it to let more foreigners know we are a cash cow and it is their duty to come milk us. Oh no they're doing it already.
2006-10-01 21:06:59 · answer #8 · answered by Harv S 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree with most of the other answers. No way should we even consider changing the flag - particularly for such a silly reason as suggested by the question. It would show weakness and a lack of conviction for what Britain is - and that is not giving in to bully boys that want to change its make up into something else.
2006-10-01 20:58:59 · answer #9 · answered by Paul B 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
if the cross of st george offends you go live in a country where they don't have the cross of st george i'm fed up of people trying to change this countries heritage and traditions no one cares about offending the english in our own country
2006-10-02 00:05:21 · answer #10 · answered by covleg 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
possibly the bible is known, yet Christianity isn't. in case you study your historic previous, you'll see how Christians were persecuted; sewn up contained in the skins of animals and thrown into the wasteland for wild animals to eat them; burned alive. Nailed to crosses. or perhaps at present, it really is about the only faith you'll see criticized in united statesa.. certainly, Christianity isn't a attractiveness contest.
2016-11-25 22:04:35 · answer #11 · answered by reader 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋