Religious symbols in public buildings?

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?

Stercus Accidit

Bduffman wrote: »

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?

Yes, because a non religious picture is neutral.

The religious one isn't, these two situations are completely different.

Naz_st

footloose jen wrote: »

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

Not at all - I'm not religious. I was just pointing out that the whole Devil & Hell thing is undeniably part of Catholicism, which on the whole is "old-fashioned" as you put it. But as others have said, if you "choose" not to believe that part of catholicism, then you're just cherry-picking the bits you like from the religion, a kind of bespoke, build-your-own version. That's all fine and dandy, but that degree of freedom isn't naturally inherent to Catholicism.

Anecdotally, I'd say it's probably the way a lot of "catholics" think in modern Ireland though...

Dave!

Welcome to the forum, footloose jen ! We welcome all, as long as they bring chocolate treats for the residents !

Zombrex

Cork4ever wrote: »

and whats the harm in leaving it there

You didn't answer my question.

What is the big deal with removing religious pictures and icons from public buildings. Every time someone suggests we do this, to bring the state better in line with the secular principles of the constitution (the amended one at least) and to limit the chance that such pictures or icons will offend or unnerve members of different religions, the religious people go absolutely nuts?

It is a picture for crying out loud. What could possibly could there be in taking it down. We aren't suggesting we level a church. Having it up presents a contradictory image of the state (religious rather than secular) and risks unnerving people who belong to other religions who wish to partake of the public services.

Taking it down doesn't upset anyone. Or shouldn't (how can a picture not being there upset someone?)

Are thousands of Catholics going to top themselves because they can't stare at a badly painted picture of Mary while waiting in a HSE room?

the_syco

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.

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

So you saw Jesus and his dudes hanging around? Sounds peaceful, dude.

=-=

If they can't have a picture of Thor, Jesus, Mohammad and the Spegetti Monster on the wall, I'd say someone would still get offended. And if there was nothing, more complaints.

MrPudding

MatthewVII wrote: »

Seems obvious, no?

Apparently not.

MrP

Bduffman

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Yes, because a non religious picture is neutral.

The religious one isn't, these two situations are completely different.

I'm actually with you on this one. I probably should have been clearer by stating an 'anti-religious' picture in a religious building. This would be relevant in this situation as it could be argued that a religious picture is anti-secular & therefore not approriate in a non-religious building.
But my main point is that I would love to see the reaction from our religious friends if they found a pro-secular picture (whatever that would be) in a religious building. I think the reaction would be far more hysterical.

pH

Bduffman wrote: »

I'm actually with you on this one. I probably should have been clearer by stating an 'anti-religious' picture in a religious building. This would be relevant in this situation as it could be argued that a religious picture is anti-secular & therefore not approriate in a non-religious building.
But my main point is that I would love to see the reaction from our religious friends if they found a pro-secular picture (whatever that would be) in a religious building. I think the reaction would be far more hysterical.

But unlikely and not that relevant, religious groups (with the bounds of laws on decency etc) have absolutely every right to have whatever pictures they want in their buildings.

It's probably worth saying that I don't think that atheistic messages would be appropriate either (in public buildings).

Public buildings are owned by the state, that means all of us, and many of us really believe that the desire to have religious images in public spaces is in many ways very similar to what happens in various dictatorships where every government office and public space carries portraits and statues of the current dictator. It's a form of oppression, a constant reminder of who's in charge, petty bullying, "I can and I will".

This leads to another problem with displaying icons is that eventually someone will take offence that not enough 'respect' is being shown around it, now they've gotten their picture into a public space they feel that they force me to behave in a way that shows respect for their icon.

Bduffman

pH wrote: »

But unlikely and not that relevant, religious groups (with the bounds of laws on decency etc) have absolutely every right to have whatever pictures they want in their buildings.

Yes - but they shouldn't have the same right in non-religious buildings

pH wrote: »

It's probably worth saying that I don't think that atheistic messages would be appropriate either (in public buildings).

I agree - never suggested it.

pH wrote: »

Public buildings are owned by the state, that means all of us, and many of us really believe that the desire to have religious images in public spaces is in many ways very similar to what happens in various dictatorships where every government office and public space carries portraits and statues of the current dictator. It's a form of oppression, a constant reminder of who's in charge, petty bullying, "I can and I will".
This leads to another problem with displaying icons is that eventually someone will take offence that not enough 'respect' is being shown around it, now they've gotten their picture into a public space they feel that they force me to behave in a way that shows respect for their icon.

Again I agree. My point is that if it were the other way around (something that would never happen) I think they would be far more hysterical about it that atheists are being on this matter. What annoys me is this 'sure what are you getting uptight about' attitude. Well if the shoe were on the other foot I think they'd give a whole new meaning to uptight.

jhegarty

Bduffman wrote: »

My point is that if it were the other way around (something that would never happen) I think they would be far more hysterical about it that atheists are being on this matter. What annoys me is this 'sure what are you getting uptight about' attitude. Well if the shoe were on the other foot I think they'd give a whole new meaning to uptight.

Really , becuase there was a time when ever public building was stuffed with religious symbols , and now they are very few left. I don't remember rioting in the streets.