Religious symbols in public buildings?

Bduffman

jhegarty wrote: »

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.

OK - obviously I am struggling to make myself clear - I will have to take full responsibility for that.

Again, I am talking about what would happen if anti-religious symbols were placed in a religious building. i.e. the exact opposite of anti-secular symbols placed in what should be secular buildings.

Basically the complaints would be far more hysterical.

faceman

Bduffman wrote: »

OK - obviously I am struggling to make myself clear - I will have to take full responsibility for that.

Again, I am talking about what would happen if anti-religious symbols were placed in a religious building. i.e. the exact opposite of anti-secular symbols placed in what should be secular buildings.

Basically the complaints would be far more hysterical.

The HSE cant afford to waste more money on cosmetic detail like that. just get them to turn one of their crosses upside down. Would that be anti religious enough?

Seriously, the OP was sitting in the waiting area of one of the most disastrous health service in the world, and he took exception to a picture on the wall...

marti8

faceman wrote: »

The HSE cant afford to waste more money on cosmetic detail like that. just get them to turn one of their crosses upside down. Would that be anti religious enough?

Seriously, the OP was sitting in the waiting area of one of the most disastrous health service in the world, and he took exception to a picture on the wall...

And your point is.......? So, you think folks who don't have a religious faith should find it perfectly acceptable to have religious icons in State buildings? Huh.....Well, you are entitled to your view of things just as others are entitled to theirs but don't assume that religious icons in State buildings dont annoy or offend individuals.

Its not the CHSE or RCHSE it's the HSE........

asdasd

I am utterly convinced that all the madness of God Botherers has transferred to the moronic polemical Atheist side. Probably the angry atheist is from a God fearing fambily, and managed to lose the God but not the quasi-religious sensibilites.

As some one who grew up in a largely agnostic family - and I am in my thirties - I find polemical atheists the very opposite of the tolerance I grew up in. The reason to have mary in a hospital is simple - tradition. Like shinto state festivals in Japan, or Italian funded Catholic festivals which have survived centuries. anybody bothered by an image is a bigot.

So, you think folks who don't have a religious faith should find it perfectly acceptable to have religious icons in State buildings?

The sane might wonder why you care. The vatican has quite a few pagans donning it's walls - Plato, Aritotle etc, although I am sure the equivalent bigots of the renaissance were opposed to that. And the protestant bigots of the reformation were opposed to iconography. These are your intellectual antecedents.

Fanny Cradock

While I am open to the suggestion that public buildings may not be the place to display religious imagery, I find it amusing that a religious symbol can be considered "anti-secular". Really, it says more about the half-empty attitude that someone would see a symbol that is intended to bring hope to believers as an attack on non-beliefs. Heaven help us next time you are visually assaulted by the religious imagery on a Christmas stamp (we all remember that thread, right?) or are rudely interrupted by the distant clang of church bells.

faceman

marti8 wrote: »

And your point is.......? So, you think folks who don't have a religious faith should find it perfectly acceptable to have religious icons in State buildings? Huh.....Well, you are entitled to your view of things just as others are entitled to theirs but don't assume that religious icons in State buildings dont annoy or offend individuals.

Its not the CHSE or RCHSE it's the HSE........

How does a picture on a wall offend an atheist? Did it preach to you? Did it try convert you? I can understand being annoyed with it, but offended?

Stercus Accidit

The argument here is that there is no reason to have such a thing in a hospital.

There are pro and anti arguments.

Keep the knickers on, and maybe we'll have some sensible discussion.

asdasd

Meh, there is no argument. Sometime in the next week I am going to a church to listen to a concert where there will be little or no religious music played. The main item is a clarinet concerto, but not a religious one. The rest is varied. The church is in normal use. ( It is Anglican)

It seems that if churches can tolerate non-religious music then a "secular" building ( probably first built by the church) can tolerate a religious painting, or two.

marti8

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I am open to the suggestion that public buildings may not be the place to display religious imagery, I find it amusing that a religious symbol can be considered "anti-secular". Really, it says more about the half-empty attitude that someone would see a symbol that is intended to bring hope to believers as an attack on non-beliefs. Heaven help us next time you are visually assaulted by the religious imagery on a Christmas stamp (we all remember that thread, right?) or are rudely interrupted by the distant clang of church bells.

You speak of the distant clang of church bells, did you know that Moslems got the go ahead to build a mosque in Dublin on the condition that there was not a call to prayer? Ah, equality.....it's ok for church bells to ring but not for a muzzeins call to prayer.......Not that I support either really. But I have no problem with either as imho they are addressing their constituents. But having a religious icon in a State building is a totaly different story, that suggests "this is what we (the HSE) believe" and that is not acceptable.

Huh, now that I think of it could church bells be considered "noise pollution"? :P

asdasd

But having a religious icon in a State building is a totaly different story, that suggests "this is what we (the HSE) believe" and that is not acceptable.

Hold the presses. This just in. My clarinet concerto is cancelled. A very religious person opined that

But having a non-religious music in a Church building is a totaly different story, that suggests "this is what we (the Anglicans) believe" and that is not acceptable.

so thats off.

Stercus Accidit

asdasd wrote: »

Meh, there is no argument. Sometime in the next week I am going to a church to listen to a concert where there will be little or no religious music played. The main item is a clarinet concerto, but not a religious one. The rest is varied. The church is in normal use. ( It is Anglican)

It seems that if churches can tolerate non-religious music then a "secular" building ( probably first built by the church) can tolerate a religious painting, or two.

Neutral music played in non-neutral building,

versus,

non-neutral iconography in neutral building.


Is it difficult to understand the difference?

asdasd

Neutral music played in non-neutral building,

versus,

non-neutral iconography in neutral building.


Is it difficult to understand the difference?

To those of us who are sane yes. The religious nut might find secular music to be as in-appropriate in Church as the Atheist nut might find a picture on a wall inappropritate in a secular building.

marti8

faceman wrote: »

How does a picture on a wall offend an atheist? Did it preach to you? Did it try convert you? I can understand being annoyed with it, but offended?

Yes, it spoke to me...and moved at the same time, do you think it's one of those "moving pictures"? Maybe it's 3D?

You seem to very obviously miss the whole point, this is a State building so what on earth (or "heaven"?) is a religious icon doing there? This isn't the RC Republic of Ireland, this is the Republic of Ireland.

Dades

asdasd, the validity of your initial points is being spoiled by the tone of your subsequent posts.

Be warned there is a rule to address the post - and not to abuse posters in general.

Stercus Accidit

asdasd wrote: »

To those of us who are sane yes. The religious nut might find secular music to be as in-appropriate in Church as the Atheist nut might find a picture on a wall inappropritate in a secular building.

So we either agree with you or are 'nuts'?

This style of argument just shows a lack of reasonable thought, and is a waste of my time and fingers to try to explain my position to, as I have done in my previous posts on thread, have a read of those, address the points raised, or don't bother with the emotive blunt 'arguments'.

But you don't have to listen to me at all, I'm not your boss, ramble away if you feel like it, but a previous point was raised about the nature of the 'ah sure what are ye moaning for' brigade, which you are falling in line with nicely.

toiletduck

asdasd wrote: »

It seems that if churches can tolerate non-religious music...

In my experience churches won't even tolerate other denominations music being played...

Religious symbols in public buildings? Ideally no. Why should they be up?

Galvasean

To that end, what useful purpose would a religious symbol serve in a public building?

Flamed Diving

What offence would a Catholic take to this picture being hung on a wall at the HSE?



I see no harm in it, tbh.

EDIT: To those who have a problem with A&A's objection to the picture being there. If this picture of Satan was on the wall and a Catholic objected, would you be following your current line of argument?

If not, why?

DrumSteve

i reckon OP was mad cos the Virgin Mary kicked his ass in a staredown. he got pwned by a 2000 year old lady. Fail.

marti8

DrumSteve wrote: »

i reckon OP was mad cos the Virgin Mary kicked his ass in a staredown. he got pwned by a 2000 year old lady. Fail.

She was looking at me kinda funny alright, I was expecting her to start licking her lips or something.....:D

jhegarty

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

The argument here is that there is no reason to have such a thing in a hospital.

I presume the reason is to give comfort to a sick Catholic.

And I think that's a good reason, and would have no objection with a picture of a flying spaghetti on the wall if it makes someones suffering even the smallest bit easier.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What offence would a Catholic take to this picture being hung on a wall at the HSE?

I see no harm in it, tbh.

Well it's the second time it's on this thread without the reaction some seem to expect.

Stercus Accidit

jhegarty wrote: »

I presume the reason is to give comfort to a sick Catholic.

This is where the issue is, why not comfort a dying jew?

If ye want a mary by the bedside, go for it.

Its the blanket catholic decoration that is unnecessary, rather than an individual image an individual may have at their bedside.
Generic, permanent catholic decoration affiliates the building, the hospital and the HSE, it shouldn't.

I believe the individual should be free to display their imagery at their bedside for themselves, but this is just blanket displaying, not individual, as all religion should be, relevant to the individual who believes in it.

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What offence would a Catholic take to this picture being hung on a wall at the HSE



If not, why?

Because one image is designed to comfort, the other is not. Really, if can't see the difference between the intent behind the two images I suggest that your critical thinking centre is on the blink.

Picture the scenario. A not particularly religious woman is waiting in a hospital room for news of her desperately sick relative. She sees two images on the wall - a standard Catholic image of (a white) Jesus or your delightful offering. Which would likely be of comfort (or non offence) and which would likely be upsetting?

It's not a trick question. One image does not embody the same meaning or invoke the same emotions as another, especially in the context of a hospital. Often they are polls apart. There is a debate to be had about the appropriateness of religious imagery in a hospital, but your attempt to argue that all art is equal spectacularly misses the point.

marti8

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because one image is designed to comfort, the other is not. Really, if can't see the difference between the intent behind the two images I suggest that your critical thinking centre is on the blink.

Picture the scenario. A not particularly religious woman is waiting in a hospital room for news of her desperately sick relative. She sees two images on the wall - a standard Catholic image of (a white) Jesus or your delightful offering. Which would likely be of comfort (or non offence) and which would likely be upsetting?

It's not a trick question. One image does not embody the same meaning or invoke the same emotions as another, especially in the context of a hospital. Often they are polls apart. There is a debate to be had about the appropriateness of religious imagery in a hospital, but your attempt to argue that all art is equal spectacularly misses the point.

You really do totally miss the point, don't you?

And I am talking about a religious icon in a HSE "ADMINISTRATIVE" building not a hospital (although I don't believe they should be there either)

Stercus Accidit

There are several valid points being made though, none of which have I read an aimed answer at, just general badgering.

Individual displays religious image for comfort - ok

HSE hospital building displays religious imagery of particular religion - states an affiliation which is not correct or appropriate.


Thats my stance, I can live with the odd mary here and there, this country is still a bit old fashioned, but once you get a complaint, there is, imo, no justification bar that that relates to the religion in question to keep it there.

TBH, I can see the secularism of the state filtering down over the next decade or so gradually to remove these things.


I'd like to know why people have an issue with the image being removed, if they still have their faith, and their own icons, why the need to impose it on the building as a whole?

Fanny Cradock

marti8 wrote: »

You really do totally miss the point, don't you?

And I am talking about a religious icon in a HSE "ADMINISTRATIVE" building not a hospital (although I don't believe they should be there either)

Did I quote you? No.
Was I addressing you? No.

Zombrex

asdasd wrote: »

To those of us who are sane yes. The religious nut might find secular music to be as in-appropriate in Church as the Atheist nut might find a picture on a wall inappropritate in a secular building.

If there is a religious picture hanging on the wall it isn't a secular building

Man alive does no one here actually know, or understand, what secular even means

It reminds me of the old joke "Son I'm happy you are an atheist so long as you keep believing in God"

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

It reminds me of the old joke "Son I'm happy you are an atheist so long as you keep believing in God"

Truth is stranger than fiction.

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Over_half_of_Britons_believe_Jesus_rose_from_the_dead.aspx?ArticleID=1917&PageID=71&RefPageID=70

(I wouldn't put much weight on it, but I found it amusing nevertheless)

marti8

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did I quote you? No.
Was I addressing you? No.

I'm surprised a moderator doesn't know how a forum works........anyone can reply to any posting :rolleyes:

the_syco

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because one image is designed to comfort, the other is not. Really, if can't see the difference between the intent behind the two images I suggest that your critical thinking centre is on the blink.

So you'd have nothing against having a picture of the Lucifer on the wall, then?