Secularism Discussion (Offshoot Thread)

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Goodness, Peregrinus, I am starting to fear that the providers of the hospitals plastic cutlery will be vetted for secular orthodoxy. What is this madness I have unleashed, etc. But are we talking about contracts with healthcare providers, or funding of state hospitals?

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

Can we describe a crucifix as décor? Can a figure of a man nailed to two pieces of wood be aesthetically pleasing? Or does the crucifix have other values or significance? Indeed, is it correct to refer to religious iconography as ‘décor’?

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

And an institution funded by the state, no matter who runs it, is a state institution.
To give the example of a hospital run by the Little Sisters of Chastity, but funded by the state, I’d be quite happy to see religious iconography in private offices, staff areas, and so on. It's their hospital, after all. But in the public areas, wards, consulting rooms, etc, no. That's the 'state institution' bit.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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”.

That would be a foolish idea, and it is one we shall not entertain.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Of course not. And the service provider should understand that they are being contracted for a specific service: no hidden extras or religious entanglements please, we’re secular.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Goodness, Peregrinus, I am starting to fear that the providers of the hospitals plastic cutlery will be vetted for secular orthodoxy. What is this madness I have unleashed, etc. But are we talking about contracts with healthcare providers, or funding of state hospitals?

We’re talking about the funding of hospitals. Bannasidhe’s post #14 refers to the Mercy Hospital in Cork which (as the name suggests) is not a state hospital. It was established by the Sisters of Mercy in 1857. As far as I know the Sisters of Mercy still own it. Its mission statement is as follows:

“In keeping with the philosophy of the Sisters of Mercy, our mission is to provide a high quality health care service in the spirit of Christian concern, in order to maintain and improve the health and well being of individuals, families and the community we serve. This we achieve by our caring and support for the sick, suffering and grieving without prejudice.”

So, not a state hospital, then.

Is there not a certain tension between this:

pauldla wrote: »

And an institution funded by the state, no matter who runs it, is a state institution. .

And this:

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . 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: »

That would be a foolish idea, and it is one we shall not entertain.

You seem to be willing to entertain it! I can’t see any material distinction between an institution “funded” by the state, and one which “receives money” from the state.

You’re obviously in two minds about this, but I’m not. A state institution is an institution established, owned and operated by the state. An institution which does business with the state – even an institution which does all it’s business with the state – is not a state institution. (And, for the record, Mercy Hospital does not do all its business with the state. It has other significant sources of revenue, like health insurers and private patients.)

pauldla wrote: »

To give the example of a hospital run by the Little Sisters of Chastity, but funded by the state, I’d be quite happy to see religious iconography in private offices, staff areas, and so on. It's their hospital, after all. But in the public areas, wards, consulting rooms, etc, no. That's the 'state institution' bit.

You’re assuming, I think, that “public” = “state”. Not so. Dangerously totalitarian!

pauldla wrote: »

Of course not. And the service provider should understand that they are being contracted for a specific service: no hidden extras or religious entanglements please, we’re secular.

I repeat; the state is secular, but that doesn’t mean that it can only do business with secular individuals and agencies. In fact it means the opposite of that; it should not favour either secular or religious contractors, and it should not impose contract conditions relating to religion – including negative conditions, like “don’t display religious iconography on your premises”.

Brian Shanahan

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.

Is your home a state office?

No it is not, you'd get sacked for you and your family sleeping at work.

It is your private residence, and as such nobody cares how you decorate it (barring it not being against the law, like decorating it with the innards of dead horses). You can set it up as a shrine to Nuggan for all anybody cares.

Anyway, a false equivalence is a false equivalence no matter how you dress it up.

Brian Shanahan

pauldla wrote: »

And an institution funded by the state, no matter who runs it, is a state institution.
To give the example of a hospital run by the Little Sisters of Chastity, but funded by the state, I’d be quite happy to see religious iconography in private offices, staff areas, and so on. It's their hospital, after all. But in the public areas, wards, consulting rooms, etc, no. That's the 'state institution' bit.

What I don't get is the fact that Peregrinus cannot see what even a group of nuns take as obviously self-evicent.

I volunteered for two years for a charity in Cork set up to teach asylum seekers and other foreign nationals English, free of charge. The ethos of the school was that it would be run on secular lines, no favour to any religion, no advertising for any religion and no iconography in public spaces. The only clues that it had religious ties were the nuns themselves and in a couple of the offices there were a few small icons of Jesus and Mary.

This was a private organisation (receiving little to no state or local government support; the Guards diverting a portion of their community support budget very generously) run out of a building donated by a convent, headed and staffed mostly by nuns, and yet they had a more sensible approach to religion in public than some of the posters in this thread.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What I don't get is the fact that Peregrinus cannot see what even a group of nuns take as obviously self-evicent.

I volunteered for two years for a charity in Cork set up to teach asylum seekers and other foreign nationals English, free of charge. The ethos of the school was that it would be run on secular lines, no favour to any religion, no advertising for any religion and no iconography in public spaces. The only clues that it had religious ties were the nuns themselves and in a couple of the offices there were a few small icons of Jesus and Mary.

This was a private organisation (receiving little to no state or local government support; the Guards diverting a portion of their community support budget very generously) run out of a building donated by a convent, headed and staffed mostly by nuns, and yet they had a more sensible approach to religion in public than some of the posters in this thread.

But that's up to the people who run the school. The point is that this isn't something that should be imposed on them by the state, as a condition of getting any kind of public funding.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Is your home a state office?

No. And a voluntary hospital isn't a state office either. It doesn't become so if the hospital receives state money, any more than my home does.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. And a voluntary hospital isn't a state office either. It doesn't become so if the hospital receives state money, any more than my home does.

Did you miss the bit where I said it was a University hospital?

As a teaching hospital affiliated with UCC where, mainly nursing students, train it is not quite the same as, for example, the Bons.

Who pays for these students to be trained?

Nor was my granduncle given the option of attending another hospital...he has no choice but to be surrounded by iconography.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

We’re talking about the funding of hospitals. Bannasidhe’s post #14 refers to the Mercy Hospital in Cork which (as the name suggests) is not a state hospital. It was established by the Sisters of Mercy in 1857. As far as I know the Sisters of Mercy still own it. Its mission statement is as follows:

“In keeping with the philosophy of the Sisters of Mercy, our mission is to provide a high quality health care service in the spirit of Christian concern, in order to maintain and improve the health and well being of individuals, families and the community we serve. This we achieve by our caring and support for the sick, suffering and grieving without prejudice.”

So, not a state hospital, then.

Bannasidhe has pointed out the details of the hospital, I believe.

Peregrinus wrote: »

…
I can’t see any material distinction between an institution “funded” by the state, and one which “receives money” from the state.

You’re obviously in two minds about this, but I’m not. A state institution is an institution established, owned and operated by the state. An institution which does business with the state – even an institution which does all it’s business with the state – is not a state institution. (And, for the record, Mercy Hospital does not do all its business with the state. It has other significant sources of revenue, like health insurers and private patients.)

To clarify, to ‘fund’ and to ‘receive money from’ are the same thing?

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’re assuming, I think, that “public” = “state”. Not so. Dangerously totalitarian!

I’m assuming that some areas of state institutions will be open to, and frequented by, the general public. Dangerously totalitarian? Please explain.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I repeat; the state is secular, but that doesn’t mean that it can only do business with secular individuals and agencies. In fact it means the opposite of that; it should not favour either secular or religious contractors, and it should not impose contract conditions relating to religion – including negative conditions, like “don’t display religious iconography on your premises”.

As far as I am aware, it is not being argued that the state should only do business with secular agencies. I am arguing against the inappropriate use of religious icons in state-funded institutions, such as hospitals; and the state, if paying the piper, has the right to impose contract conditions such as “don’t display your religious iconography on our premises”, does it not? I am not an expert, but are conditions in contracts unheard of?

Brian Shanahan

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. And a voluntary hospital isn't a state office either. It doesn't become so if the hospital receives state money, any more than my home does.

Nice trying to answer my point by trying to make out it doesn't exist.

A state funded hospital is a state office, your house isn't. That is the beginning, middle and end of my point.

Also funding and pay are two totally different things, pay is the compensation for the sacrifice you make for working for others. Funding is the money given by the state to its agents (agencies in the case of bodies corporate) in order to carry out the tasks they have contracted to do.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where I said it was a University hospital?

As a teaching hospital affiliated with UCC where, mainly nursing students, train it is not quite the same as, for example, the Bons.

Who pays for these students to be trained?

Nor was my granduncle given the option of attending another hospital...he has no choice but to be surrounded by iconography.

Not sure what the point here is. Are you saying that medical students working in a hospital owned by a religious organisation shouldn't be exposed to a religious iconography?

It is quite common for medical students to train in hospitals run under some religious patronage, happens all the time here in sydney. Many of the best private hospitals are still run under the auspices of some type of order. Those that attend don't have to be Christian or catholic, I don't think it's an issue or maybe they aren't as sensitive as us Irish.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Not sure what the point here is. Are you saying that medical students working in a hospital owned by a religious organisation shouldn't be exposed to a religious iconography?

It is quite common for medical students to train in hospitals run under some religious patronage, happens all the time here in sydney. Many of the best private hospitals are still run under the auspices of some type of order. Those that attend don't have to be Christian or catholic, I don't think it's an issue or maybe they aren't as sensitive as us Irish.

No I am saying a UNIVERSITY hospital which receives STATE funding should not be publicly displaying religious iconography as per the Constitution which declares the State shall not endow any religion.

It is not a private hospital. It is a public hospital that also treats private patients.

No public hospital I was ever in in Sydney had religious iconography publicly displayed so I'm not sure what your point is bar arguing for the sake of it....

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No I am saying a UNIVERSITY hospital which receives STATE funding should not be publicly displaying religious iconography as per the Constitution which declares the State shall not endow any religion.

It is not a private hospital. It is a public hospital that also treats private patients.

No public hospital I was ever in in Sydney had religious iconography publicly displayed so I'm not sure what your point is bar arguing for the sake of it....

Clearly you were never in St. Vincent's Hospital in Darlinghusrt, right in the heart of inner city Sydney.
http://exwwwsvh.stvincents.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=149

Check out the photo and read the mission statement.
They treat people of all creeds and religion, much much more so than Ireland and I don't think bit and pieces of religious iconography has upset anyone bar the odd radical maybe. As I said, maybe they are thankful they are getting excellant medical treatment rather than give out about a piece of wood or clay.

They receive state funding, should the federal and state goverment demand that they 'cleanse' their hospital of all iconography before they receive one more dollar in funding?

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Clearly you were never in St. Vincent's Hospital in Darlinghusrt, right in the heart of inner city Sydney.
http://exwwwsvh.stvincents.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=149

Check out the photo and read the mission statement.
They treat people of all creeds and religion, much much more so than Ireland and I don't think bit and pieces of religious iconography has upset anyone bar the odd radical maybe. As I said, maybe they are thankful they are getting excellant medical treatment rather than give out about a piece of wood or clay.

They receive state funding, should the federal and state goverment demand that they 'cleanse' their hospital of all iconography before they receive one more dollar in funding?

No I did not go to Darlo to visit a hospital as I had a choice and received excellent care in Marrickville and Newtown without a holy picture in sight.

One also cannot compare Australian society to Irish as the RCC (or any other religion) was never allowed to dominate Australian society in the way it was/is allowed to dominate Irish society.

You are not comparing like for like and you know it.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No I did not go to Darlo to visit a hospital as I had a choice and received excellent care in Marrickville and Newtown without a holy picture in sight.

One also cannot compare Australian society to Irish as the RCC (or any other religion) was never allowed to dominate Australian society in the way it was/is allowed to dominate Irish society.

You are not comparing like for like and you know it.

Oh but I am, the main teaching hospital for the UNSW is St. Vincent's.
University of Sydney use various hospitals including those of a religious ethos. By your reckoning this shouldn't be allowed. Please correct me if I am wrong as you brought up the issue of hospitals being a teaching hospital.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Oh but I am, the main teaching hospital for the UNSW is St. Vincent's.
University of Sydney use various hospitals including those of a religious ethos. By your reckoning this shouldn't be allowed. Please correct me if I am wrong as you brought up the issue of hospitals being a teaching hospital.

Would you care to address the point I actually made that you are not comparing like for like in terms of the domination of one religion over civil society?

jank

I am addressing your point, your original point made in this post without trying to shift the goal posts.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83194253&postcount=38

So my last question was.

"Oh but I am, the main teaching hospital for the UNSW is St. Vincent's.
University of Sydney use various hospitals including those of a religious ethos. By your reckoning this shouldn't be allowed. Please correct me if I am wrong as you brought up the issue of hospitals being a teaching hospital"

Do you agree with this stance only in Ireland and not in other countries?
What about medical students who pay their own fees, should they not be allowed in these hospitals that display religious iconography?

I am just confused what this has to do with the fact that a hospital is a teaching hospital, as if that changes things.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Bannasidhe has pointed out the details of the hospital, I believe.

Yes. She’s pointed out that it has a link with UCC – part of the UCC medical school instruction is delivered there. I don’t think that makes it a “state institution”, and I’m not seeing anyone advancing a coherent argument that it does. Bannasidhe points to the fact that the state (presumably) is the ultimate paymaster for most of the teaching carried on at the hospital, but I’ve already pointed out that merely receiving money from the state doesn’t miraculously turn you into a “state institution”.

pauldla wrote: »

To clarify, to ‘fund’ and to ‘receive money from’ are the same thing?

“To be funded by” and “to receive money from” are pretty much the same thing, yes. The way you fund an organisation is by giving it money, and if somebody gives you money to carry on whatever it is you carry on, they can reasonably said to be funding you. My lifestyle – the cars, the girls, the cocaine – is funded by my salary, the money my employer gives me. Is the same not true for you?

pauldla wrote: »

I’m assuming that some areas of state institutions will be open to, and frequented by, the general public. Dangerously totalitarian? Please explain.

I don’t think that’s your assumption. You seem to me to be assuming that any part of the hospital that is open to, and frequented by, the general public is, because of that public access, a “state institution”. (You haven’t suggested any other reason why the wards are state institutions and the offices not). And, of course, expanding the role and responsibility of the state to encompass the entirety of the public square is pretty much totalitatianism 101.

pauldla wrote: »

As far as I am aware, it is not being argued that the state should only do business with secular agencies. I am arguing against the inappropriate use of religious icons in state-funded institutions, such as hospitals; and the state, if paying the piper, has the right to impose contract conditions such as “don’t display your religious iconography on our premises”, does it not? I am not an expert, but are conditions in contracts unheard of?

The issue is not whether the state can impose such a condition (it might be found to infringe constitutional or ECHR guarantees on freedom of religious expression, but that’s for another thread); the issue is whether it should.

My argument is that a secular state should not. The principle of secularity is that decisions should be taken without regard to religious considerations. Thus, in its hospital funding decisions, the state should neither favour nor disfavour hospitals which display a religious character or ethos; they should disregard that question entirely and take their decision on non-religious considerations.

You can certainly argue that the state should, by law or policy, seek to minimise or even forbid the expression of religious character or ethos in public places. And you can argue that it should use its economic muscle as a purchaser of goods and services on behalf the public to do so, by insisting on contract terms like the one you are suggesting. But if you do that you’re not arguing for a secular state; you are arguing for a state which explicitly relies on considerations of religion in its decisions and actions.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. She’s pointed out that it has a link with UCC – part of the UCC medical school instruction is delivered there. I don’t think that makes it a “state institution”, and I’m not seeing anyone advancing a coherent argument that it does.

Its operated by the HSE, what more do you want?

Cork University Hospital is not just state funded, but state operated, therefore the rest of your argument is invlaid. It should not display any religious iconography itself.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its operated by the HSE, what more do you want?

Cork University Hospital is not just state funded, but state operated, therefore the rest of your argument is invlaid. It should not display any religious iconography itself.

That's a different hospital, Mark.

CUH, in Wilton, is indeed operated by the HSE. It's a state institution, and I agree it should have no religious character.

Bannasidhe's post refers to MUH, in Grenville Place, and that's the hospital we have been discussing. It's an explicitly religious institution with an explicitly religious mission, established by the Sisters of Mercy. In Health Service funding terms, it's a "voluntary hospital", i.e. not one established or run by the state or under a state mandate, but established and run by private organisation which has no legal obligation to do so.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bannasidhe's post refers to MUH, in Grenville Place, and that's the hospital we have been discussing. It's an explicitly religious institution with an explicitly religious mission [...]

If the organization concerned has an "explicitly religious mission", then the State is in breach of Article 44.2.2 of the Constitution which says that “The State guarantees not to endow any religion”.

wp_rathead

I think watching this video is necessary for every discussion about secularism

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's a different hospital, Mark.

CUH, in Wilton, is indeed operated by the HSE. It's a state institution, and I agree it should have no religious character.

Bannasidhe's post refers to MUH, in Grenville Place, and that's the hospital we have been discussing. It's an explicitly religious institution with an explicitly religious mission, established by the Sisters of Mercy. In Health Service funding terms, it's a "voluntary hospital", i.e. not one established or run by the state or under a state mandate, but established and run by private organisation which has no legal obligation to do so.

Sorry, didn't realise you were talking about a different hospital.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

If the organization concerned has an "explicitly religious mission", then the State is in breach of Article 44.2.2 of the Constitution which says that “The State guarantees not to endow any religion”.

Depends on what you think "endow any religion" means - or, to be more precise, it depends on what the Supreme Court thinks it means.

In this case the explicitly religions mission of the hospital is the provision of medical care. It's explicitly religious because it has an explicitly religious motivation, but that's probably not enough to engage the "endowment of religion" provisions of the constitution.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends on what you think "endow any religion" means - or, to be more precise, it depends on what the Supreme Court thinks it means.

Well, "endow" means "give money to" and "religion" refers to people or corporations operating on behalf of a religious ideology.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In this case the explicitly religions mission of the hospital is the provision of medical care.

Well, make up your mind Up above, you claim that this place is "an explicitly religious institution with an explicitly religious mission". Now you say the place has an explicit medical mission -- which is fair enough, given it's mission statement.

Mercy University Hospital wrote:

In keeping with the philosophy of the Sisters of Mercy, our mission is to provide a high quality health care service in the spirit of Christian concern, in order to maintain and improve the health and well being of individuals, families and the community we serve. This we achieve by our caring and support for the sick, suffering and grieving without prejudice.

Nothing specific about Jesus there, which is great. Still, the large cross at the top of each page suggests a religious element, as does the appearance of at least one religious on the Board of Danagement.

Peregrinus

As your quote from the mission statement shows, Robin, the mission of the hospital is both religious and medical. There is no contradiction, and neither I nor the hospital have to plump for one or the other to characterise the hospital.

If the state is to be secular, then its decisions and actions should not be influenced by the religious character of the hospital. (Of course they can and should be influenced by its medical character.)

As for the endowment of religion, the position is not quite as simple as you make out. "Religion" (like "science", say) is an abstract concept, and abstractions cannot own things, so you can't give money to an abstract concept.

Quite a number of western democracies have legal or constitutional requirements of secularity and/or prohibitionson the public endowment of religion. I'm not aware of any which interprets this to mean that the state can have no involvement with any person or agency who acts out of a religious motive, and there are plenty of instances where the state certainly does not take that view. In France, for example, teachers in Catholic schools are paid by the state.

This particular circle is usually squared by providing hypothecated funding - the state provides funds, but dictates what they are to be spent on and, usually, dictates that they are not to spent on worship, evangelism, etc, but on the particular activities which are the legitimate concern of the state, such as (in this instance) treating the sick or undertaking medical research or education.

jank

Peregrinus wrote: »

Quite a number of western democracies have legal or constitutional requirements of secularity and/or prohibitionson the public endowment of religion. I'm not aware of any which interprets this to mean that the state can have no involvement with any person or agency who acts out of a religious motive, and there are plenty of instances where the state certainly does not take that view. In France, for example, teachers in Catholic schools are paid by the state.

.

This.

Is there any western democracy that interprets secularism in the way Robin is proposing? Maybe the United States?

Peregrinus

Not even the US, I think. The US’s take on the establishment of religion is pretty strong, but still not absolute. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that it’s constitutionally permissible for the state to operate school buses serving Catholic schools (and the issue would not have come before the court unless at least one state did so).

They apply a three-part test to decide whether government action is compatible with the non-establishment clause of the constitution. First, does the law or policy in question have a neutral or non-religious purpose? (Funding hospitals would clearly be OK by this test.) Secondly, is the primary effect of the policy one which neither advances nor inhibits religion? (Again, funding hospitals would be OK by this test too.) Thirdly, does the law or policy result in an “excessive entanglement” of government with religion?

Not to put words in anybody’s mouth, but I think that robindch, pauldla and others would have a sense that the provision of public funding to a hospital in which religious iconography was displayed does involve “excessive entanglement”. My take, naturally, differs, but what really strikes me about that test is that it’s pretty nebulous. When does involvement or connection become “entanglement”, and who is to say when “entanglement” is “excessive”, as opposed to being , like baby bear’s porridge, just right? This looks like a pretty subjective standard to me.

Most of the US disputes centre around the display or expression of religion on state property. Can the recitation of a theist pledge of allegiance be organised in state schools? (Answer: no, at least not by the school authorities). Can the legislature mandate equal teaching time for creationism and evolution in states schools? (Answer: no.) Can the ten commandments be represented as part of a display of American legal traditions in a state courthouse? (Answer: yes) Can a monumental cross be displayed on publicly-owned land? (Answer: no.)

In this thread, though, we’re looking at something slightly different; private institutions which have a religious character, and state funding or support. In the US, the non-establishment clause is of course coupled with the free expression clause; private institutions have a constitutional right to express their religious character in whatever way they feel. If this were to bar them from state funding, would that be a proper application of the non-establishment clause? Or an improper penalisation of their free expression rights?

The exact situation of funding a Catholic hospital doesn’t arise in the US, where (aside from state-run hospitals) hospitals are largely funded by patients and insurance companies.

But we can look at universities, many of which in the US are private, not state-run, and many of which have a religious character. There’s a slew of state and federal funding programmes for both research and teaching in which they can participate. I assume that none of the funding goes directly to religious activities or that, if it did, that would be struck down if challenged in the courts. But there certainly isn’t any general rule disadvantaging the religiously-characterised colleges and universities when it comes to seeking public funding for their educational and research activities. And I think that, if the American fetish about “socialised medicine” didn’t prevent them from providing direct funding to hospitals, the same approach would be taken; funding the provision of medical care or the conduct of medical research or teaching, even in a Catholic hospital, would probably not be seen as an “excessive entanglement” with religion, provided the funding didn’t go to any primarily religious, as opposed to medical, activities.

the culture of deference

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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..

You should have informed the management that the images offended you and you should have removed them.

jank wrote: »

Not sure what the point here is. Are you saying that medical students working in a hospital owned by a religious organisation shouldn't be exposed to a religious iconography?

It is quite common for medical students to train in hospitals run under some religious patronage, happens all the time here in sydney. Many of the best private hospitals are still run under the auspices of some type of order. Those that attend don't have to be Christian or catholic, I don't think it's an issue or maybe they aren't as sensitive as us Irish.

religious patronage has no place in 2013. in fact religion has no place in 2013.

Even more scary is this




IRISH CATHOLIC DOCTORS ASSOCIATION


Welcome to the website for the Irish Catholic Doctors Association!
We believe in the teachings of the Cathoic Church and wish to share this "Good News" with the entire medical community - including non Catholics or non practicing Catholics whose faith may have lapsed.


We promote the concept that it is possible to have a strong faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church and practice medicine to the highest possible standards. Faith and Reason go hand in hand as outlined in John Paul II's encyclical "Fides et Ratio".



Furthermore, as Catholics we are challenged to go further and to bring our faith to bear on how we practice medicine in order to build a "Culture of Life" and "Civilization of Love" as explained in the wonderful encyclical "Evangelium Vitae".


A Catholic Restatement of the Hippocratic Oath is available HERE. (PDF Version HERE)

There is a major crisis in Ireland at present,it has never been so serious. There is a real danger abortion will come into our country.

We need your help.....You can help by signing the Dublin Declaration,we are looking for 500 signatures of Doctors,especially obstetricians/ gynaecologists and nurses involved in Maternal healthcare.

Fcuking Drivel

jank

the culture of deference wrote: »

religious patronage has no place in 2013. in fact religion has no place in 2013.

In what, Society?

pwurple

Just to add, not only is the Mercy Hospital currently owned by the sisters of Mercy, it was previously a seminary. It has a chapel in there, plus a convent. You even see the odd nun still wandering the corridors. It is really quite a religious building historically. To suggest that the religious iconography of the place be stripped off and obliterated because they receive current funding from the government is to try to erase history. Something I am never in favour of. It is part of the buildings identity.