Church-run hospitals told to ditch holy symbols

Sleepy · 28-02-2019 01:53PM

Whatever needs to be CPO'd to completely remove Religious ownership/involvement from any state organisation (Hospital, School or otherwise) should be CPO'd. We can deduct the religious orders share of the compensation payments to victims of their abuse from the bill.

Calhoun · 28-02-2019 01:56PM

Acosta wrote: »

Too many people have very little regard for the feelings of the victims of abuse because as a nation we really have not dealt with it what was let happen to these people and justice has not been served.

It will be future generations that will deal with the horrors what that was let happen to people in years gone by under the banner of holy catholic Ireland because it's deemed to be bad form by official Ireland to hold up a mirror to our parents and grandparents generation and simply say ''How the **** did you let this happen?''
Older generations will look bad for either participating in it or turning the other way and my generation will rightly be blamed for letting these people get away with it.

If you think it's a matter of playing a blame game you really misunderstand the issue.

How would you suggest we punish the elderly?

gctest50 · 28-02-2019 01:58PM

SoundsRight wrote: »

Can we maybe try and focus on cutting waiting times, and then worry about the feelings of some sensitive souls who are offended by two bits of wood on a wall. You'd swear it was Swastikas they were complaining about.

The Swastika is about 11,000 years old, used to be a symbol of peace until the Nazis used it

Hopefully that cross will go the same way some day -

"unusable" because of the filth that used it as the symbol of their depraved organisation

Mr.Maroon · 28-02-2019 02:01PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's definitely not acceptable. Hard to blame the nurses and docs who, as you say, can't police them. I'd be writing an email to the hospital manager in that case. Nobody should be casually entering areas of a hospital where infection is a concern.

I've gotten surveys a few times after leaving which I've filled out and voiced my concern about them.

I'll go down the route of writing an email to the hospital manager the next time I'm in, if it continues to happen.

28-02-2019 02:02PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do the comforted by the BVM have more right to their peace of mind or something??

Or we could say that State funded hospitals are for all citizens and not just for those who derive comfort from the BVM, so the best thing is if religious iconography is best left to specifically religious venues and kept out of State funded facilities.

are you suggesting, then, that we remove chapels from state-funded hospitals? And that mortuaires on the grounds should be devoid of any religious symbolism?

I think that's going a bit far. I'm from a religious tradition which disavows Christian icons and other imagery, but can't imagine anyone I know, including atheists, having a reasonable objection.

Let's focus then on victims of clerical sex abuse. If someone is having a visceral reaction - being terrified - by a religious symbol, then yes, I think that person should be offered counselling. Such imagery, for better or worse, is inescapable in modern life. You'd struggle to walk around a city like Dublin or Cork without regularly encountering places of Christian worship with all of the imagery that attaches to those places.

I would like to see further study on those who are victims of clerical sex abuse, to ascertain the extent to which this is a serious problem for them.

All we have at the moment are anecdotes. I can understand why people might dislike the imagery, but I suspect a lot of people take comfort in those objects too. That anyone would be viscerally frightened by them seems to me fairly unusual.

orourkeda1977 · 28-02-2019 02:06PM

If you come out of a hospital and this is all that you have to complain about, even non religious people will probably thank some god in their own way

SoundsRight · 28-02-2019 02:08PM

gctest50 wrote: »

The Swastika is about 11,000 years old, used to be a symbol of peace until the Nazis used it

Hopefully that cross will go the same way some day -

"unusable" because of the filth that used it as the symbol of their depraved organisation

It'sa symbol of hope and inspiration to billions of people around the world, from all walks of life. You'd want to be very bitter and intolerant to view it in the same light as the swastika.

Uncharted · 28-02-2019 02:10PM

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

even non religious people will probably thank some god in their own way

???????????????????????

No. They won't. Why would they?

They're non religious. Ipso facto.

seamus · 28-02-2019 02:12PM

SoundsRight wrote: »

It'sa symbol of hope and inspiration to billions of people around the world, from all walks of life. You'd want to be very bitter and intolerant to view it in the same light as the swastika.

Or non-Christian. Considering "heretics" have been butchered in the millions by Christians down through the ages.

Worth thinking about.

SoundsRight · 28-02-2019 02:15PM

seamus wrote: »

Or non-Christian. Considering "heretics" have been butchered in the millions by Christians down through the ages.

Worth thinking about.

What millions would that be?

Acosta · 28-02-2019 02:19PM

Calhoun wrote: »

If you think it's a matter of playing a blame game you really misunderstand the issue.

How would you suggest we punish the elderly?

At this point it's not really punishment that concerns me. I just wish as a nation we had a proper conversation about it and got to grips with the magnitude of the whole thing. Like some sort of citizens assembly where everything is laid out in the open and discussed. But I know that's just impossible when most would refuse to take part. At the end of the day the same political parties that let all this happen are still running the show today.

When I see or listen to people act like their way of life is being attacked because someone else thinks the angelus shouldn't be on tv or radio, or that we should rightly be removing religious iconography from public places I do wonder what parallel universe these people are living in. These things are the absolute minimum that should be done.

branie2 · 28-02-2019 02:21PM

How about a risen Jesus symbol instead?

Giveaway · 28-02-2019 02:21PM

seamus wrote: »

Or non-Christian. Considering "heretics" have been butchered in the millions by Christians down through the ages.

Worth thinking about.

Millions have died in conflicts between Christian denominations. The number of heretics hunted down and murdered by christians is an awful lot less

SoundsRight · 28-02-2019 02:22PM

Mr.Maroon wrote: »

Having been admitted to hospital a few times in the last 3/4 years - I've never had a crucifix in my room. If there was one in a room when I went in - I'd take it down and give it to one of the staff, but that is my personal preference.

One thing that does annoy me when I'm admitted is the people (usually old) coming into my room offering me communion. They usually enter the room ignoring the proper infection control protocols too which is really frustrating.

I've complained about these people but it's impossible for a nurse/member of staff to police them.

They're a hazard going from room to room spreading who knows what.

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

Giveaway · 28-02-2019 02:26PM

SoundsRight wrote: »

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

If any healthcare workers clothing was an infection hazard i would ask for removal. A tight tucked in cleanly laundered headscarf is not a health hazard. That said, in a state run hospital no staff member should wear an item of clothing, badge or otherwise that states a political or religious affiliation

One eyed Jack · 28-02-2019 02:27PM

Acosta wrote: »

At this point it's not really punishment that concerns me. I just wish as a nation we had a proper conversation about it and got to grips with the magnitude of the whole thing. Like some sort of citizens assembly where everything is laid out in the open and discussed. But I know that's just impossible when most would refuse to take part. At the end of the day the same political parties that let all this happen are still running the show today.

When I see or listen to people act like their way of life is being attacked because someone else thinks the angelus shouldn't be on tv or radio, or that we should rightly be removing religious iconography from public places I do wonder what parallel universe these people are living in. These things are the absolute minimum that should be done.

They live in the same universe as you do where you wish we could have a “proper” conversation, a conversation which appears to be entirely about how the universe should be based upon your views, as opposed to you having to accept that the reason other people would have no interest in taking part in a conversation controlled by you, is that they simply don’t share your views, and don’t consider your views worth entertaining.

Does your interfering with people’s way of life undo history or something?

Bannasidhe · 28-02-2019 02:31PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

are you suggesting, then, that we remove chapels from state-funded hospitals? And that mortuaires on the grounds should be devoid of any religious symbolism?

I think that's going a bit far. I'm from a religious tradition which disavows Christian icons and other imagery, but can't imagine anyone I know, including atheists, having a reasonable objection.

Let's focus then on victims of clerical sex abuse. If someone is having a visceral reaction - being terrified - by a religious symbol, then yes, I think that person should be offered counselling. Such imagery, for better or worse, is inescapable in modern life. You'd struggle to walk around a city like Dublin or Cork without regularly encountering places of Christian worship with all of the imagery that attaches to those places.

I would like to see further study on those who are victims of clerical sex abuse, to ascertain the extent to which this is a serious problem for them.

All we have at the moment are anecdotes. I can understand why people might dislike the imagery, but I suspect a lot of people take comfort in those objects too. That anyone would be viscerally frightened by them seems to me fairly unusual.

A specifically RCC 'Chapel' has no place in a State funded facility. A designated room for those who wish to pray to their god or gods in a private setting is fine - although why they couldn't do that in a garden with a covered area that everyone could enjoy is beyond me.

My 'reasonable' objection is that those who derive comfort from religious imagery do not have some kind of special status whereby their psychological comfort is so important that it must be catered to in State Funded medical Facilities while those who are distressed by it can just get over themselves.

It's the reasonable objection to the beliefs of one group of citizens being facilitated by the State while other citizens beliefs are ignored.

You said "You'd struggle to walk around a city like Dublin or Cork without regularly encountering places of Christian worship with all of the imagery that attaches to those places." - we aren't discussing places of Worship. We are discussing State funded hospitals. Places of worship can be ignored, are not funded directly out of taxes, and are never where seriously ill people are brought to get better. So not at all the same thing.

You either believe that all citizens regardless of religious beliefs - or lack thereof - have the right to equal treatment in State Funded hospitals or not and that this includes an equal right to peace of mind during recovery. It doesn't matter how many might be distressed. It matters that the State recognises all citizens as equal in the provision of healthcare and doesn't privileged the psychological comfort - or ethos - of some over the potential distress of others.
It's as simple as that.

As I said, in any medical facility funded from it's own resources they can deck it out like the Vatican if they want - my tax won't be funding it.

BeerFarts · 28-02-2019 02:32PM

SoundsRight wrote: »

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

Bit of a difference in one being a shawl over someones head and the other is a depiction of a man being crucified. We've all become so used to seeing the crucifix but it's not that hard to understand either why someone who isn't Christian might not like it.

Calhoun · 28-02-2019 02:32PM

Acosta wrote: »

At this point it's not really punishment that concerns me. I just wish as a nation we had a proper conversation about it and got to grips with the magnitude of the whole thing. Like some sort of citizens assembly where everything is laid out in the open and discussed. But I know that's just impossible when most would refuse to take part. At the end of the day the same political parties that let all this happen are still running the show today.

When I see or listen to people act like their way of life is being attacked because someone else thinks the angelus shouldn't be on tv or radio, or that we should rightly be removing religious iconography from public places I do wonder what parallel universe these people are living in. These things are the absolute minimum that should be done.

You do understand how institutional abuse works ect. These people didn't just let it happen had they went against it then it could have ruined some lives.

I am not trying to come across as condescending but it's not so easy as the seeds of why we went through what we did goes back to the founding of the state .

I think people would be more neutral to a separation of church and state if we had equal measure applied across the board. People in Ireland have differing opinions depending in the religion which is a little bit hypocritical..

SoundsRight · 28-02-2019 02:40PM

BeerFarts wrote: »

Bit of a difference in one being a shawl over someones head and the other is a depiction of a man being crucified. We've all become so used to seeing the crucifix but it's not that hard to understand either why someone who isn't Christian might not like it.

There is no difference. Both are religious symbols. Either we are tolerant of our faith and other faiths, or we have an outright ban. I'd rather live in a tolerant society instead of one where we have these new Puritans looking to tear down anything they think can cause offence.

One eyed Jack · 28-02-2019 02:43PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You either believe that all citizens regardless of religious beliefs - or lack thereof - have the right to equal treatment in State Funded hospitals or not and that this includes an equal right to peace of mind during recovery. It doesn't matter how many might be distressed. It matters that the State recognises all citizens as equal in the provision of healthcare and doesn't privileged the psychological comfort - or ethos - of some over the potential distress of others.
It's as simple as that.

As I said, in any medical facility funded from it's own resources they can deck it out like the Vatican if they want - my tax won't be funding it.

I wouldn’t have any issue if those people who object to the State providing funds to hospitals owned and run by religious organisations decided to organise themselves and set up and run their own hospitals and applied for funding from the State on an equal basis as those hospitals owned and run by religious organisations.

In truth though I’d sooner recommend private hospitals over publicly funded hospitals, but I understand not everyone has the capacity to afford private healthcare.

gctest50 · 28-02-2019 02:43PM

SoundsRight wrote: »

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

Ah, the "old drag the thread off topic again"

SoundsRight · 28-02-2019 02:45PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Ah, the "old drag the thread off topic again"

Er, the topic is religious symbols in hospitals?

Cryptopagan · 28-02-2019 02:50PM

Rayne Attractive Pocketknife wrote: »

Seriously ... the "impact of the decor" on patients?

Most people in hospital want good doctors and timely, effective treatment, and couldn't give a toss about the "decor."

Of course decor matters. It doesn’t matter as much as good staff, good equipment, and cleanliness, but it does matter. A patient’s optimism or lack of it in face of illness can be an important factor in their recovery, and decor can influence their mental state. For me, crucifixes carry bleak connotations, and I wouldn’t want to be surrounded by them when laid up with illness.

uck51js9zml2yt · 28-02-2019 02:51PM

I had more hassle from the c of I minister than the RC representative when I was in hospital.
Barged into ICU after me just waking from 14 hour surgery.

RC. never came near me.

Crosses don't bother me.

28-02-2019 02:53PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A specifically RCC 'Chapel' has no place in a State funded facility. A designated room for those who wish to pray to their god or gods in a private setting is fine - although why they couldn't do that in a garden with a covered area that everyone could enjoy is beyond me.

So when you said you wanted separation of Church and State, you're fine with religious places of worship being built and maintained, and having a visible presence in state-funded hospitals?

You said "You'd struggle to walk around a city like Dublin or Cork without regularly encountering places of Christian worship with all of the imagery that attaches to those places." - we aren't discussing places of Worship. We are discussing State funded hospitals. Places of worship can be ignored

Well they cannot really be ignored, that was my point. You don't have to enter a place of worship to notice the symbolism, the icons. They are everywhere.

What do you suggest in those cases, that they should grow vines?

It doesn't matter how many might be distressed. It matters that the State recognises all citizens as equal in the provision of healthcare and doesn't privileged the psychological comfort - or ethos - of some over the potential distress of others.
It's as simple as that.

Of course the numbers matter when it comes to patient opinions. It's as simple as trying to find a balance between providing comfort to (perhaps) a majority, whilst discommoding the fewest amount of patients.

It's worth bearing in mind that there's a big difference between state-funded and state-owned. The State doesn't own many of the hospitals in question, they have agreed to provide funding for its operations, but not to acquire the property. Personally, I and many others object to that, of course. But it is not the property of the State, after all.

Bannasidhe · 28-02-2019 02:55PM

SoundsRight wrote: »

There is no difference. Both are religious symbols. Either we are tolerant of our faith and other faiths, or we have an outright ban. I'd rather live in a tolerant society instead of one where we have these new Puritans looking to tear down anything they think can cause offence.

There is a difference because the nurse or doctor wearing a hijab is an individual expressing their personal religious belief and is no different to an individual wearing a yarmulke or cross or turban or bindi while at work.

To make it equivalent we would need to have texts from the Koran (images being forbidden), shrines to Dhanvantari etc etc prominently displayed along corridors and stairwells. Every religions 'ethos' should get a look in... so there goes blood transfusions for a start...

Or we could just say sorry - this is a State funded hospital and as we do not have a State religion and our Constitution specifically says the State may not endorse any religion no religious iconography from any religion is permitted and no ethos is allowed to dictate medical treatment.

Pints of O neg for everyone in the audience!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-02-2019 03:00PM

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

What I don't understand about this is the health service is falling down and people still have a horn about religious relics.

If I were seriously ill I really couldn't care less about some statue on the wall

True but about a decade ago, I was getting ready to be wheeled off to theatre for a serious operation. A priest came into my ward and went to each bay, asking if each patient would like to be blessed. I’d no problem with that at all. So when he got to me, I said “No thank you”. I know I’m me so I’m biased but I know I was polite to him. Perhaps a bit distracted because I was getting in the zone for my operation but polite. Well jaysus, it’s ten years ago and I can still see the hurt puppy dog look on his face and the shoulders hunched posture he adopted whilst backing away from my bed while saying “Oh... oh. Alright then.” in a hurt tone of voice.

I totally respected his right to be there and other patients were comforted by the blessing they received from him. But not everyone admitted to hospital is going to be religious and that should also be respected. I had a lot on my mind and feeling guilted for turning down a blessing from a priest was something I did not need. He acted personally offended. That’s not very compassionate.

Mr.Maroon · 28-02-2019 03:01PM

SoundsRight wrote: »

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

Why would I ask her to remove it?
The hospital sets the infection control protocols - I'm sure they've made the necessary procedures for head scarfs.
She'd also be a nurse, so she would fully understand the infection control protocols and how important they are.

The people who come around offering communion will often enter my room without wearing disposable gowns or latex gloves. They'll wander from patient to patient without washing their hands, touching door handles, light switches etc.
It only takes one of these idiots to bring highly infectious bugs into a room.

Acosta · 28-02-2019 03:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They live in the same universe as you do where you wish we could have a “proper” conversation, a conversation which appears to be entirely about how the universe should be based upon your views, as opposed to you having to accept that the reason other people would have no interest in taking part in a conversation controlled by you, is that they simply don’t share your views, and don’t consider your views worth entertaining.

Does your interfering with people’s way of life undo history or something?

How am I controlling things in a scenario where an assembly formed of people from all walks of Irish life come together to discuss how and why horrible things happened to people for decades so that as a country maybe we can move learn and move on from it?

Saying that removing religious iconography from public spaces is interfering with peoples lives is pathetic. Catholics can practice religion in a church or in private other religions.

Church-run hospitals told to ditch holy symbols

Comments