religious iconography in a social welfare office?

artyeva

mods, i wasn't sure where i should post this, do feel free to move it somewhere else if here isn't appropriate.

so today i'm in my local social welfare office - and throughout the entire conversation with yer wan at the counter i was distracted by the massive painting [kitch as you like] of yer man jesus in my eyeline. a right good one too, what with the crown of thorns and the bleeding forehead. bigger than A3 sized, in a lovely tacky gilt frame.

in my naiveté i thought that government offices were meant to be non... well.... non whatever. i would have thought that as government services are meant to be open and welcoming to all, such a blatant display of catholic iconography wouldn't be allowed. or even there might be internal rules about religious displays in the workplace maybe? no?

AhSureTisGrand

Anyways there is no justification for religious iconography being displayed to the public in government offices, especially when it's as aesthetically displeasing as you describe. However, I tend to avoid complaining about these things, as I find it tends to result in me being labelled a nazi communist baby-eater. Some statue was moved in a hospital a few months ago, and instead of proclaiming it as a miracle, the ever-so-vocal minority created a shītstorm over it. That much trouble might be worth it for a school, but not for a picture or a statue

artyeva

my query is genuine. naiive maybe, but genuine. i would have thought that there would be clear guidelines about religious displays in a government office. a catholic run school, a catholic run hospital maybe - fair enough. but a government office i would have though would have to appear at least, secular?

Galvasean

While personally I feel it is a bit naff/silly having such blatant religious iconography in state run buildings like that, I try not to get worked up about it. To be honest I just dont have the energy to have to defend my views as an 'aggressive secularist' every time I see a religion getting undue preferential treatment, ie: constantly.

Rev Hellfire

Unless said icon was preventing you getting a job you've bigger issues to worry about.

goose2005

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Unless said icon was preventing you getting a job you've bigger issues to worry about.

What if it was a portrait of Mao? Would that be OK?

strobe

artyeva wrote: »

mods, i wasn't sure where i should post this, do feel free to move it somewhere else if here isn't appropriate.

so today i'm in my local social welfare office - and throughout the entire conversation with yer wan at the counter i was distracted by the massive painting [kitch as you like] of yer man jesus in my eyeline. a right good one too, what with the crown of thorns and the bleeding forehead. bigger than A3 sized, in a lovely tacky gilt frame.

in my naiveté i thought that government offices were meant to be non... well.... non whatever. i would have thought that as government services are meant to be open and welcoming to all, such a blatant display of catholic iconography wouldn't be allowed. or even there might be internal rules about religious displays in the workplace maybe? no?

Just sounds to me like the office aren't that stuffy about people having personal effects around their work space. So your one had a Jesus picture, someone else might have a stuffed monkey (stuffed monkey? wtf? Jaysus Strobe, pull it together) or a photo of their pet cat. Wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Zamboni

Does anyone know of any specific rules/guidelines in relation to decor within government offices?
OP you should complain. Which office was it?

artyeva

wowsers. thanks to all who took the time to reply. a few of you were actually on topic too, so that's a brucie bonus.

Zamboni wrote: »

Does anyone know of any specific rules/guidelines in relation to decor within government offices?
OP you should complain. Which office was it?

this i suppose was my *actual* original query. zamboni, i worked in a government office in the past and there were clear guidelines on what you could and coudn't have on display at your desk, yes.

though - that was a department that wasn't open to the public. what i'm talking about is a new, purpose built social welfare office. and my point is that the iconography in question wasn't at someone's desk - it was on the wall. and also massive. without taking this, or indeed myself too seriously, i've put a query in writing so we'll see - if they reply i'll come back and post it here.

as to the people who say things like this shouldn't matter, and i should have better things to worry about - ha - indeed. but living in this area as a non catholic is f**king hard enough as it is - i don't particularly need to have some semi-fictional catholic figure-head shoved in my face when i'm trying to conduct business in a public government office - is all. if the official line from the department is that a local office can put up any auld religious crap they want on their walls then that'll be that i suppose.

SlimCi

Listen I can't imagine that they raised a purchase order and bought the damned thing! It seems more likely that an individual brought that in to the office. Having worked for a semi state as far as I know there was no actual policy on this in my place, but then they were never that up to date with their policies and procedures anyway. My reaction to this is one of "live and let live though". Unfortunately you live in a catholic country (whats left of it!). I do think its really unusual though, its probably the ould one in the corner who has all the junior staff terrified who put it on the wall!!

artyeva

SlimCi wrote: »

Listen I can't imagine that they raised a purchase order and bought the damned thing! It seems more likely that an individual brought that in to the office. Having worked for a semi state as far as I know there was no actual policy on this in my place, but then they were never that up to date with their policies and procedures anyway. My reaction to this is one of "live and let live though". Unfortunately you live in a catholic country (whats left of it!). I do think its really unusual though, its probably the ould one in the corner who has all the junior staff terrified who put it on the wall!!

as much as i hate the term ''catholic country'' i understand roundabouts what you mean. but given that it's written into our constitution that the state guarantees not to endow or favour any religion, i think it's a bit much having yer man with the bleedy head staring out at you in a social welfare office.

like i said, if catholics want to fund the running of hospitals or schools they're more than welcome to display as much tacky gilted iconography as they want in there - but in a social welfare office i think it's a bit off.

and liamw, i'm not sure why you're even bothering replying in this thread, since nothing at all of what you've posted in any way on topic

Dades

46 posts deleted (mine and Robin's included) - so back on topic.
Any more off-topicness will earn retribution.

I love the small of napalm in the morning.

SlimCi

artyeva wrote: »

as much as i hate the term ''catholic country'' i understand roundabouts what you mean. but given that it's written into our constitution that the state guarantees not to endow or favour any religion, i think it's a bit much having yer man with the bleedy head staring out at you in a social welfare office.

like i said, if catholics want to fund the running of hospitals or schools they're more than welcome to display as much tacky gilted iconography as they want in there - but in a social welfare office i think it's a bit off.

and liamw, i'm not sure why you're even bothering replying in this thread, since nothing at all of what you've posted in any way on topic

No I do understand where you're coming from. I find it a bit strange myself. I will be interested to hear the answer you get back from them. :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

SlimCi wrote: »

It seems more likely that an individual brought that in to the office.

anything like that brought into our office is fair game for being drawn on. can you imagine working with someone who is of the type who brings big religious pictures into the office?

that said, we have a prod on our team who is called 'the hun'.

SlimCi

magicbastarder wrote: »

anything like that brought into our office is fair game for being drawn on. can you imagine working with someone who is of the type who brings big religious pictures into the office?

that said, we have a prod on our team who is called 'the hun'.

Well you sound like a right cheeky lot lol! I used to work with an older woman in her 50's who rulef the roost and we were all terrified of her. I would say if she had brought in a pic like that we would all have asked her where she would like to hang it:D

Oranage2

Finally back on topic!

It's only a picture OP, if pictures of waterfalls annoyed me should every picture be taken down cause it annoys one or too people, no.

I think we should just be tolarble to other peoples beliefs and disbeliefs - I'm sure your social welfare office has athiest walls were pictures not about God are up andeven no pictures are on it all - its called compremise.

robindch

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's only a picture

Would you be just as happy seeing a picture of Josef Stalin?

jhegarty

robindch wrote: »

Would you be just as happy seeing a picture of Josef Stalin?

Happy about it no

Expect is taken down because I don't like it also no.

MagicMarker

The state should be neutral and put up pictures of Mohammed, that way no one's happy.

ShooterSF

If it's in someones personal workspace thats fine but it sounds like its on display in the office which is not on. My local post office has two big plastic frames, in one is prices for services and the one next to it has some religous mumbo jumbo. Looks really unproffesional.

My suggestion wear this next time you're there. Fight offensive image with offensive image.

artyeva

Oranage2 wrote: »

Finally back on topic!

It's only a picture OP, if pictures of waterfalls annoyed me should every picture be taken down cause it annoys one or too people, no.

I think we should just be tolarble to other peoples beliefs and disbeliefs - I'm sure your social welfare office has athiest walls were pictures not about God are up andeven no pictures are on it all - its called compremise.

i'm going to take it from this reply that you musn't have bothered reading either my op, or through this thread, but thanks anyway for your input. :rolleyes:

goose2005

jhegarty wrote: »

Happy about it no

Expect is taken down because I don't like it also no.

Really? Even if the clear implication is that all the Social Protection department gives us is due to the intercession and mercy of the Vozhd?

Oranage2

artyeva wrote: »

i'm going to take it from this reply that you musn't have bothered reading either my op, or through this thread, but thanks anyway for your input. :rolleyes:

I still don't get why your so offend op?

If you don't believe in god then the picture is just of an olden days carpenter, why do pictures of tradesmen from the past offend you so much?

coup1917

You're in drawing the dole and you're concerned about Jesus lookin at you....? Jesus wept....:rolleyes:

MagicMarker

coup1917 wrote: »

You're in drawing the dole and you're concerned about Jesus lookin at you....? Jesus wept....:rolleyes:

Where did the OP say he was drawing the dole?

magicbastarder

people drawing the dole have no right to worry about anything but drawing the dole. any thought which is not engaged in finding a new job is a thought which is a waste of (MY) taxpayer's money.

swampgas

magicbastarder wrote: »

people drawing the dole have no right to worry about anything but drawing the dole. any thought which is not engaged in finding a new job is a thought which is a waste of (MY) taxpayer's money.

Have to disagree with this. People on the dole don't lose their rights because they are using your tax payer's money. You might find yourself on the dole yourself one day, would you expect to lose your right to point out inappropriate behaviour at the dole office?

Me, I'd be inclined to make polite enquiries about it to the staff, not in an angry way but just to point out it to them. They may be blissfully unaware that anyone might find it inappropriate, or they may be so used to seeing it there that they no longer even notice it.

I wouldn't go wasting much time on it - but how long does it take to ask the question or even write a short letter?

Dades

swampgas wrote: »

Have to disagree with this. People on the dole don't lose their rights because they are using your tax payer's money. You might find yourself on the dole yourself one day, would you expect to lose your right to point out inappropriate behaviour at the dole office?

I assumed magicbastarder was addressing coup1917's post and wasn't being serious.

swampgas

Dades wrote: »

I assumed magicbastarder was addressing coup1917's post and wasn't being serious.

It appears the lack of a suitable smiley for sarcasm catches me out again :-)

artyeva

MagicMarker wrote: »

Where did the OP say he was drawing the dole?

i didn't as it happens - say i was drawing the dole that is. i am no ''burden'' on the state or taxpayers money as some of you infer. though i'd like to see that martyrdom in action should you one day find yourself out of work

and i'm also not a he.

and i don't think i ever said the word 'offended' either, and if that was implied it's not the case. i just don't think it's appropriate for a government office to display catholic iconography. if you disagree with me, fair enoughsies.

it's not whether i believe in god or not - it's not whether i choose to ignore the fact that this image is a religious icon or a paining of a carpenter :rolleyes:

but if there's a clear guideline - like say - i dunno - the constitution of the country maybe that says that the state shouldn't endow one religion over another, then i think that state offices, whatever form they take, shouldn't be displaying iconography of a catholic nature.

dvpower

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's only a picture OP, if pictures of waterfalls annoyed me should every picture be taken down cause it annoys one or too people, no.

It is only a picture. If someone was to put this picture up in its place, would the 'its only a picture' argument stand.

Jimoslimos

WWJD?;)

Seriously no more annoying than silly caption mugs "You don't have to be mad to work here but it helps", "World's Greatest Dad", etc., or motivational posters:mad:

Just makes the place appear a tad unprofessional.

Galvasean

Oranage2 wrote: »

I still don't get why your so offend op?

If you don't believe in god then the picture is just of an olden days carpenter, why do pictures of tradesmen from the past offend you so much?

You're the only one who thinks anyone is being offended.
It gets my goat that we have gotten to the point where if anyone raises a point of legality that happens to concern religion the religious get all angsty and try to put those raising the point down as making something out of nothing and telling them how it's no big deal. No doubt the very same people that would go ape ballistic if we took down the religious symbolism which up until it was taken down was not a big deal.

schemingbohemia

Do you mind stating which office it was? I think it's a disgrace myself.

I would get in contact with the Department and ask for their views on this, if you get a mealy mouthed reply (likely) then I'd write to the Minister and if that doesn't work, ask a secular-friendly TD to table a written question in the Dáil so that the response is on the public record.

By the way, this post is not missing any smiley icons, I'm deadly serious.

Oranage2

Galvasean wrote: »

You're the only one who thinks anyone is being offended.
It gets my goat that we have gotten to the point where if anyone raises a point of legality that happens to concern religion the religious get all angsty and try to put those raising the point down as making something out of nothing and telling them how it's no big deal. No doubt the very same people that would go ape ballistic if we took down the religious symbolism which up until it was taken down was not a big deal.

Jesus wept :rolleyes:

Of course it isn't an issue, and its people like you and your PC brigade who are turning the world into one big nanny state wanting rules and regulations for everything.

So you want every state building void of religion and culture? Good luck with that!

What's next on your PC agenda-

lets get rid of the Phil Lynott statue cause he was a drug user
lets cover Molly Malone she's being provocative?

robindch

Oranage2 wrote: »

Of course it isn't an issue, and its people like you and your PC brigade who [...]

I can't think how to summarize better the complete hurt confusion that catholics feel when confronted on this issue.

magicbastarder

Oranage2 wrote: »

Of course it isn't an issue, and its people like you and your PC brigade who are turning the world into one big nanny state wanting rules and regulations for everything.

i think you mistyped the URL; you weren't looking for boards.ie, i think you meant to type in dailymail.co.uk

easy mistake to make.

artyeva

Oranage2 wrote: »

Of course it isn't an issue, and its people like you and your PC brigade who are turning the world into one big nanny state wanting rules and regulations for everything.

yes. because expecting a government office to uphold a concept that's written into the constitution is nothing more than a load of PC brigaders running about with flowers in our hair is it?

if you weren't so funny in your trolling i'd have hit ignore a few posts ago but that there is just quality comedy :D

Galvasean

Oranage2 wrote: »

Jesus wept :rolleyes:

As you are so fond of saying....

Oranage2 wrote: »

Of course it isn't an issue, and its people like you and your PC brigade who are turning the world into one big nanny state wanting rules and regulations for everything.

Was wondering how long before someone mentioned the PC brigade. Funny you only seem to be awfully concerned with defending it, for something which is 'not an issue'. Before strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you....

Oranage2 wrote: »

So you want every state building void of religion and culture? Good luck with that!

Who said they wanted it devoid of culture? The OP simply wants to know why the state which says it does not endorse or endow any particular faith seems to be contradicting itself by doing that very same thing.

Oranage2 wrote: »

What's next on your PC agenda-

Getting you to come around and see some sense.

Oranage2 wrote: »

lets get rid of the Phil Lynott statue cause he was a drug user
lets cover Molly Malone she's being provocative?

What on earth makes you think I hold such views?

oldrnwisr

Oranage2 wrote: »

its people like you and your PC brigade who are turning the world into one big nanny state wanting rules and regulations for everything.

Actually he's a Mac user:D




(Awaits reprisals for really bad joke)

Oranage2

Galvasean wrote: »

As you are so fond of saying....



Was wondering how long before someone mentioned the PC brigade. Funny you only seem to be awfully concerned with defending it, for something which is 'not an issue'. Before strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you....



Who said they wanted it devoid of culture? The OP simply wants to know why the state which says it does not endorse or endow any particular faith seems to be contradicting itself by doing that very same thing.



Getting you to come around and see some sense.



What on earth makes you think I hold such views?

Classic case of throwing your toys out of the pram
'i don't like something so i don't want anybody to enjoy it' that's all im hearing!

I don't know whether you sound like a spoilt child or somebody out of the Nazi party!
You're probably a holocaust denyer too.

Jimoslimos

dvpower wrote: »

It is only a picture. If someone was to put this picture up in its place, would the 'its only a picture' argument stand.

No, jesus would be smoking....indoors....in a public place....no health warning / gruesome image of lung cancer:eek:
Wrong on so many levels;)

Edit: And 3 pages in we have our Godwin (tbh that's pretty good for an A&A thread!)

Oranage2 wrote: »

I don't know whether you sound like a spoilt child or somebody out of the Nazi party!
You're probably a holocaust denyer too.

Dades

Oranage2 wrote: »

I don't know whether you sound like a spoilt child or somebody out of the Nazi party!
You're probably a holocaust denyer too.

Consider that infraction a ban-warning. Your posts here are going to get you banned if you continue.

artyeva

Oranage2 wrote: »

'i don't like something so i don't want anybody to enjoy it' that's all im hearing!

can you quote where that was implied? i'd be interested to see how the point comes accross to you as ''i don't like it so i don't want anybody to enjoy it''. seriously - i'd be really interested to see where you got that.

Oranage2 wrote: »

I don't know whether you sound like a spoilt child or somebody out of the Nazi party!
You're probably a holocaust denyer too.

stoppit now - my sides hurt :pac::pac:

scholar007

artyeva wrote: »

mods, i wasn't sure where i should post this, do feel free to move it somewhere else if here isn't appropriate.

so today i'm in my local social welfare office - and throughout the entire conversation with yer wan at the counter i was distracted by the massive painting [kitch as you like] of yer man jesus in my eyeline. a right good one too, what with the crown of thorns and the bleeding forehead. bigger than A3 sized, in a lovely tacky gilt frame.

in my naiveté i thought that government offices were meant to be non... well.... non whatever. i would have thought that as government services are meant to be open and welcoming to all, such a blatant display of catholic iconography wouldn't be allowed. or even there might be internal rules about religious displays in the workplace maybe? no?

As a matter of interest, do you spend much time in this particular social welfare office or do you drop in occasionally? I take it from your post above that the particular painting was behind the counter and not in the public area?

artyeva

sooooo.... as there has been no reply to my written request for info, i've just had a phone conversation [i'm not on the dole, so don't worry - the phonecall was not paid for by taxpayers money ] with a very friendly and helpful senior staff member in the dept of social welfare, it seems that this particular office is in fact out on its own on these matters. so no, it's deemed neither appropriate nor acceptable to have catholic, or indeed any religious imagery on display in a government office and i have been informed that the appropriate steps will be taken to have the matter rectified.

i know it's only one small step but - yay

scholar007

artyeva wrote: »

sooooo.... as there has been no reply to my written request for info, i've just had a phone conversation [i'm not on the dole, so don't worry - the phonecall was not paid for by taxpayers money ] with a very friendly and helpful senior staff member in the dept of social welfare, it seems that this particular office is in fact out on its own on these matters. so no, it's deemed neither appropriate nor acceptable to have catholic, or indeed any religious imagery on display in a government office and i have been informed that the appropriate steps will be taken to have the matter rectified.

i know it's only one small step but - yay

If you're not on the dole, how come you seem to have so much time on your hands?

Oranage2

Isuspect a troll thread.

scholar007 wrote: »

If you're not on the dole, how come you seem to have so much time on your hands?

scholar007

Oranage2 wrote: »

Isuspect a troll thread.

Ask a simple question - get accused of trolling if it is an unpopular question - Oh well.

MagicMarker

scholar007 wrote: »

If you're not on the dole, how come you seem to have so much time on your hands?

Yeah OP, tell us, why are you not working 24 hours per day?

tfitzgerald

artyeva wrote: »

sooooo.... as there has been no reply to my written request for info, i've just had a phone conversation [i'm not on the dole, so don't worry - the phonecall was not paid for by taxpayers money ] with a very friendly and helpful senior staff member in the dept of social welfare, it seems that this particular office is in fact out on its own on these matters. so no, it's deemed neither appropriate nor acceptable to have catholic, or indeed any religious imagery on display in a government office and i have been informed that the appropriate steps will be taken to have the matter rectified.

i know it's only one small step but - yay

Jesus your mother must be proud of you. I got a painting of the lord that was up in the dole office taken down what about all the people in this country that finds that comforting if it made the person who put it up happy what harm was it doing this sort of rubbish sickens me