Of symbols
This symbol will no longer represent the Chaplain Branch of the Canadian Forces:
Instead, these symbols will:
From the press release:
I understand the reasoning behind the change, and I appreciate that in matters of faith, one religious symbol shouldn't trump others. But what of Sikhs? What of Hindus? What of non-Christian Aboriginal Canadians? What of the rest of the religious spectrum?
Moving to three symbols rather than one is intended to be more inclusive. But at least with only one, you could argue that all faiths came under a single umbrella - the Chaplain Branch of the CF. Now that each cap-brass is individualized, but only for the 'big three' religions, there's an argument to be made that choosing three and excluding the rest is more polarizing than having just one for everyone.
Would it not have been better to stay with one symbol for all, but remove exclusively Christian symbolism from it - the Maltese Cross being the most obvious example? It would have meant a 'secular' cap-brass for a branch whose raison-d'etre is religious, I know. But it might have been a better solution than picking the top three and marginalizing everyone else.
In the grand scheme of things, this is a peripheral matter. But I wonder if this is a can of worms that would have better been left unopened.
Instead, these symbols will:
From the press release:
In order to better represent the diversity of Canadian society, and reflect the multi-faith nature of today’s chaplaincy, it was determined that the hat badges worn by CF chaplains should be updated and new designs have been adopted.
As the Chaplain Branch is no longer exclusively Christian, the new hat badges are unified by a common theme, but bear the distinctive faith identifiers of the chaplains who will wear them.
In the center of the hat badge is a different symbol for each faith tradition: for Christian chaplains, the Maltese cross, which has long been associated with Christian chaplaincy. Jewish chaplains will wear the symbol of the tablets of the Law and the Magen David (the star of David) and Muslim chaplains will wear the crescent.
I understand the reasoning behind the change, and I appreciate that in matters of faith, one religious symbol shouldn't trump others. But what of Sikhs? What of Hindus? What of non-Christian Aboriginal Canadians? What of the rest of the religious spectrum?
Moving to three symbols rather than one is intended to be more inclusive. But at least with only one, you could argue that all faiths came under a single umbrella - the Chaplain Branch of the CF. Now that each cap-brass is individualized, but only for the 'big three' religions, there's an argument to be made that choosing three and excluding the rest is more polarizing than having just one for everyone.
Would it not have been better to stay with one symbol for all, but remove exclusively Christian symbolism from it - the Maltese Cross being the most obvious example? It would have meant a 'secular' cap-brass for a branch whose raison-d'etre is religious, I know. But it might have been a better solution than picking the top three and marginalizing everyone else.
In the grand scheme of things, this is a peripheral matter. But I wonder if this is a can of worms that would have better been left unopened.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:23 p.m.
1 Comments:
I would like to know how many Muslims there are in the CF. I suspect there might be enough to hold a consolidated prayer, but I suspect that on each of the various bases across the country, you're looking at something less than tumbleweed.
Also, does this mean there will still be separate services for Catholic and Protestant, or have they lumped them all together now?
Post a Comment
<< Home