Secularism Discussion (Offshoot Thread)

Solair

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd suggest secularism has a similar problem to atheism, as an objective, in that it doesn't mean anything coherent to people.

You realise secularism is a division between church and state? It's not a belief system.

Not everyone in this (or any other) state necessarily has the same belief system. All secularism does is acknowledge that the state is the state and that religious beliefs / lack of religious belief is entirely a personal matter.

A non secular state excludes large sections of the community and also risks total lack of accountability to the people by incorporating religious authorities into the provision of services, justice system or public administration.

See : Ireland in recent past, Middle East, Parts of Latin America, Spain until the 70s etc etc

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Solair wrote: »

You realise secularism is a division between church and state? It's not a belief system.

Oh, absolutely. My point is more that the issue is around the absence of a shared agreement of what the content of the State element is, and what the content of the religious element is. You'll appreciate, a separation of Church and State might still regard the placement of daughters in laundries as a legitimate expression of religious freedom."Secularism" as a word in isolation means nothing.

Zillah

Solair wrote: »

Again, I'm just amazed at the immediately hostile reaction you get when you mention SECULARISM on forums here.

Who's being hostile? I'm a huge proponent of secularism. But I'm concerned with modern topics like non-denominational schools, abortion and gay marriage, not something that was fixed a decade before I was born.

Solair

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You'll appreciate, a separation of Church and State might still regard the placement of daughters in laundries as a legitimate expression of religious freedom."Secularism" as a word in isolation means nothing.

I think you'll find it has a very clearly defined meaning even in most dictionaries. The issue is that many people either accidentally or deliberately confuse secularism with atheism.

The placement of daughters in laundries by their parents would probably be a human rights issue. It would depend on how the state chooses to protect the rights of minors.

In most contexts, the conditions described would be considered highly abusive.

The state placing children or adults into a religious work house against their will however would violate even loosest concept of secular government!

It's a pretty serious situation from a basic human rights point of view too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Solair wrote: »

The issue is that many people either accidentally or deliberately confuse secularism with atheism.

Something which, you'll notice, I'm not doing.

Solair wrote: »

It would depend on how the state chooses to protect the rights of minors.

That's getting towards what I'm talking about; the issue is that such choices will be based on some kind of principles. What's missing is a consensus over what those principles are, which can't be filled by assertions of what they are not.

Solair wrote: »

The state placing children or adults into a religious work house against their will however would violate even loosest concept of secular government!

Unfortunately, this collapses under a little scrutiny. As regards children, we over-ride their stated will habitually by forcing them to go to school and, where we deem it necessary, forcing them to undergo medical treatement and refusing them the ability to take up paid employment. As regards adults, isn't the issue here more like the situation of someone who goes off to join a religious cult. If someone freely accepts domination, who has the right to intervene?

Solair

You're really pushing this to the point of ridiculous abstractions.

We have constitutional rights, human rights laws, basic protections for workers, children etc etc all of which can be defined in legislation, voted for by parliament, placed in party manifestos etc etc and in a framework of a secular legal system.

You might have noticed that since the enlightenment, there has been a move towards secular notions of human rights based around natural law and probably a more humanistic outlook than anything else.

It does not require a common religious outlook.

Issues of protecting someone come into play where they're being exploited, abused, forced (against their will) to do something they don't necessarily want to do.

Issues of protecting kids come into play where there has to be a set of rules in terms of human rights laws that supersede anything else. Otherwise, you're getting into a situation where kids are completely unprotected from any parent / guardian who might put them at serious risk.

The issue in the case of the institutional abuses was that the state took on the role of parent and pretty much threw the kids into a hell hole far worse than the ones that they were supposedly protecting them from.

We managed to get this stuff *horribly* wrong and intervene for all the wrong reasons.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Solair wrote: »

You're really pushing this to the point of ridiculous abstractions.

You might have noticed that since the enlightenment, there has been a move towards secular notions of human rights based around natural law and probably a more humanistic outlook than anything else.

It does not require a common religious outlook.[/quote]It does require a common outlook - it is a common outlook. And natural rights, as a concept, only makes sense within a religious context.

Solair wrote: »

Issues of protecting someone come into play where they're being exploited, abused, forced (against their will) to do something they don't necessarily want to do.

Like eating spinach?

Solair wrote: »

The issue in the case of the institutional abuses was that the state took on the role of parent and pretty much threw the kids into a hell hole far worse than the ones that they were supposedly protecting them from.

Which is hardly a great advert for secular action. Of course, in the current case, we're talking about a situation where the majority of people were not placed in these laundries by the State.

Solair

The difference is the people via an elected government / agreed constitution governs these things, not an unaccountable third party basing its moral compass on religious law which can often be more about dogma than any kind of social motivation.

Religious laws means outsourcing law making to a totally unaccountable third party who may not necessarily be working in the people's interest!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Solair wrote: »

The difference is the people via an elected government / agreed constitution governs these things, not an unaccountable third party basing its moral compass on religious law which can often be more about dogma than any kind of social motivation.

Religious laws means outsourcing law making to a totally unaccountable third party who may not necessarily be working in the people's interest!

Unfortunately, I don't think this covers the issue. There's nothing magic about an elected government, or an agreed constitution. We had both, throughout this period.

Peregrinus

Solair wrote: »

You realise secularism is a division between church and state? It's not a belief system.

Solair wrote: »

I think you'll find it has a very clearly defined meaning even in most dictionaries. The issue is that many people either accidentally or deliberately confuse secularism with atheism.

Secularism is indeed defined in most dictionaries, but not as “a division between church and state”. It is, in fact, defined as a belief system.

Here’s the Oxford English Dictionary definition:

“The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state.

a. As the name of a definitely professed system of belief, promulgated by G. J. Holyoake (1817–1906).

b. In wider sense, as denoting a mode of thought more or less implicitly held and acted upon.”

So, a secular person is one whose moral decisions take no account of beliefs in god/an afterlife. Such a person could in theory believe in god, but in a god who is unconcerned with human morality. Some of the religions of classical Greece and Rome did take this form, I think, but in modern Western society a secular person will probably be an atheist, an agnostic or someone completely indifferent to religion.

But, in the context of a discussion about public policy, calls for “secularism” are usually calls for state secularism. I think the suggestion is that individual citizens, and groups and associations of citizens, should take ethical decisions according to their own lights, and may or may not act in a secular way, but the state should take all its decisions and undertake all its actions on a secular basis.

Even this doesn’t necessarily mean, though a rigid separation of church and state. Suppose the state is putting out, say, the establishment and running of a hospital to tender. Two tenders are received; one from a not-for-profit non-religious medical organization, the other from a non-for-profit religious medical organization. In deciding which tender to accept, it seems to me, a secular state will disregard entirely all considerations relating to belief in God, and will judge between the two tenders on other criteria - value for money, competence, experience, provision of a full range of services, whatever. The result may well be that the religious body wins the tender.

That would be an entirely secular decision on the part of the state, but one which would offend at least some concepts of the separation of church and state. A very strong concept of church/state separation would say that the state should not accept the tender from the religious body even if it is, judged purely on secular criteria, the best tender.

You can argue for, and defend, such a strong concept of church/state separation, but I don’t think you can say it’s something required by secularism. A secular basis for awarding the tender would disregard the religious character of one of the tenderers. A “strong separation” basis, by contrast, requires the state not only to have regard to the religious character of the tenderer, but to treat it as a factor in its decision which outweighs all other factors. In some ways, that’s pretty much the opposite of secular.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even this doesn’t necessarily mean, though a rigid separation of church and state. Suppose the state is putting out, say, the establishment and running of a hospital to tender. Two tenders are received; one from a not-for-profit non-religious medical organization, the other from a non-for-profit religious medical organization. In deciding which tender to accept, it seems to me, a secular state will disregard entirely all considerations relating to belief in God, and will judge between the two tenders on other criteria - value for money, competence, experience, provision of a full range of services, whatever. The result may well be that the religious body wins the tender.

I'd suggest that in your example, unless the religious tender provided an absolute commitment to run the hospital in a secular manner (e.g. not withhold certain medical services, or treat differently on the basis of a religious doctrine) then this would be contrary to even a mild concept of secularism.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

I'd suggest that in your example, unless the religious tender provided an absolute commitment to run the hospital in a secular manner (e.g. not withhold certain medical services, or treat differently on the basis of a religious doctrine) then this would be contrary to even a mild concept of secularism.

If such a condition is to be imposed, it must be imposed on all tenderers or on none. Singling out the religious tenderers would be unacceptable.

But, yes, in principle. If, e.g., it was a requirement that the services provided in the hospital include male and female sterilisation, family planning clinics and pregnancy terminations, you could exclude any tenderer who wouldn't provide those services - which, forseeably, would have the effect of excluding at least some religiously-motivated tenderers. And you could require tenderers to address this in their tenders.

(You shouldn't, though, add those requirements for the purpose of excluding religious tenderers. You should only add them if your overall health plan is that these services will be provided in all hospitals, or on all hospitals of this type.)

Dades

Indeed. Tenders wouldn't be excluded on the basis of the ethos behind them, but rather on the basis that they may not offer all the services required in a new hospital.

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

Indeed. Tenders wouldn't be excluded on the basis of the ethos behind them, but rather on the basis that they may not offer all the services required in a new hospital.

Absolutely.

I recently brought the grandkids to see my 93 year old granduncle (their great-grand uncle -yup 5 generations of us are around to annoy the good people of Cork) in the Mercy Hospital in Cork - or to give it it's correct title Mercy University Hospital. 6 year old Hermoine asked if we were in a Church due to the overwhelming amount of Catholic iconography glaring down on us from the walls, niches, alcoves etc etc.
Granduncle (an Atheist all his life) genuinely finds this upsetting and says he feels like he can't even die in peace without those 'terrorists' (his words) who made his school years a misery and him an outsider in his own country leering down at him.

The point is that Mercy University Hospital is both a teaching hospital and a public hospital which receives public funding and is intended to serve all of the people of Cork, yet it's Catholic ethos hits you in the face as soon as you go in the front door. It's so obvious that my 3 year old grandson commented and he usually doesn't notice anything that isn't Buzz Lightyear or Ben 10 related.

It may seem like nothing, but there is a 93 year old man who is deathly ill lying up there surrounded by a visual reminder of that very Irish Catholic ethos with it's fingers in every aspect of Irish life which made him feel unwelcome here and drove him out of this country in 1938. He is a citizen of this country and should not be subjected to this propaganda paid for out of the public purse.

Peregrinus

Perhaps. But for every 93-year old patient who is bothered by the iconongraphy, there’s another who is consoled and comforted by it.

It’s not the business of the state to prioritise the feelings of the bothered over the feelings of the consoled, and to require that public hospitals should not display iconography. Or, at any rate, the notion that the state should be secular does not require the state to implement such a rule, and arguably requires that the state should not do so.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps. But for every 93-year old patient who is bothered by the iconongraphy, there’s another who is consoled and comforted by it.

It’s not the business of the state to prioritise the feelings of the bothered over the feelings of the consoled, and to require that public hospitals should not display iconography. Or, at any rate, the notion that the state should be secular does not require the state to implement such a rule, and arguably requires that the state should not do so.

You are a font of compassion and inclusiveness arn't you.

I am sure Protestant patients are just delighted to see images of Catholic Clergy glaring down at them..and those women who were incarcerated in the Magdalene Laundries must be very comforted...as are those people who were abused in Industrial Schools...and those abused by their parish priest....

There is no need for the iconography of any religion to be on display in a publicly funded hospital.

I object to my tax euros being used to clean and otherwise look after Catholic Iconography in our public hospitals when the budget for health care is being cut.

Flier

How about using the money spent on the icons on cleaning the place and perhaps a lick of paint here and there, and then if people want to be surrounded by icons of whatever religion, let them bring them themselves. Or I'm sure their pastor would be happy to oblige them.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps. But for every 93-year old patient who is bothered by the iconongraphy, there’s another who is consoled and comforted by it.

And if they want to bring a little holy picture from home and put it up over their bed, good luck to them. Just the one, of course, otherwise you'd have people setting up little shrines and burning incense.

But a publicly-funded hospital should have no need of such paraphernalia, is that not right?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps. But for every 93-year old patient who is bothered by the iconongraphy, there’s another who is consoled and comforted by it.

And for every 93 year old bothered by smoking in hospitals, there is going to be one who is consoled by a smoke, should the hospital encourage smoking in wards and give out free cigarettes too?

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s not the business of the state to prioritise the feelings of the bothered over the feelings of the consoled, and to require that public hospitals should not display iconography. Or, at any rate, the notion that the state should be secular does not require the state to implement such a rule, and arguably requires that the state should not do so.

You obviously don't understand what secular means if you think a secular government should spend money on religious iconography in public buildings.

Peregrinus

Couple of points:

Everybody seems to be assuming that the religious iconography is publicly funded. Is this in fact the case? I appreciate that the hospital is publicly funded, but it’s not necessarily exclusively publicly funded; whatever non-state agent is involved usually brings something financial to the party as well, and the statues, etc, may well be coming from that source.

There seems to be an assumption here that in a publicly funded institution, people of a secular mindset are entitled to an aesthetic environment which which pleases them, while people of a religious mindset are not. I’m not seeing any reason why secular citizens should be privileged in this way and, more to the point, I’m not seeing anyone in this thread trying to construct a coherent argument in support of this claim.

If you have a diverse society – and I think we do, and should – then most people, some of time, are going to find themselves in a minority in some regard or other. They are entitled to demand a reasonable accommodation for their rights, desires and tastes; they are not, so far as I can see, entitled to demand an accommodation which they deny to others.

A demand that all publicly-funded hospitals should be free of religious imagery looks, to me, as absolutist as a demand that all publicly-funded hospitals should display religious imagery. It expresses the same sense of arrogant entitlement, bizarrely combined with the same sense of insecurity, that the Catholic church expressed for so long, and in some respects still expresses – we are entitled to have our views and beliefs endorsed and reflected by the state, and if this is not done we are being oppressed.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of points:

Everybody seems to be assuming that the religious iconography is publicly funded. Is this in fact the case? I appreciate that the hospital is publicly funded, but it’s not necessarily exclusively publicly funded; whatever non-state agent is involved usually brings something financial to the party as well, and the statues, etc, may well be coming from that source.

Meaning, we paid for this, so you’re looking at the BVM whether you like it or not...?
What if there more than one non-state agent is contributing? Can we see a crucifix next to a picture of Mao?

Peregrinus wrote: »

There seems to be an assumption here that in a publicly funded institution, people of a secular mindset are entitled to an aesthetic environment which which pleases them, while people of a religious mindset are not. I’m not seeing any reason why secular citizens should be privileged in this way and, more to the point, I’m not seeing anyone in this thread trying to construct a coherent argument in support of this claim.

Not at all. If you want a picture of the BVM over your bed, stick one up! A believer is sure to have a ready selection of images to choose from, I’ll wager. But no complaining if an adherent of the First Church of Satan across from you puts up one of their pictures, too, OK?

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you have a diverse society – and I think we do, and should – then most people, some of time, are going to find themselves in a minority in some regard or other. They are entitled to demand a reasonable accommodation for their rights, desires and tastes; they are not, so far as I can see, entitled to demand an accommodation which they deny to others.

In our secular hospital, the default setting for religious iconography is ‘off’, as attempting to cater for all beliefs is nonsense. This I would consider to be a reasonable accommodation. But, as I stated above, if you want to put up a little picture of the deity or spirit of your choice for the duration of your stay, go right ahead. Within reason.

Peregrinus wrote: »

A demand that all publicly-funded hospitals should be free of religious imagery looks, to me, as absolutist as a demand that all publicly-funded hospitals should display religious imagery. It expresses the same sense of arrogant entitlement, bizarrely combined with the same sense of insecurity, that the Catholic church expressed for so long, and in some respects still expresses – we are entitled to have our views and beliefs endorsed and reflected by the state, and if this is not done we are being oppressed.

So which imagery are you going to use? Catholic? Presbyterian? Hindu? Buddhist? Will we swap them around wards, in an effort to accomodate? Or will we just use one set of imagery, and let it represent all religions? Or maybe we could amalgamate the images, and have an eigth-armed Laughing Christ?

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Meaning, we paid for this, so you’re looking at the BVM whether you like it or not...?
What if there more than one non-state agent is contributing? Can we see a crucifix next to a picture of Mao?

Yes, if you can find a hospital jointly conducted by the Medical Missionaries of Mary and the Communist Party of China!

pauldla wrote: »

Not at all. If you want a picture of the BVM over your bed, stick one up! A believer is sure to have a ready selection of images to choose from, I’ll wager. But no complaining if an adherent of the First Church of Satan across from you puts up one of their pictures, too, OK?

Um, the hospital is fitted out by the hospital board, Paul, not by the patients.

pauldla wrote: »

In our secular hospital, the default setting for religious iconography is ‘off’, as attempting to cater for all beliefs is nonsense. This I would consider to be a reasonable accommodation. But, as I stated above, if you want to put up a little picture of the deity or spirit of your choice for the duration of your stay, go right ahead. Within reason.

In your secular hospital, that’s fine. It’s your hospital, run it how you like. In other people’s hospitals, however, which may not be quite so secular, you don’t get to dictate what they hang on the wall. They have the same rights as you do, remember.

pauldla wrote: »

So which imagery are you going to use? Catholic? Presbyterian? Hindu? Buddhist? Will we swap them around wards, in an effort to accomodate? Or will we just use one set of imagery, and let it represent all religions? Or maybe we could amalgamate the images, and have an eigth-armed Laughing Christ?

This is a matter for the hospital board. Isn’t that obvious? And – gasp! – different hospital boards might make different decisions in that regard!

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, if you can find a hospital jointly conducted by the Medical Missionaries of Mary and the Communist Party of China!

So, just to confirm, it’s a case of put up or get out?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um, the hospital is fitted out by the hospital board, Paul, not by the patients.

But patients can bring in small personal items, can they not? Should I demand that the hospital also supply a picture of my gerbil, Fluffy? Or should I expect the hospital to provide suitable medical facilities and trained personnel, but no more?

Peregrinus wrote: »

In your secular hospital, that’s fine. It’s your hospital, run it how you like. In other people’s hospitals, however, which may not be quite so secular, you don’t get to dictate what they hang on the wall. They have the same rights as you do, remember.
This is a matter for the hospital board. Isn’t that obvious? And – gasp! – different hospital boards might make different decisions in that regard!

But what of our diverse society, Peregrinnus? Is this the best way to ensure that the rights, tastes and desires of all are satisfied as far as possible? Surely it would be better just to keep the wall bare and let the patient put up their own little tokens of faith? I may even go further: let the patient choose between doctors of different denominations, where possible. It would be a wonderful opportunity to show true devotion to the faith!

Peregrinus

Let’s get a little bit real here.

It is the responsibility of the state to see that its citizens get proper healthcare.

It’s not the responsibility of the state to carry out the interior decoration of hospitals. That can and should be left to the people who run the hospitals, and no principal of state secularity is infringed by doing so. Likewise the question of whether and to what extent inpatients are allowed to add that personal touch is not really something which need take up a lot of time at cabinet meetings; it, too, is a matter for the hospital board.

A secular state should be indifferent as to whether healthcare is delivered through hospitals with a religious character (and corresponding interior décor), or through hospitals without.

Ideally, citizens would have some choice about where and how they get treatment and, if they choose to make the interior décor the basis on which they exercise that choice, well, that’s their choice. The whole point of their having choice is that they can exercise their choice by reference to criteria which might not appeal to you or me.

Realistically, of course, healthcare funding being the nightmare that it is, giving patients choice will often be more of an aspiration than a reality, and patients may find that they have no real option but to obtain treatment in a hospital whose interior décor does not appeal to them. That is unfortunate for those of them who care passionately about interior decoration - the absurdly pious, the doggedly atheistic and the stereotypically camp. Still, in that situation the principle of state secularity does not require the state to ensure that people who prefer religion-free décor are catered for in priority to those who prefer holy pictures and Infants of Prague at every corner. On the contrary; it requires them to disregard the matter entirely, and make their funding decisions based onrelevant criteria, like getting the best quality of healthcare delivered at the lowest cost. Whether and how people express their religious convictions – including convictions that religion is irrelevant, oppressive or ridiculous – is a matter out of which a secular state must butt.

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, absolutely. My point is more that the issue is around the absence of a shared agreement of what the content of the State element is

Simple religious competence extends only as far as the private beliefs of individuals and shared beliefs of groups, insofar as they do not interfere in the working of the state or the welfare of society (e.g. if a religion believes women should be slaves it has to bow to the state when the state says no). This can and does include religious sanctions against those who break religious laws not injurious to the state and society.

The state's duty is to protect the religious freedoms (freedom of and from religion) of all its legal residents, insofar as those freedoms are not harmful to society (e.g. it can't acquiesce to the effective slavery of all women of a religion).

Like it or lump it, that is the only sensible way.

Solair wrote: »

I think you'll find it has a very clearly defined meaning even in most dictionaries. The issue is that many people either accidentally or deliberately confuse secularism with atheism.

I think what you'll find is that most people who decry secularism place it in the same box as religious tyranny not operated by those following the same faith as themselves.

Most arguments I've heard, read or seen against secularism boil down to "but you are suppressing my god given right to suppress others, not of my faith". The rest are incomprehensible.

There has never been a religiously run state which has not quickly devolved religious tyranny.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let’s get a little bit real here.

It is the responsibility of the state to see that its citizens get proper healthcare.

It’s not the responsibility of the state to carry out the interior decoration of hospitals. That can and should be left to the people who run the hospitals, and no principal of state secularity is infringed by doing so. Likewise the question of whether and to what extent inpatients are allowed to add that personal touch is not really something which need take up a lot of time at cabinet meetings; it, too, is a matter for the hospital board.

A secular state should be indifferent as to whether healthcare is delivered through hospitals with a religious character (and corresponding interior décor), or through hospitals without.

Ideally, citizens would have some choice about where and how they get treatment and, if they choose to make the interior décor the basis on which they exercise that choice, well, that’s their choice. The whole point of their having choice is that they can exercise their choice by reference to criteria which might not appeal to you or me.

Realistically, of course, healthcare funding being the nightmare that it is, giving patients choice will often be more of an aspiration than a reality, and patients may find that they have no real option but to obtain treatment in a hospital whose interior décor does not appeal to them. That is unfortunate for those of them who care passionately about interior decoration - the absurdly pious, the doggedly atheistic and the stereotypically camp. Still, in that situation the principle of state secularity does not require the state to ensure that people who prefer religion-free décor are catered for in priority to those who prefer holy pictures and Infants of Prague at every corner. On the contrary; it requires them to disregard the matter entirely, and make their funding decisions based onrelevant criteria, like getting the best quality of healthcare delivered at the lowest cost. Whether and how people express their religious convictions – including convictions that religion is irrelevant, oppressive or ridiculous – is a matter out of which a secular state must butt.

If the hospital is privately funded and run, then yes, I agree that they get to call the shots on what hangs from the walls. Good luck to them.

On the other hand, if the hospital is financed by the state, then no, there should be no religious paraphernalia. Why should there be? It is, as you point out, wholly irrelevant to the task at hand (i.e. providing the best healthcare available), and I cannot see why any religious decoration should be provided; or, indeed, why anybody would want to add religious decoration. I would suspect those who insist on religious imagery of having a religious agenda along with the provision of healthcare, and I would not see that as being important in a hospital. No strings attached, please: let those who want religion go to a church.

Brian Shanahan

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of points:

Everybody seems to be assuming that the religious iconography is publicly funded. Is this in fact the case?

Doesn't matter. The hospital itself and its functions and staff are publicly funded. Therefore it is a public institution, and since Ireland is a secular country, all public institutions by law have to be run in a secular manner. Therefore the religious iconography has to be at least severely curtailed.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s not the responsibility of the state to carry out the interior decoration of hospitals.

If the state owns the hospitals, then it certainly is the job of the state to design the interiors in line with the law and the constitution (which, incidentally, guarantees not to "endow" any religions).

If the state does not own the hospitals, but -- like the schools -- just pays for all the staff, the capex, the pensions, all ongoing expenses, while allowing a range of political organizations to control policy and interior design, then perhaps state should ask itself why it's being taken advantage of.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

If the hospital is privately funded and run, then yes, I agree that they get to call the shots on what hangs from the walls. Good luck to them.

On the other hand, if the hospital is financed by the state, then no, there should be no religious paraphernalia. Why should there be? It is, as you point out, wholly irrelevant to the task at hand (i.e. providing the best healthcare available), and I cannot see why any religious decoration should be provided; or, indeed, why anybody would want to add religious decoration. I would suspect those who insist on religious imagery of having a religious agenda along with the provision of healthcare, and I would not see that as being important in a hospital. No strings attached, please: let those who want religion go to a church.

Hold on. I’m publicly funded. I work for the gubmin’. Virtually my entire income is provided by the state.

In return, I do the work the state pays me for. It is not part of the deal that the state gets to decorate, or veto the decoration of, my house.

If a hospital is financed by the state, then the hospital should do what the state is paying it to do – viz. provide healthcare. If, in addition, the state wants to get a veto over the interior décor, as the hospital board I would ask “how much extra are you offering us to induce us to grant you this right?” and, as a taxpayer, I’d ask “why the f*ck are you spending my tax euros buying the right to decorate buildings that you don’t own or operate?”

Demanding the right to suppress freedom of religious expression is not something a secular state can properly do. If the state is secular it should be indifferent as to whether citizens, or organisations, do or do not express religious beliefs.

robindch wrote: »

If the state owns the hospitals, then it certainly is the job of the state to design the interiors in line with the law and the constitution (which, incidentally, guarantees not to "endow" any religions).

Yup.

robindch wrote: »

If the state does not own the hospitals, but -- like the schools -- just pays for all the staff, the capex, the pensions, all ongoing expenses, while allowing a range of political organizations to control policy and interior design, then perhaps state should ask itself why it's being taken advantage of.

The state’s not being “taken advantage of”. If the hospital supplies the healthcare services that the state wants to be supplied, and is paying for, I see no “taking advantage” by anyone.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on. I’m publicly funded. I work for the gubmin’. Virtually my entire income is provided by the state.

In return, I do the work the state pays me for. It is not part of the deal that the state gets to decorate, or veto the decoration of, my house.

Nobody is arguing that, P. We’re discussing state hospitals, not private residences, are we not?

Peregrinus wrote: »

If a hospital is financed by the state, then the hospital should do what the state is paying it to do – viz. provide healthcare. If, in addition, the state wants to get a veto over the interior décor, as the hospital board I would ask “how much extra are you offering us to induce us to grant you this right?” and, as a taxpayer, I’d ask “why the f*ck are you spending my tax euros buying the right to decorate buildings that you don’t own or operate?”

You seem to be equating crucifixes with flock wallpaper, P. Religious imagery and icons as mere décor?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Demanding the right to suppress freedom of religious expression is not something a secular state can properly do. If the state is secular it should be indifferent as to whether citizens, or organisations, do or do not express religious beliefs.

And who is suppressing the freedom of religious expression? As stated above, if you want religion, go to your church. If you want to hang a picture of St Jude over your hospital bed, go for it. But surely in a secular state, there should be no provision for religious paraphernalia in state institutions. A secular state, while not ignoring belief, should treat all religions with equal indifference, and should not favour, or be seen to favour, one belief over another.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Nobody is arguing that, P. We’re discussing state hospitals, not private residences, are we not?

I’m not – see my response to robindch. I agree entirely that state hospitals – hospitals established, owned, run by the state – should be free of religious imagery of any kind.

I’m discussing hospitals owned and run by non-state agencies, with which the state contracts for the provision of healthcare services. Those agencies may, or may not, have a religious character which may, or may not, be reflected in the name, decoration, etc of the hospital. My point is that a secular state should not be concerned with whether the agencies – or individuals – with which it deals are or are not religious; its secularity requires it to disregard that question entirely.

So, declining to contract with a hospital because the hospital authorities won’t provide (say) sterilisations or blood transfusions that the state requires to be provided is fine, and it’s still fine even if that refusal is religiously-grounded.

But declining to contract with a hospital because it displays overt religious iconography is not fine, because a secular state should be indifferent as to whether people do, or do not, express religious beliefs through interior decoration.

pauldla wrote: »

You seem to be equating crucifixes with flock wallpaper, P. Religious imagery and icons as mere décor?

You dare to question the value and significance of flock wallpaper?!?!

pauldla wrote: »

And who is suppressing the freedom of religious expression? As stated above, if you want religion, go to your church.

If you want religion, you can look for it anywhere you want except in state institutions. It’s not a principal of state secularity that religion should be confined to churches; just that the state itself should have no religious character.

pauldla wrote: »

If you want to hang a picture of St Jude over your hospital bed, go for it. But surely in a secular state, there should be no provision for religious paraphernalia in state institutions.

I agree. But nor should there be a pretence that anyone or anything which receives any money from the state in return for services provided thereby becomes a “state institution”.

pauldla wrote: »

A secular state, while not ignoring belief, should treat all religions with equal indifference, and should not favour, or be seen to favour, one belief over another.

Exactly. Therefore it should be equally willing to contract with religious and non-religious providers of the goods and services that it requires, and it should not requires religious providers to renounce or to conceal or not to express their religious character as a condition of getting the contract.