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 ...

Overheal

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.

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

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

I'm not so sure how effective secularism has been, and I remain skeptical over it. It has brought some positives, but I'm not so positive about regarding it as a form of dogma to conform to or face the wrath of the State.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

So it has no reason to be there.

I can't think of any major reason why people should object to it.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

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.

So a single person? Or a group of people? I think it's a bit extreme to change the character of an entire hospital because a single person disagrees. Let a reasoned case be put forward instead of jumping to the whim of each and every person who complains. How would the State operate if it dealt with every complaint like this in every department. Some things are going to cross peoples sensitivities, but that's part of being a member of society. Some peoples speech may cross your sensitivities, but we don't see any rapid curb on that.

footloose jen

i agree with the artistic side of things and theres a lot more wrong with the world than a picture hanging on a wall i take it you dont visit a lot of art museums:rolleyes:

marti8

footloose jen wrote: »

i agree with the artistic side of things and theres a lot more wrong with the world than a picture hanging on a wall i take it you dont visit a lot of art museums:rolleyes:

A HSE administrative building is not a museum.....:rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

footloose jen wrote: »

i agree with the artistic side of things and theres a lot more wrong with the world than a picture hanging on a wall i take it you dont visit a lot of art museums:rolleyes:

I agree. I will bring a picture of Satan down to my nearest Social Welfare office tomorrow and see if they hang it up.

After all, it's only a picture on a wall.



Yes, it's a religion too.

footloose jen

ah! i knew someone would'nt be able to resist replying to that comment!!!
im catholic and respect other religions why shouldn't i but have noticed that there less of that kind of imagery around now maybe its a good thing!!!;)

footloose jen

wow!!! is that supposed to offend me personally i dont believe in satan!!! your all so serious is there no room for humour here:o

marti8

footloose jen wrote: »

wow!!! is that supposed to offend me personally i dont believe in satan!!! your all so serious is there no room for humour here:o

You are a Catholic who doesn't believe in Satan, huh, how does that work? And I have a great sense of humour, you should have seen me on the Jewish forum....Hitlers Birthday today, ya know! :eek:

footloose jen

marti8 wrote: »

You are a Catholic who doesn't believe in Satan, huh, how does that work? And I have a great sense of humour, you should have seen me on the Jewish forum....Hitlers Birthday today, ya know!

well marti you must know that religion like most things in life is not just black and white when i say i dont belive in satan i mean i dont believe in the "devil" and "hell" because i choose not to believe!!! theres much more evil and suffering right here on earth!!! and its life really thats takes whatever religon you are and moulds that into what you believe!!! different life experiences are great for making you question your beliefs so its good not to get to serious about them!!!:)

marti8

footloose jen wrote: »

well marti you must know that religion like most things in life is not just black and white when i say i dont belive in satan i mean i dont believe in the "devil" and "hell" because i choose not to believe!!! theres much more evil and suffering right here on earth!!! and its life really thats takes whatever religon you are and moulds that into what you believe!!! different life experiences are great for making you question your beliefs so its good not to get to serious about them!!!:)

No offence, Jen but then you aren't actually a Catholic. If you term yourself one thing or the other then you subscribe to what that "thing" stands for. The Catholic church, which I, like most Irish folks, grew up in does believe in the existence of "Satan" and does believe in hell.

And no I am not taking it too seriously as I see it. I am just wondering what the hell (ooops) religious symbols are doing in State buildings, that's all.....

MatthewVII

Religious images serve no purpose in a state building. Religious images may be offensive or off-putting to some people. Therefore religious images should not be in state buildings.

Seems obvious, no?

footloose jen

MatthewVII wrote: »

Religious images serve no purpose in a state building. Religious images may be offensive or off-putting to some people. Therefore religious images should not be in state buildings.

Seems obvious, no?

well yeah i suppose you all have a point in saying religious images dont belong in state buildings, as for not really being a catholic because i choose not to believe in satan well id say thats a very old fashioned take on things!!! maybe i'm wrong how would you define satan would you believe hes how hes written in the bible???????;)

marti8

footloose jen wrote: »

well yeah i suppose you all have a point in saying religious images dont belong in state buildings, as for not really being a catholic because i choose not to believe in satan well id say thats a very old fashioned take on things!!! maybe i'm wrong how would you define satan would you believe hes how hes written in the bible???????;)

Jen, I'm agnostic

footloose jen

marti8 wrote: »

Jen, I'm agnostic

whoops!!! sorry!!:D its late and ive a banging headache got caught up in the conversation and forgot who i was talking to anyway well there ye are!!! im not well up on agnostic were you always agnostic or did you change from another religion and what do you believe in if you dont mind me asking?????:pac:

Naz_st

footloose jen wrote: »

... as for not really being a catholic because i choose not to believe in satan well id say thats a very old fashioned take on things!!!

Yes, it is an old-fashioned view of things. It's called Catholicism.

footloose jen

Naz_st wrote: »

Yes, it is an old-fashioned view of things. It's called Catholicism.

wow!!! sounds like ive gone and offended someone else my dad always told me never to get into discussions about religion or politics should have taken his advice:P

Orion

bigeasyeah wrote: »

Irregardless should you not be more tolerant of others beliefs?

Doesn't that knife cut both ways?

Why should religious icons be displayed in public buildings? The OP didn't say he was offended - he was annoyed - there is a difference. As I would be tbh. Christians are not the only people to use public services so why should only Christian icons be displayed? Just because Christianity is the dominant religion is no argument - minority beliefs (or lack of) should be respected also particularly in a state building. I wouldn't expect to see Islamic icons in a Catholic church or Catholic ones in a mosque but I do expect and desire to have my government and public services free of such fetters.

Orion

footloose jen wrote: »

well yeah i suppose you all have a point in saying religious images dont belong in state buildings, as for not really being a catholic because i choose not to believe in satan well id say thats a very old fashioned take on things!!! maybe i'm wrong how would you define satan would you believe hes how hes written in the bible???????;)

Naz_st wrote: »

Yes, it is an old-fashioned view of things. It's called Catholicism.

Actually Naz you could call it <insert religion here>.

@jen: You can't believe in God without believing in his opposite number. Every religion has that balance. If you believe there is an objective Good then there must also be an objective Bad. /philosophy101.

Mickeroo

footloose jen wrote: »

well yeah i suppose you all have a point in saying religious images dont belong in state buildings, as for not really being a catholic because i choose not to believe in satan well id say thats a very old fashioned take on things!!! maybe i'm wrong how would you define satan would you believe hes how hes written in the bible???????;)

I think his point is you cant really be catholic if you dont accept catholic doctorine. If you "choose" not to believe in satan just because you dont like the sound of it then you're basically making it up as you go along.

Bduffman

OK - so if its acceptable to have a religious pictire in a non-religious building, is it ok to have a non-religious picture in a religious building?

Stercus Accidit

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not so sure how effective secularism has been, and I remain skeptical over it. It has brought some positives, but I'm not so positive about regarding it as a form of dogma to conform to or face the wrath of the State.

The irony here is that your attempt at ironically comparing secularism to a religious dogma, has cast further bad light on religious dogma and coersion itself. Neutrality in state affairs is not a bad thing, don't pretend it is.

I can't think of any major reason why people should object to it.

Because people should be christian? If there were no iconography, the building would be neutral, having christian iconography is not neutral, it states an affiliation. The building being neutral doesn't need justification, as it cannot offend or make any statement, you have to justify affiliating the building, can you do that? Give me a reason there should be one particular religions iconography in a state hospital. I believe this is the third time I've asked that.

So a single person? Or a group of people? I think it's a bit extreme to change the character of an entire hospital because a single person disagrees. Let a reasoned case be put forward instead of jumping to the whim of each and every person who complains. How would the State operate if it dealt with every complaint like this in every department. Some things are going to cross peoples sensitivities, but that's part of being a member of society. Some peoples speech may cross your sensitivities, but we don't see any rapid curb on that.

Again, the character expressed by religious mumbo jumbo is not in keeping with a hospital. Bear in mind, a hospital is an objective, state run facility, why do you have an issue separating that from your places of worship?
If questioned and in absence of good reason to be there, it should be removed. Your point is we cannot pander to a single complaint, fair enough, but the complaint should be assessed, and there is no real counter argument to this, the picture of a mary doesn't serve a purpose to any non-catholic, so if it causes offence, it should be removed. I'm not taking away your church, I'm saying a hospital is not a church, and I'd like to know why you feel a hospital should be christian?