Religious symbols in public buildings?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because one image is designed to comfort, the other is not.

Purely a subjective assessment. Exactly the type of thing that secularism is supposed to avoid.

Why do you get to decide that one picture is comforting and the other is not based on your religious beliefs?

There are a lot of people telling other people they shouldn't get offended by a picture hanging on the wall.

You Fanny should not get offended by a picture of Satan hanging in the wall of a waiting room. It is purely there to allow the Satanist doctors who will be operating on your to express their religion and their admiration for the dark lord and to remind us all we are slaves to his will.

Because I said that are you not going to get offended or unnerved by that image hanging in a waiting room?

Yes lets see how many people are happy to wander into a waiting room with that image.

The point of secularism is that the state should not present religious preference. Why? Because people of other religions, or no religions, get unnerved/annoyed/offended if they feel that the State institution they are placing their care in subscribes to a belief system the have misgivings about.

Secularism in this country stemmed from Protestants being unnerved by the influence that Catholicism had of public institutions. Do you want to argue that they are being unreasonable as well?

Fanny Cradock

It's quite simple, but let me spell it out for you.

You accuse me of not getting your point, but you fail to grasp that I was never replying to your point. Rather, I was addressing Flamed Diving, and I used the example of a hospital as a possible scenario to distinguish between the different meanings conveyed in two pictures, one of which was suggested by the guy.

Fanny Cradock

OK, after you have wound down from that little rant, can you please point out where I stated that we should have Christian imagery in our hospitals? Go on!

I certainly believe that there is a place for belief and non-belief in hospitals - both in a private and official capacity like the system of multi-faith hospital chaplains they have in the HNS. However, that is entirely different to your misapprehension that I am saying each A&E should be festooned with images of Mary or Jesus. At no point have I made such an assertion. Why? Because I am open to the idea that images should not appear in public buildings. OK? It is possible to be Christian and be secular in other areas of your life.

Quite where you think I am arguing that Christians rightly deserve some wall space is beyond me.

Again, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I object to the image of Satan simply because it is of Satan. Where are you getting this from? If you read my first two 2 posts you will see my reason for entering this debate. In a word: intent. Specifically the intent behind the pictures. Now if you really want to get into a debate about subjectivity then go ahead, but if you can't imagine why the particular image of Satan would not be suitable over another image (bet it of Jesus, Buddha or Bertie), then there is probably little point.


P.S. My previous post was directed at Marti, not your good self.

Wicknight wrote: »

Purely a subjective assessment. Exactly the type of thing that secularism is supposed to avoid.

Why do you get to decide that one picture is comforting and the other is not based on your religious beliefs?

There are a lot of people telling other people they shouldn't get offended by a picture hanging on the wall.

You Fanny should not get offended by a picture of Satan hanging in the wall of a waiting room. It is purely there to allow the Satanist doctors who will be operating on your to express their religion and their admiration for the dark lord and to remind us all we are slaves to his will.

Because I said that are you not going to get offended or unnerved by that image hanging in a waiting room?

Yes lets see how many people are happy to wander into a waiting room with that image.

The point of secularism is that the state should not present religious preference. Why? Because people of other religions, or no religions, get unnerved/annoyed/offended if they feel that the State institution they are placing their care in subscribes to a belief system the have misgivings about.

Secularism in this country stemmed from Protestants being unnerved by the influence that Catholicism had of public institutions. Do you want to argue that they are being unreasonable as well?

footloose jen

Dave! wrote: »

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

thanks!! i kinda got off to the wrong foot to begin with but will admit that i didnt explain myself too well before; i am catholic and i do believe in god im not too sure if the the same one i was thought about and i do question a lot of the teachings of the bible but the most important part of what i believe in is the afterlife is it heaven??? another dimension or a continuation of this life only in spirit i dont know in fact none of us do weve only got what we believe in and its kinda confusing i could go on and on, but not now maybe later ive got to put my kids to bed and read some harry potter so later

Fanny Cradock

footloose jen wrote: »

thanks!! i kinda got off to the wrong foot to begin with but will admit that i didnt explain myself too well before; i am catholic and i do believe in god im not too sure if the the same one i was thought about and i do question a lot of the teachings of the bible but the most important part of what i believe in is the afterlife is it heaven??? another dimension or a continuation of this life only in spirit i dont know in fact none of us do weve only got what we believe in and its kinda confusing i could go on and on, but not now maybe later ive got to put my kids to bed and read some harry potter so later

Best answered on the Christianity forum, I think. But by way of some answer, you need to take a look back at what it was the earliest Christians believed with regards to the afterlife. Heaven, though part of the picture, was never the final chapter.

marti8

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's quite simple, but let me spell it out for you.

You accuse me of not getting your point, but you fail to grasp that I was never replying to your point. Rather, I was addressing Flamed Diving, and I used the example of a hospital as a possible scenario to distinguish between the different meanings conveyed in two pictures, one of which was suggested by the guy.

Well, my point is this topic so yes, you were replying to my point which is "Religious Symbols in Public Buildings?"

This topic relates to a religious icon in a public (State) building. I and others think that is not appropriate and you from what I can gather feel that it is.

If you feel it is ok to have a picture of bvm then do you also extend the exact same right to those of other beliefs? Be it in an administative building, a hospital etc etc. From my point of view it is not appropriate as this State is a secular one, as I said before this is the Republic of Ireland and not the RC Republic of Ireland.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, after you have wound down from that little rant, can you please point out where I stated that we should have Christian imagery in our hospitals? Go on!

Did I claim you stated that?

I was replying to your assertion that the Satan picture is intended to be offensive, where as the other picture isn't.

Your post highlighted exactly the problem with these types of discussion, one group of people telling the other what should or shouldn't offensive.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Now if you really want to get into a debate about subjectivity then go ahead, but if you can't imagine why the particular image of Satan would not be suitable over another image (bet it of Jesus, Buddha or Bertie), then there is probably little point.

Of course I want to get into a debate of subjectivity, that is the whole point.

The State should remain neutral in matters of faith because they are unable to decide what should or should not be offensive to the members of the various religions, including non-believers.

Saying to me that is should be obvious that one image will offend and the other won't is pointless. Plenty of people have already said that the Catholic picture is offensive and they were told to cop on by others. Of course the imagine is not going to offend anyone if people simply ignore anyone who says they find it offensive.

Again that is exactly what secularism is trying to avoid, the idea that if people do not share a particular religious position, or feel uncomfortable with a particular expression of religion, they are made to feel unwelcome or unreasonable, the ones with the problem.

This is the argument for school prayer, that no student should reasonable object but if any student doesn't like it they can leave the room.

Fanny Cradock

marti8 wrote: »

Well, my point is this topic so yes, you were replying to my point which is "Religious Symbols in Public Buildings?"

This topic relates to a religious icon in a public (State) building. I and others think that is not appropriate and you from what I can gather feel that it is.

If you feel it is ok to have a picture of bvm then do you also extend the exact same right to those of other beliefs? Be it in an administative building, a hospital etc etc. From my point of view it is not appropriate as this State is a secular one, as I said before this is the Republic of Ireland and not the RC Republic of Ireland.

OK, so even though I didn't address you or directly respond to the main topic, I was somehow still replying to your point. I see that now! It couldn't possibly be that you simply felt the need to wade in.

It's like this, I wasn't directly discussing whether religious art or symbols should or shouldn't be displayed. The fact that I mentioned it is an aside to the thrust of my posts. That is, I was discussing intent and why one piece was arguably considerably less suitable than the other in a particular scenario. It's not a difficult distinction to grasp.

As for my position and what direction I lean, here are a number of clues.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

... I am open to the suggestion that public buildings may not be the place to display religious imagery...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

... 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.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why? Because I am open to the idea that images should not appear in public buildings. OK?...
Quite where you think I am arguing that Christians rightly deserve some wall space is beyond me...

marti8

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so even though I didn't address you or directly respond to the main topic, I was somehow still replying to your point. I see that now! It couldn't possibly be that you simply felt the need to wade in.

It's like this, I wasn't directly discussing whether religious art or symbols should or shouldn't be displayed. The fact that I mentioned it is an aside to the thrust of my posts. That is, I was discussing intent and why one piece was arguably considerably less suitable than the other in a particular scenario. It's not a difficult distinction to grasp.

As for my position and what direction I lean, here are a number of clues.

Ok Fanny, I accept your apology But this thread is about religious images in public buildings. Again, I don't believe there should be. Why? Because we live in a secular State, supposedly (the big dong dong before six one also annoys me btw......:))

Intent? Goodluck with proving intent, Fanny! As I would see it intent has very little to do with it, if someone comes along and starts putting up photos of the pope all over say, a government department building because "they" have a "good intent" that doesn't detract from the point that the photo shouldn't be there in the first place. My point of view is simple: public buildings, no religious icons.

footloose jen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Best answered on the Christianity forum, I think. But by way of some answer, you need to take a look back at what it was the earliest Christians believed with regards to the afterlife. Heaven, though part of the picture, was never the final chapter.

yeah! sorry about that !! that was meant for someone else kinda new to this site but i have read some good opinions on this thread already:D

marti8

footloose jen wrote: »

yeah! sorry about that !! that was meant for someone else kinda new to this site but i have read some good opinions on this thread already:D

Jen, you should stay here with us agnostics and atheists, nevermind those Christians, they'll lead you down the wrong path I run a deprogramming course for Christians if you are interested Only kidding.....I don't have the time unfortunetly.

footloose jen

marti8 wrote: »

Jen, you should stay here with us agnostics and atheists, nevermind those Christians, they'll lead you down the wrong path I run a deprogramming course for Christians if you are interested Only kidding.....I don't have the time unfortunetly.

lol!! its cool reading some of these posts that picture of " satan" really did annoy some people didnt it, id find that kinda creepy if i saw that in a hospital its gross! not offensive in the way of religion just not a nice picture in general i dont think!!

marti8

footloose jen wrote: »

lol!! its cool reading some of these posts that picture of " satan" really did annoy some people didnt it, id find that kinda creepy if i saw that in a hospital its gross!

It may have annoyed some, I'm indifferent to it tbh. Just as I am indifferent to a picture of Mary. But I don't want any religious symbols in public buildings, I wouldn't be indifferent to that.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Did I claim you stated that?

What was the point of your post then? To tell me something about secularism that I already know? Or maybe debate the subjectivity of art. Because if it's the latter, it is rather pointless having the debate here.

I've already stated on a number of occasions that I don't see Christianity should have its iconography spot reserved on the wall. I'm also open to the idea that while there may be a place and a time for religion in a hospital, for example, it should be properly structured so as to avoid causing offense. OK? I'm not adverse to both images - Jesus and Satan - not being shown. Given my self admitted leanings with regards to secularism and various State institutions, I fail to see the point of your post. So when you say the following, you completely misunderstand my position.

Saying to me that is should be obvious that one image will offend and the other won't...

all is violent

I don't really see the problem here. Let the Christians have their paintings and statues. I mean, this is a Catholic country. Maybe not as much as we used to be, but one none the less. The picture depicts one of, if not, the most famous women of all time who inspired people for years. Unfortunately though, humans have a habit of taking things too far of course. If you're not religious, why care? I mean, that's something that doesn't bother you. It's there for those who do believe, to comfort them, and if you don't believe, don't take a second look at it because it's obviously not your thing. I don't see the problem with that.

BTW I wouldn't consider myself Christian, but i do believe in a "God" to put a name on it.

........is that agnostic?:eek:

D4RK ONION

No, that makes you a theist, I believe.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because one image is designed to comfort.

Sorry, what was that you said?

Remember, this is a blood sacrifice we are witnessing. A man being tortured to death. I really don't care about the window dressing you will undoubtedly waffle on about, all I see is some Jewish guy getting slowly murdered. Oh, and it's all our fault, even though none of us were alive then.

Some comfort....

faceman

marti8 wrote: »

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.

Tbh, Id prefer those 3d Starograms on the wall!

Perhaps the staff find it comforting. They arent handing out leafets to say "Jesus be praised" or "convert your sinners", so its hardly an intrusive religious crusade. So what if its a state building? If your atheist, you dont believe in the idealogy behind what the picture represents. It no different therefore at looking at a Dali painting and thinking "its just crap".

The same institutions will have pictures and dolls of Santa claus in December. I dont agree with raising kids to believe that a fat, white haired dirty bearded make believe character will deliver them presents every year. Should I expect public institutions to remove those icons?

asdasd

I was appalled to see the Taking Of Christ by some relgious nut called Carrivagio in the State owned National Gallery.

Down with that sort of thing.

Flamed Diving

asdasd wrote: »

I was appalled to see the Taking Of Christ by some relgious nut called Carrivagio in the State owned National Gallery.

Down with that sort of thing.

I hope you're joking. For your sake, I really, really do.

asdasd

Down with it!

There is a guy being taken away to be slowly tortured.

Down with it!!

marti8

asdasd wrote: »

I was appalled to see the Taking Of Christ by some relgious nut called Carrivagio in the State owned National Gallery.

Down with that sort of thing.

Em, are you really equating a museum to a HSE administrative building? Hmmmm, okayyy....:rolleyes:

asdasd

Em, are you really equating a museum to a HSE administrative building? Hmmmm, okayyy....

I am comparing secular building to secular building.

Flamed Diving

marti8 wrote: »

Em, are you really equating a museum to a HSE administrative building? Hmmmm, okayyy....:rolleyes:

What? The state putting art in a state art gallery?

Such a waste of state art resources...

marti8

all is violent wrote: »

I don't really see the problem here. Let the Christians have their paintings and statues. I mean, this is a Catholic country. Maybe not as much as we used to be, but one none the less. The picture depicts one of, if not, the most famous women of all time who inspired people for years. Unfortunately though, humans have a habit of taking things too far of course. If you're not religious, why care? I mean, that's something that doesn't bother you. It's there for those who do believe, to comfort them, and if you don't believe, don't take a second look at it because it's obviously not your thing. I don't see the problem with that.

BTW I wouldn't consider myself Christian, but i do believe in a "God" to put a name on it.

........is that agnostic?:eek:

The problem is very simple, whether you can see it or not (or whether you choose to ignore it?) There should not be religious icons in public (State) buildings. Full stop. Yu say it brings comfort to people, yes, to Catholics. Would you also then accept that EVERY single religious group has the same right, to portray images which bring comfort to "their" people (HSE walls might get a bit crowded I'd say....)

And would you accept the right of those who'd wish to put up say a poster advocating atheism or agnosticism or humanism alongside the bvm?

asdasd

There should not be religious icons in public (State) buildings. Full stop.

seems to contradict:

Em, are you really equating a museum to a HSE administrative building?

Which. Galleries are exempt?

Flamed Diving

marti8 wrote: »

The problem is very simple, whether you can see it or not (or whether you choose to ignore it?) There should not be religious icons in public (State) buildings. Full stop. Yu say it brings comfort to people, yes, to Catholics. Would you also then accept that EVERY single religious group has the same right, to portray images which bring comfort to "their" people (HSE walls might get a bit crowded I'd say....)

And would you accept the right of those who'd wish to put up say a poster advocating atheism or agnosticism or humanism alongside the bvm?

Buh, buh... it's a Catholic country...

:rolleyes:

Article 44 of BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN:

The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination [positive or negative] on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

prinz

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.

You're missing the point. It is a stark reminder of what one man went through for no other reason than trying to make the world a better place for all.Or are you now saying that religious statues have no place in a church? Nobody forced you to go and look.

On a side note, Mary is also held in high regard in Judaism and Islam, so this isn't just a Christian oppressive act.

P.S. As regards government/public buildings I would not recommend the hanging of this kind of picture, anywhere the public are exposed to it, in that environment. If the state is paying for it, it should be all or none.

Flamed Diving

asdasd wrote: »

seems to contradict

A post somebody else made. Bravo.

*clap... clap ...clap*


The purpose of the National Art Gallery is to display art. Having a religious painting in the gallery does not consitute the state discriminating in favour of one religion, it is there for artistic merit, not for relgious purposes. Hanging only christian symbols around state administrative buildings does discriminate for/against personal belief systems (or lack thereof). They are very clearly there for a purpose/statement.

Do I really need to point this out? Really?

marti8

asdasd wrote: »

seems to contradict:



Which. Galleries are exempt?

OMG! :pac: Any "reasonable" person would not need it spelt out that museums or art galleries are not what I am talking about. Because I didn't specifically exclude them is irrelevant, I'm not framing a white paper on the "Irish State and Religious Custom and the Non-Believer"

Again, the simple fact is that in State buildings there should not be religious icons. Of course, museums and art galleries are excluded, it would be a very intolerant and tbh rather childish person who would think otherwise.