"Symbolism," according to Edward N. West in "Outward Signs," his classic study of Christian symbols, "is so powerful that the message conveyed, regardless of origin or context, is perfectly clear."

To its lasting regret and perplexity, the Red Cross has found that observation to be all too true. When the international humanitarian organization was founded in Geneva, Switzerland, in1864, the symbol of a red cross on a white field was adopted, not for its religious significance, but -- by reversing the Swiss flag -- as a tribute to that country's tradition of neutrality. In "origin and context," the red cross was intended to transcend national borders and religious differences, not to suggest them.

It wasn't long before the rest of the world set the idealistic Europeans straight -- just 12 years, in fact. During the Crimean War, the Ottoman Turks understandably saw the red cross as an unambiguous Christian symbol and at once began using a red crescent on a white ground instead, so as not "to give offense to Muslim soldiers." By the turn of the century, other requests were being floated: Persia wanted a red lion and sun, Siam a red flame. Ultimately, the Geneva Convention of 1929 officially recognized the red cross, the red crescent and the red lion and sun (although Iran dropped use of the last in 1980). This decision was reaffirmed by the 1949 Diplomatic Conference to revise the Geneva Conventions, thus closing the door on any further proliferation of emblems. Or so it was hoped.