Religious symbols in public buildings?

marti8

Hi, I'm agnostic and a few months back I had to go to a local HSE office to see a CWO. While I was sitting there waiting, looking at my feet and twidling my tumbs (as you do ) I looked up and up on the wall was one of those religious pictures of Mary........for a second I couldn't believe what I was seeing, had I somehow timewarped back to 1969? Nope, I was welll and truly in 2009! While Dev might be proud it pi*ses me off.

Are they allowed to display religious symbols in public (State) buildings? We used to live in Cork and I never came across that "problem" but now we live in a more rural town and lo and behold the Legion of Mary have infiltrated the local HSE! I was going to say something, complain, when I finally got in to see the CWO but for all I know she might think agnostic is some type of mental disorder! Or she might have just laughed and brushed it aside with some comment similar to "ah, sure, you see now, well, there are, well, how can I put it like........WE ARE CATHOLICS AND YOU ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN......." So much for my rent allowance application then, eh?

On a side note, I can remember back in the early 90's having to give evidence in court about a car crash and they dragged out the bible for me to swear on, I told them I wouldn't and there was a bit of a gasp and a hush and in its place they made me affirm on the constitution or something I think. Ah, progress.....:)

Should I complain or just leave Mary where she is? Thanks

Cork4ever

Ammmm whats the harm of a picture of a woman, if you believe she is the Virign Mary if you don't it is a picture of a woman that lived in Isreal about 2000 years ago.

I am a catholic and i love my faith. I respect your agnocsticism, i really i do i respect the fact that its your choice but i cannot see why a picture of Mary would affect you, what exactly is offensive

if the picture had a bubble coming out of her mouth saying "all agnocstics are evil" i could see where you would get offended.

personally i think Atheism & Agnostics in general are a bit too over the top when it comes to this

i am reminded about the story in the UK when certain people said it was offensive to non christians having a Crib at the front of a hospital around Christmas time, the Chief Rabbi in England came out and asked what can be possibly offsenive about a little baby, his family and a few animals looking at each other......

Undergod

I'm agnostic and inclined to agree. Only a picture.

robindch

marti8 wrote: »

Should I complain or just leave Mary where she is? Thanks

I'd ask for a framed photo of Richard Dawkins to be placed beside her.

If they're respecting the local religious hegemony, then they should extend equal respect to your beliefs about religion too.

jhegarty

If the picture was of Napoleon Bonaparte would you have been offended ?

Cork4ever

robindch wrote: »

I'd ask for a framed photo of Richard Dawkins to be placed beside her.

If they're respecting the local religious hegemony, then they should extend equal respect to your beliefs about religion too.

nice to know that dawkins is seen as a religious figure.....:D

Zombrex

Cork4ever wrote: »

Ammmm whats the harm of a picture of a woman, if you believe she is the Virign Mary if you don't it is a picture of a woman that lived in Isreal about 2000 years ago.

What is the harm with removing the picture and having public building free from religious iconography?

Cork4ever

Wicknight wrote: »

What is the harm with removing the picture and having public building free from religious iconography?

and whats the harm in leaving it there

robindch

Cork4ever wrote: »

nice to know that dawkins is seen as a religious figure.

Nah, he's just somebody who gets up the noses of many religious people, just as religious propaganda gets up the noses of many non-religious people

But we're a nice lot and we don't like to see you annoyed. So the piccy should come down!

Cork4ever

robindch wrote: »

Nah, he's just somebody who gets up the noses of many religious people, just as religious propaganda gets up the noses of many non-religious people

But we're a nice lot and we don't like to see you annoyed. So the piccy should come down!

i will pray for ye all........including dawkins.....he doesn't boder me one bit.....

Stercus Accidit

Cork4ever wrote: »

and whats the harm in leaving it there

This thread, others who think its inappropriate, some of those graphic images of men bleeding and hanging off crosses are hardly uplifting.

Why not a picture of some bdsm?


Religious iconography, non-religious building, remove the picture.

Nick_oliveri

Seriously, get over it! Its not worth your time.
Im inclined to agree with the "men bleeding and hanging off crosses" post above, its not very nice, but that is a form of art, as was your picture. Fnd some new cause tbh.

Flamed Diving

marti8 wrote: »

Hi, I'm agnostic and a few months back I had to go to a local HSE office to see a CWO. While I was sitting there waiting, looking at my feet and twidling my tumbs (as you do ) I looked up and up on the wall was one of those religious pictures of Mary........for a second I couldn't believe what I was seeing, had I somehow timewarped back to 1969? Nope, I was welll and truly in 2009! While Dev might be proud it pi*ses me off.

Are they allowed to display religious symbols in public (State) buildings? We used to live in Cork and I never came across that "problem" but now we live in a more rural town and lo and behold the Legion of Mary have infiltrated the local HSE! I was going to say something, complain, when I finally got in to see the CWO but for all I know she might think agnostic is some type of mental disorder! Or she might have just laughed and brushed it aside with some comment similar to "ah, sure, you see now, well, there are, well, how can I put it like........WE ARE CATHOLICS AND YOU ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN......." So much for my rent allowance application then, eh?

On a side note, I can remember back in the early 90's having to give evidence in court about a car crash and they dragged out the bible for me to swear on, I told them I wouldn't and there was a bit of a gasp and a hush and in its place they made me affirm on the constitution or something I think. Ah, progress.....:)

Should I complain or just leave Mary where she is? Thanks

Shame you didn't say it, you might have gotten a few more quid out of it!

robindch

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

graphic images of men bleeding and hanging off crosses are hardly uplifting.

Reminds me of the main catholic church in Kiev, just up from glorious Khreshchatyk. As you go in the door, the only decorations immediately visible are three corpses dangling, to judge from the amount of crimson blood on one of them and the tortured expressions on all three, that Jesus died in unimaginable agony.

A religion of love? Not obviously, I have to say.

jhegarty

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

This thread, others who think its inappropriate, some of those graphic images of men bleeding and hanging off crosses are hardly uplifting.

Why not a picture of some bdsm?


Religious iconography, non-religious building, remove the picture.

The be fair I would agree that the OP would had a point if it was that type of picture.

But it wasn't.

Stercus Accidit

jhegarty wrote: »

The be fair I would agree that the OP would had a point if it was that type of picture.

But it wasn't.

It doesn't matter, its a religious image in a public building, of a particular religion, there is no other iconography from other religions, just this one, that makes a statement of affiliation, the hospital is a catholic hospital, which it shouldn't be, it should be a public hospital, and therefore shouldn't express affiliation for any faith over any other.

pH

The "what harms does it do?" argument only gets you so far, are you saying that everyone has a right to have their religious motifs displayed in public buildings - Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Satanist and Pagan, or are you really saying "Ahh sure just leave the ones we have up - oh they just happen to be Catholic do they? I've never checked!"

One way leads to a state sponsored (or at least favoured) religion, the other to the bitterness and chaos seen around Christmas displays is various US public buildings last year.

Of course there's a third Irish way, ignore it when it suits you, then accuse anyone who would like it to be different of making mountains out of molehills. I particularly like sound advice to reinterpret the picture in another manner, we should have told the Iraqis to leave their statues of Saddam up and just think of them as a man who lived in the region at the end of the twentieth century.

Cork4ever

pH wrote: »

The "what harms does it do?" argument only gets you so far, are you saying that everyone has a right to have their religious motifs displayed in public buildings - Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Satanist and Pagan, or are you really saying "Ahh sure just leave the ones we have up - oh they just happen to be Catholic do they? I've never checked!"

One way leads to a state sponsored (or at least favoured) religion, the other to the bitterness and chaos seen around Christmas displays is various US public buildings last year.

Of course there's a third Irish way, ignore it when it suits you, then accuse anyone who would like it to be different of making mountains out of molehills. I particularly like sound advice to reinterpret the picture in another manner, we should have told the Iraqis to leave their statues of Saddam up and just think of them as a man who lived in the region at the end of the twentieth century.

So a picture of Mary is akin to Saddam.....can i suggest you find some realism in that Atheistic life of yours

Woger

With the sate of the health service how do you know it's not a new HSE initiative of turning to prayer?

pts

Cork4ever wrote: »

So a picture of Mary is akin to Saddam.....can i suggest you find some realism in that Atheistic life of yours

I don't think you've read/understood the point made. The point made (I think) is that either all religious imagery is allowed in public buildings or no religious imagery is allowed in public buildings. Of course the definition of a religion will be problematic (are pictures of Xenu allowed?)

Mike 1972

So a picture of Mary is akin to Saddam

Of course not.

The number of people murdered by followers of Saddam is only a tiny fraction............

Overheal

In a medical/hospital environment, I wouldn't be too surprised to see religious parephenelia here and there. Its the Ten Commandments showing up in US Public Buildings that really puts me off.

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Religious iconography, non-religious building, remove the picture.

I'd be in full agreement with Cork4Ever, too seriously taken on this one. What next? Bar chaplains from hospitals? Or tell a nurse not to offer to pray for someone? Telling kids not to wear religious symbols to school if they want to? I really don't think Ireland should be dragged along the same pedantic road that other European states have been concerning trivial things such as these.

Lobelia Overhill

robindch wrote: »

Reminds me of the main catholic church in Kiev, just up from glorious Khreshchatyk. As you go in the door, the only decorations immediately visible are three corpses dangling, to judge from the amount of crimson blood on one of them and the tortured expressions on all three, that Jesus died in unimaginable agony.

Which is my main bug bear about religion! :eek: couldn't they use the Buddy Jesus from Dogma?!

Personally I wouldn't really bother about a pic of the BVM, practically every town here has a shrine as you enter, I see it as no different to having posters of whatever pop group/sports personality whatever you might find up on a wall somewhere ...

coffee_cake

Overheal wrote: »

In a medical/hospital environment, I wouldn't be too surprised to see religious parephenelia here and there. Its the Ten Commandments showing up in US Public Buildings that really puts me off.

but of course the usa was founded on christianity and nobody pays any attention to the treaty of tripoli!!111

dlofnep

Not offended at all by them, and if you are - you should get a life tbh.

PS: I'm atheist.

marti8

Just wanted to let some folks know that the building I went to was not a hospital, it was a HSE building where CWO's (Community Welfare Officers) have their offices. It is not a hospital. It is an administrative building.

Aren't there any rules in place for this sort of thing? Seperation of church and State and all that? I mean, has anyone ever walked into a social welfare office and seen a picture of Jesus, Mary or whoever else? I haven't, and would be very surprised to see one. Why should it be acceptable to have religious images in public buildings?

bigeasyeah

You ve got to realize that the Catholic Church has a special place within the Irish Constitution.Dev and McQuaid were fairly close you see.
Irregardless should you not be more tolerant of others beliefs? If you are really an agnostic you would not care either way.

Stercus Accidit

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd be in full agreement with Cork4Ever, too seriously taken on this one. What next? Bar chaplains from hospitals? Or tell a nurse not to offer to pray for someone? Telling kids not to wear religious symbols to school if they want to? I really don't think Ireland should be dragged along the same pedantic road that other European states have been concerning trivial things such as these.

Oh where oh where will our persecution end? When it stops butting in on other peoples lives I imagine.

It is a religious symbol, it makes a statement, thats WHY its a symbol to you people, and symbols make statements, and in a church that statement is in context, in a hospital, it doesn't make any statement other than an affiliation, and what has one religion got to do with public hospitals? Nothing.

Personally, I can live with it, the generation currently frequenting hospitals are religious, but if asked to remove it, you should comply, as what argument can you propose for it being there other than one that is exclusive to your religion? Thats the question, can you justify that images presence for any reason that applies to someone of another faith, or is just to please catholics.
If so, why are they special, why do they get special privilege in the hospital, unless all religious iconography is welcome, and where will that lead, a bloody museum of antiquity and superstition, where an efficient hospital should have been.

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Oh where oh where will our persecution end? When it stops butting in on other peoples lives I imagine.

I just think we should know where to find a balance within society at large. I would expect to see a Star of David in a hospital in a Jewish majority state. I would also expect to see the Virgin Mary in a hospital in a Catholic majority state.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

It is a religious symbol, it makes a statement, thats WHY its a symbol to you people, and symbl make statements, and in a church that statement is in context, in a hospital, it doesn't make any statement other than an affiliation, and what has one religion got to do with public hospitals? Nothing.

I'm left to ask, so what?

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Personally, I can live with it, the generation currently frequenting hospitals are religious, but if asked to remove it, you should comply, as what argument can you propose for it being there other than one that is exclusive to your religion? Thats the question, can you justify that images presence for any reason that applies to someone of another faith, or is just to please catholics.
If so, why are they special, why do they get special privilege in the hospital, unless all religious iconography is welcome, and where will that lead, a bloody museum of antiquity and superstition, where an efficient hospital should have been.

If asked to remove it by who may I ask?

Stercus Accidit

Jakkass wrote: »

I just think we should know where to find a balance within society at large. I would expect to see a Star of David in a hospital in a Jewish majority state. I would also expect to see the Virgin Mary in a hospital in a Catholic majority state.

Point being? You wouldn't expect it in a secular state, in a state funded building.

I'm left to ask, so what?

So it has no reason to be there.

If asked to remove it by who may I ask?

Anyone who sees its combination of having no reason to be there, and being some what out of place, to be reason enough to take it down, you have to give a good reason why not.