Religious symbols in public buildings?

Flamed Diving

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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

You have never seen it, then.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20IrelandNov2004.pdf

Article 44.

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

Having Christian, and only Christian religious images in hospitals violates this. If we can bend the rules on this article, what else can we do? What is the point in having a constitution, at all?

Flamed Diving

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.

You are wrong. Legally there is nothing wrong with having pictures of all faiths (even the fringe ones), in equal measure, or no pictures at all.

Which is it to be?

Flamed Diving

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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

Wrong again. Read the constitution. Remember that Sikh lad who couldn't join the Garda reserve because he refused to wear the full uniform?

This is the same argument.

asdasd

The constitution seems seems monotheistic.
Article 44 :

1 )The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is
due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and
shall respect and honour religion.

Rev Hellfire

I'm aware of the passages, and had looked them up myself.

But I don't think having a old picture on a wall in a hospital constitutes state sponsorship of a religion, I simply don't see that as state intervention. By extension of your logic we should probably rename all the hospitals as well St Vincent's, Our Lady of Lourdes, St James etc.

Obviously our interpretations differ on the subject and are unlikely to be reconciled so I’ll leave it there. I certainly don't feel strongly on the subject one way or another.

Flamed Diving

Overheal wrote: »

So, what was your point again?

Certainly not what you think it is anyway. I suggest deep breaths while counting to ten.

Rev Hellfire

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Wrong again. Read the constitution. Remember that Sikh lad who couldn't join the Garda reserve because he refused to wear the full uniform?

This is the same argument.

Not really in that particular case, that decision wasn't based on the constitutional issues. It's one I agree with since the garda are representatives of the state in a way the HSE etc are not. For example would you call for a ban on the hijab for females doctors in irish hospitals ?

yes yes I know I said I would bow out

Flamed Diving

asdasd wrote: »

The constitution seems seems monotheistic.
Article 44 :

1 )The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is
due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and
shall respect and honour religion.

Certainly that item. That whole article needs further revision, but it certainly doesn't detract from the fact that Catholic religious imagery being positively discriminated for in public buildings is constitutionally illegal.

Flamed Diving

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Not really in that particular case, that decision wasn't based on the constitutional issues. It's one I agree with since the garda are representatives of the state in a way the HSE etc are not. For example would you call for a ban on the hijab for females doctors in irish hospitals ?

yes yes I know I said I would bow out

Please define this. Irrespective, they are both representatives of the state. But I would like to know why you believe they should be viewed differently.

Yes, the hijab should be banned from public workplaces, as should all religious imagery.

jhegarty

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Having Christian, and only Christian religious images in hospitals violates this. If we can bend the rules on this article, what else can we do? What is the point in having a constitution, at all?

I don't think you are correct.

That article would stop them rejecting the request of a staff member to put up a picture of [insert your deity here], and at the same time allowing the current picture. They can't have a "Jesus only" policy.

If the rules worked the way you said then the national gallery will need to shut down due to it's displaying of religious images.

Stercus Accidit

A gallery is a place to display art, a hospital is there to heal people.

You display a religious image in a Hospital, you are affiliating a state body with a religion when the constitution clearly states that no religion will be given favor over another by the state.

Art in art gallery, no-one cares what art it is, because all art is welcome.

Hospital, no, not an art gallery, not a church, replace jesus with some colourful squares or daffodils or nothing at all.

jhegarty

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

A gallery is a place to display art, a hospital is there to heal people.

You display a religious image in a Hospital, you are affiliating a state body with a religion when the constitution clearly states that no religion will be given favor over another by the state.

Art in art gallery, no-one cares what art it is, because all art is welcome.

Hospital, no, not an art gallery, not a church, replace jesus with some colourful squares or daffodils or nothing at all.

What is someone , somewhere in Ireland worships daffodils ?

Would the picture then not be ok.

Flamed Diving

jhegarty wrote: »

I don't think you are correct.

That article would stop them rejecting the request of a staff member to put up a picture of [insert your deity here], and at the same time allowing the current picture. They can't have a "Jesus only" policy.

If the rules worked the way you said then the national gallery will need to shut down due to it's displaying of religious images.

You just repeated exactly what I said.

Congrats.

jhegarty

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You just repeated exactly what I said.

Congrats.

Good so the religious picture is fine as long as no other employees have been stopped putting up their own.

Glad we can agree.

Flamed Diving

jhegarty wrote: »

Good so the religious picture is fine as long as no other employees have been stopped putting up their own.

Glad we can agree.

No. :rolleyes:

You said they can't have a 'Jesus only' policy. This is in line with constitutional law.

This means one of two things (take a deep breath now):

a) All religious icons must be catered for in the hospital, even satanism, etc.

or

b) No religious symbols are to be allowed.

Exhale.

Now, that wasn't so bad, was it?

Stercus Accidit

jhegarty wrote: »

What is someone , somewhere in Ireland worships daffodils ?

Would the picture then not be ok.

Well, a daffodil is a daffodil, if its worshipped, and put all over the building, then yes.

But your analogy is intended to ridicule the idea that an image can be considered so intrusive, I'll play that game.

A dafodil is just a flower, and unless explicitly shown to be healing lepers, no-one would think it particularly religious.

Now, Jesus on a cross, ok, that's not just a jew being crucified by romans, its clearly a religious image, glowing lights, image of a God, its akin to saying the statues of Saddam were just statues of a local man.
Its all about context, and a daffodil would likely be just that, a picture of a plant, in our context, in your implied reality, the dafodil is an image on a par with Jesus or Saddam, making a statement more than itself, and the point here isn't the image, its the statement made, and a religious statement of any kind has no place in a state run building.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I had (pretty serious) surgery before and I got a visit from a Catholic priest to my room asking me did I wish last rites. Despite trying my damndest to make sure I had no religion down on my file I suspect my mother (behind my back) went and got it changed to "Roman Catholic please".

Some (if not all) hospitals have a Chapel or Oratory - I doubt you can go in there and worship any of the other "gods".

The picture in the hospital , the pictures in the school buildings, the crosses with bleeding/dying man everywhere are all evidence that we don't live in a secular country where religion is seperate from the state. Legally it might have been cleared up but in practise, the white man in the clouds with the grey beard still has his hold over us.

Overheal

jhegarty wrote: »

I don't think you are correct.

That article would stop them rejecting the request of a staff member to put up a picture of [insert your deity here], and at the same time allowing the current picture. They can't have a "Jesus only" policy.

If the rules worked the way you said then the national gallery will need to shut down due to it's displaying of religious images.

There is a loophole in that. In particular, if the employee agrees in their hiring to abide by certain conditions. My mother works in the Administrative building for a privately-financed hospital (owned by the Lutheran Church) and agreed to such conditions despite being non-religious (and if anything at all, a Methodist). If she started placarding sadist images on her desk they would have a precedent to relieve her.

marti8

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm aware of the passages, and had looked them up myself.

But I don't think having a old picture on a wall in a hospital constitutes state sponsorship of a religion, I simply don't see that as state intervention. By extension of your logic we should probably rename all the hospitals as well St Vincent's, Our Lady of Lourdes, St James etc.

Obviously our interpretations differ on the subject and are unlikely to be reconciled so I’ll leave it there. I certainly don't feel strongly on the subject one way or another.

In this thread I explained that I was speaking about a religious picture in a HSE administrative building, not a hospital (I wouldn't support having religious icons there either by the way) Lets just for a moment concentrate on the HSE administrative building, what purpose does that icon serve in that particular location I wonder?

Red Sleeping Beauty

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm aware of the passages, and had looked them up myself.

But I don't think having a old picture on a wall in a hospital constitutes state sponsorship of a religion, I simply don't see that as state intervention. By extension of your logic we should probably rename all the hospitals as well St Vincent's, Our Lady of Lourdes, St James etc.

Obviously our interpretations differ on the subject and are unlikely to be reconciled so I’ll leave it there. I certainly don't feel strongly on the subject one way or another.

I don't think any new hospitals are being named after saints or holy figures. I don't think you can rewrite history and pretend that hospitals weren't named after saints and your religious figures but removing all and every element of the christianity from our secular hospitals which are a part of a our secular state * would be a good move.

Btw, when you visit a hospital you'll be asked your religion , the name by which you wish to be called by and also if you have any particular religious beliefs or requests. Having christian iconography kinda negates this.

* The HSE is part of the state.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Overheal wrote: »

There is a loophole in that. In particular, if the employee agrees in their hiring to abide by certain conditions. My mother works in the Administrative building for a privately-financed hospital (owned by the Lutheran Church) and agreed to such conditions despite being non-religious (and if anything at all, a Methodist). If she started placarding sadist images on her desk they would have a precedent to relieve her.

There's always a loophole there where pretty much anything can be written into a contract. I had a conract in a job that said there was to be no religious activity or practises on the premises and that the company had no political or religious standing or beliefs.

That said, there was one lad who was Pakistani and he used to pray during his shift - in a seperate part of the building away from the majority of people.

Bduffman

How about this?

We put science stuff in hospitals

We put religious stuff in churches etc.

Seems fair to me.

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

How about this?

We put science stuff in hospitals

We put religious stuff in churches etc.

Seems fair to me.

Lets not steer this down the science/ religion divide.

Flamed Diving

Bduffman wrote: »

How about this?

We put science stuff in hospitals

We put religious stuff in churches etc.

Seems fair to me.

There is Science stuff in hospitals already. And unlike Religious stuff, it actually saves lives and heals people.

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

There is Science stuff in hospitals already. And unlike Religious stuff, it actually saves lives and heals people.

Graven images aside, there is a place for religious belief in hospitals and facilitating peoples beliefs. Organisations like the NHS recognise this. It would be incredibly myopic for anyone to make a blanket statement that never the twain shall meet.

(BTW, neither science or religion are spelt with capital letters. I'm increasingly seeing science incorrectly elevated to the realm of proper nouns.)

marti8

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Graven images aside, there is a place for religious belief in hospitals and facilitating peoples beliefs. Organisations like the NHS recognise this. It would be incredibly myopic for anyone to make a blanket statement that never the twain shall meet.

(BTW, neither science or religion are spelt with capital letters. I'm increasingly seeing science incorrectly elevated to the realm of proper nouns.)

Myopic.....that's a lovely word, Fanny. Lovely word altogether. Anyway, yes of course there is a "place" for religious belief (it's out the back where they keep the wheelie bins......;)) Seriously though, speaking of hospitals, by all means if a cult follower be they Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Satanist... or whatever wants to have an image of a guy on a cross or a nice little read next to their bed then by all means, knock yourself out.....but don't put religious images all over the place. It should be a personal thing not an actual official endorsement, imho.

In relation to the HSE administrative building, I have no problem if the person I went to see there wore a crucifix around their neck (admittedly, I might be temporarily blinded ) but I would have a difficulty with seeing it up in the waiting room, because it doesn't belong there.

Dades

marti8 - or anyone in fact - would you actually advocate somebody visiting every state hospital ward and nursing home removing every crucifix or image of Jesus or Mary?

Fanny Cradock

marti8 wrote: »

Myopic.....that's a lovely word, Fanny. Lovely word altogether. Anyway, yes of course there is a "place" for religious belief (it's out the back where they keep the wheelie bins......;)) Seriously though, speaking of hospitals, by all means if a cult follower be they Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Satanist... or whatever wants to have an image of a guy on a cross or a nice little read next to their bed then by all means, knock yourself out.....but don't put religious images all over the place. It should be a personal thing not an actual official endorsement, imho.

In relation to the HSE administrative building, I have no problem if the person I went to see there wore a crucifix around their neck (admittedly, I might be temporarily blinded ) but I would have a difficulty with seeing it up in the waiting room, because it doesn't belong there.

Dear me. I'm trying to be patient, but every interaction with you is an exercise in grinding frustration.

I specifically stated that I wasn't talking about images, rather I was talking about the role that religion can play in a holistic approach to care. If you are interested in examining this you can take a look at the views of organisations like Marie Curie Cancer Care or the NHS.

marti8

Dades wrote: »

marti8 - or anyone in fact - would you actually advocate somebody visiting every state hospital ward and nursing home removing every crucifix or image of Jesus or Mary?

Simply......yes. Or to simplify it the HSE could issue a circular informing them that all religious icons are to be removed.

If someone believes in the seperation of church and State then it is logical, as far as I would see it, that that be followed through and not leave a situation of "maybe I will, maybe I won't..."

marti8

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Dear me. I'm trying to be patient, but every interaction with you is an exercise in grinding frustration.

I specifically stated that I wasn't talking about images, rather I was talking about the role that religion can play in a holistic approach to care. If you are interested in examining this you can take a look at the views of organisations like Marie Curie Cancer Care or the NHS.

So you were, was I going off on a tangent again? Dear me! By all means let priests, ministers, rabbis, shamen, wiccan priestesses and whoever else wander the corridors of hospitals plying their trade, that's fine with me. Might get crowded though...lol "Roll up, roll up, due to the global downturn snake oil now reduced!"....:)