Religious symbols in public buildings?

Naz_st

asdasd wrote: »

seems to contradict:



Which. Galleries are exempt?

You think this is an apt comparison? Really?

Religious Art is in an Art gallery because it's ART not because of it's religious connotations.

Dades

To clarify for asdasd:

A picture of Mary within a state building is clearly serving the purpose of a religious icon.

A picture depicting a religious scene in an art gallery is being displayed as a work of art.

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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....

Are you just trying to find images that cause you discomfort? Hummm... yes.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you just trying to find images that cause you discomfort? Hummm... yes.

LOL!

Oh, you are really clutching at straws here, Fanny.

Look, here is a prettier version.



It is still someone being tortured to death, FC.

asdasd

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.

I would think it childish to worry about how a picture on a wall effects anyone. Museums are State premises. You have now decided to exclude galleries and museums but that was not in your original statement - the only thing "reasonable" people can surmise is that when someone wants to ban religious art from Public Buildings he means exactly that. All Public Buildings. And galleries are public buildings. All the equivocations are nonsense - the hospital may be displaying the painting as a work of art, the religious may see some devotional merit in The Taking Of Christ, as well as the secularist seeing some merit in it artistically. How many exemptions do you want - a plaque on a wall in a hospital thanking a benefactor studied with a cross, a celtic religious motif on the ground of a public building, Crosses in main squares, or on hills overlooking cities on Public grounds. Or do all these go?

You guys remind me of the Republicans in the seventies who wanted to forget our history and remove British iconography from the city - Nelson's pillar most obviously, but all references to Royal this or that, statues and paintings in public buildings referencing some Anglo Irish worthy with a title etc.

After all - the argument went - we are a Republic. What kind of Republic recognises aristocrats?

Most of us , then and now. would just go on our way and not be offended by stuff on a wall. Or side with tradition. Every generation brings it's own iconoclasts.

Flamed Diving

asdasd wrote: »

I would think it childish to worry about how a picture on a wall effects anyone. Museums are State premises. You have now decided to exclude galleries and museums but that was not in your original statement - the only thing "reasonable" people can surmise is that when someone wants to ban religious art from Public Buildings he means exactly that.

Wrong. A reasonable person would assume the opposite. The same reasonable person would walk past a shop with the sign ' MONSTER SALE!' on the window and not expect there to be monsters literally for sale.

asdasd wrote: »

All Public Buildings. And galleries are public buildings. All the equivocations are nonsense - the hospital may be displaying the painting as a work of art, the religious may see some devotional merit in The Taking Of Christ, as well as the secularist seeing some merit in it artistically. How many exemptions do you want - a plaque on a wall in a hospital thanking a benefactor studied with a cross, a celtic religious motif on the ground of a public building, Crosses in main squares, or on hills overlooking cities on Public grounds. Or do all these go?.

The word reason comes into play again, but not your definition of it.

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

LOL!

Oh, you are really clutching at straws here, Fanny.

Look, here is a prettier version.



It is still someone being tortured to death, FC.

What do you mean clutching at straws? Instead of addressing my previous post, you have simply posted some pictures. Is this now a feature of your posts?

Am I arguing that such images should be put up on walls in hospitals? No. Do try and stay up.

Stercus Accidit

Art gallery - displays art

Hospital - heals people


Art can be religious or non-religious, it is art, it belongs in an art gallery.

Hospital, healing people, not an art gallery, art may or may not be put up, but if the only religious art put up is catholic, thats not displaying art, thats displaying a religious affiliation, not appropriate to the buildings function.



Any reasonable person can surely see the difference, its written clearly in bold above.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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?

A cartoon drawing of a mythical beast or a drawing dipicting a historical event where someone was tortured to death?

I'm not sure which is worse, tbh. They are both horrible images, for different reasons. The best solution would be to remove all such images from hospitals, and maybe hang peaceful, soothing, non-religious artwork on the wall.

Can you imagine it? No Satan, no blood sacrifice, no torture.

Well, we can all dream...

marti8

asdasd wrote: »

I would think it childish to worry about how a picture on a wall effects anyone. Museums are State premises. You have now decided to exclude galleries and museums but that was not in your original statement - the only thing "reasonable" people can surmise is that when someone wants to ban religious art from Public Buildings he means exactly that. All Public Buildings. And galleries are public buildings. All the equivocations are nonsense - the hospital may be displaying the painting as a work of art, the religious may see some devotional merit in The Taking Of Christ, as well as the secularist seeing some merit in it artistically. How many exemptions do you want - a plaque on a wall in a hospital thanking a benefactor studied with a cross, a celtic religious motif on the ground of a public building, Crosses in main squares, or on hills overlooking cities on Public grounds. Or do all these go?

You guys remind me of the Republicans in the seventies who wanted to forget our history and remove British iconography from the city - Nelson's pillar most obviously, but all references to Royal this or that, statues and paintings in public buildings referencing some Anglo Irish worthy with a title etc.

After all - the argument went - we are a Republic. What kind of Republic recognises aristocrats?

Most of us , then and now. would just go on our way and not be offended by stuff on a wall. Or side with tradition. Every generation brings it's own iconoclasts.

No, any reasonable person would realise, without having to be specified, that I was refering to public buildings not withstanding museums or galleries. Again, the simple fact is, no matter how hard you attempt to distract attention from it, that there should not be any religious imagery in public buildings.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

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?

Er, no. I was saying what I said, which was that the iconography of a church with little more decoration than three dangling corpses -- one of them perhaps twenty feet high -- did not signal the idea of "love" to me.

The corpses were there to shock, and it's a testament to the lethargy-inducing effect of constant repetition, that most religious people don't even really notice an anatomically accurate model of a human corpse, complete with instruments of torture, nails, spear-wound, dripping blood, and whatever else the sculptors' overheated imagination could cook up.

In more concrete terms, I don't wave a blood-encrusted corpse-dolly at my kid so that I can remind her of whatever sacrifice I hope I never have to make at some point to protect her.

Instead, I pick her up and give her a hug -- it's much nicer

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A cartoon drawing of a mythical beast or a drawing dipicting a historical event where someone was tortured to death?

I'm not sure which is worse, tbh. They are both horrible images, for different reasons. The best solution would be to remove all such images from hospitals, and maybe hang peaceful, soothing, non-religious artwork on the wall.

Can you imagine it? No Satan, no blood sacrifice, no torture.

Well, we can all dream...

You are the person to mention crucifixion, not me. I simply mentioned a white looking Jesus. It is you who are deliberately trying to unearth 'shock' images. I'm not arguing that Jesus should be placed on the wall. How many times do I have to say this before you understand?

However, if you really want to continue the debate, we would then have to move onto a separate issue about the appropriateness of one image over another. This debate could be had over any two pictures, and our separate views on religion or Satan needn't cloud the issue. If you believe that the images you have posted are equal in nature and intent, then so be it.

I wouldn't put the image up of Satan for the same reason I wouldn't put this picture up in the paediatrics ward. The majority of people would find it offensive whether they believed there was a Satan or not. Again, it's about the nature and intent of the picture. Likewise I wouldn't put up those pictures of Jesus' crucifixion because people like you would apparently feel the same way. However, I also acknowledge that the crucifixion, while a horrible event, is a source of tremendous hope to all Christians. If you can't understand this basic difference between the two imags then we should just stop now.

Rev Hellfire

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Wrong. A reasonable person would assume the opposite. The same reasonable person would walk past a shop with the sign ' MONSTER SALE!' on the window and not expect there to be monsters literally for sale.

A reasonable person wouldn't give a toss about the picture on the wall or the fact that there wasn't a monster in the store.

It all smacks of indignation for the sake of it.

marti8

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

A reasonable person wouldn't give a toss about the picture on the wall or the fact that there wasn't a monster in the store.

It all smacks of indignation for the sake of it.

No, a "reasonable" person would recognise that it is not "reasonable" to have religious imagery in public (State) buildings.

sink

I am an atheist but much of my cultural heritage is Christian. This country is largely secular now but much of its cultural heritage is Christian. Denying ones cultural heritage and wiping out the traditions of the past is not what secularism is about, in my book anyway. The picture causes me no more offence than if it were the tricolour as both are part of our cultural heritage even if I don't support everything they represent.

all is violent

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?

That wouldn't be very practical. Every religion do have places where their pictures and statues are displayed, maybe not in Ireland but that is because they have little supporters here.

If the people who worked in that place were largely atheist or agnostic, then of course, because they are the people who have to see it every day. However i do not believe it would be relevant to put any in hospitals. What use would a poster advocating no afterlife be in a place where people are dying? Ignorance is bliss

Flamed Diving

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

A reasonable person wouldn't give a toss about the picture on the wall or the fact that there wasn't a monster in the store.

It all smacks of indignation for the sake of it.

A reasonable person would expect their constitution to be upheld.

Or does that 'smack of indignation' too?

Flamed Diving

all is violent wrote: »

What use would a poster advocating no afterlife be in a place where people are dying? Ignorance is bliss

What about a Hindu dying in the same hospital with the image of Jesus looking down on him? What does that say to the Hindu?

You are wrong.

Rev Hellfire

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What about a Hindu dying in the same hospital with the image of Jesus looking down on him? What does that say to the Hindu?

You are wrong.

It says nothing to him, since he doesn't believe in jesus. Its just a picture.
Now if someone was to deny him a hindu priest at his deathbed you might have a case.

As for the constitution it doesn't say anything on the matter as far as I'm aware.

sink

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What about a Hindu dying in the same hospital with the image of Jesus looking down on him? What does that say to the Hindu?

You are wrong.

Flip that around, say it was you dying in a hospital bed in India and there was a statue of Ganesha nearby, would you really be offended? Or would you just accept it as part of the local culture?

marti8

sink wrote: »

Flip that around, say it was you dying in a hospital bed in India and there was a statue of Ganesha nearby, would you really be offended? Or would you just accept it as part of the local culture?

Ireland isn't India. Maybe you'd like the caste system here too?

marti8

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It says nothing to him, since he doesn't believe in jesus. Its just a picture.
Now if someone was to deny him a hindu priest at his deathbed you might have a case.

As for the constitution it doesn't say anything on the matter as far as I'm aware.

Now, without going and checking as far as I know the constitution does not give precedence to one particular faith over another. In public buildings there should be no place for religious imagery.

sink

marti8 wrote: »

Ireland isn't India. Maybe you'd like the caste system here too?

Don't be ridiculous there is way to much hyperbole on this thread for sensible conversation to take place. There is a huge difference between a picture/statue and a societal system of enforced inequality and even you must recognise that.

Rev Hellfire

marti8 wrote: »

Now, without going and checking as far as I know the constitution does not give precedence to one particular faith over another. In public buildings there should be no place for religious imagery.

The constitution prevents the establishment of a state religion, but doesn't prohibit religion within the state.
We don't have an explicit separation of church and state like in the us, as far as I understand. Legally there's nothing wrong with with such pictures (or those of other faiths), you could argue morally perhaps there is though.

marti8

all is violent wrote: »

That wouldn't be very practical. Every religion do have places where their pictures and statues are displayed, maybe not in Ireland but that is because they have little supporters here.

If the people who worked in that place were largely atheist or agnostic, then of course, because they are the people who have to see it every day. However i do not believe it would be relevant to put any in hospitals. What use would a poster advocating no afterlife be in a place where people are dying? Ignorance is bliss

Yes, every religion does, they are usually called Churches, Mosques, Synagoges, Temples, Ashrams, Meeting Halls and in their adherents own homes of course and so on. They are usually not called HSE offices.

And what has the number of any one sect have to do with it? If you believe it is ok for religious imagery to be displayed in public (State) buildings then you have to logically extend that exact same right to those of all faiths, whether there are 1 million of them or 1. Be they Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, Muslim, Satanist etc etc. Personally I don't want to see any religious symbols in public buildings.

marti8

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The constitution prevents the establishment of a state religion, but doesn't prohibit religion within the state.
We don't have an explicit separation of church and state like in the us, as far as I understand. Legally there's nothing wrong with with such pictures (or those of other faiths), you could argue morally perhaps there is though.

So, legally I could go down to that office and ask that a picture of Lucifer be put up? Or someone working there who was Muslim could request that a green flag with passages from the Koran be put up?

Yes, religion isn't prohibited within the State, as in the personal expression of such beliefs but when there is an image of bvm in a State building that then suggests State acceptance of this sect, it suggests that: we are a secular agency, an arm of the State yet we recognise the "special position" of the RC Church. That is not acceptable as far as I and others are concerned.

Dades

@ sink - careful now.

marti8 wrote: »

when there is an image of bvm in a State building that then suggests State acceptance of this sect, it suggests that: we are a secular agency, an arm of the State yet we recognise the "special position" of the RC Church.

Alternatively it suggests that Brigit, who's worked at reception for 20 years, hung it up on her first day and nobody's ever asked her to take it down.

Just throwing out the idea there may not be an opposing force at play here.

Rev Hellfire

marti8 wrote: »

That is not acceptable as far as I and others are concerned.

And for others it is. Without a clear legal directive here we stand at a log jam, one set of rights opposed by another.

Flamed Diving

sink wrote: »

Flip that around, say it was you dying in a hospital bed in India and there was a statue of Ganesha nearby, would you really be offended? Or would you just accept it as part of the local culture?

The point.

---

> Your post.

marti8

Dades wrote: »

@ sink - careful now.

Alternatively it suggests that Brigit, who's worked at reception for 20 years, hung it up on her first day and nobody's ever asked her to take it down.

Just throwing out the idea there may not be an opposing force at play here.

Maybe I should phone Bridget up and ask her wtf? :eek: (or Bridgets boss?!....now there's an idea and a half )..... But seriously though, as I see it no matter what the reason was to put it up in the first place, it really shouldn't be there. By all means any member of any sect can have statues (moving or not moving), pictures or whatever else in their homes but it doesn't belong at work. And especially not in a public building.