UK Nurse faces the sack after offering to pray for sick patient

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You still don't seem to understand that some people find other peoples' religious beliefs and practices offensive. No doubt they shouldn't in many cases, but a lot certainly do. In that context, it's been found that the best way to reduce the chances of conflict is for everybody to agreed to leave their religions (and no religion) at the door. Same with politics. Same with trade union issues. Same with lots of other things.

If people are asked if they want someone to pray for them, there is a two letter answer that works quite well, "No". That's all it takes. There's no need for the commotion and nonsense that is associated with this incident.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

2) Tolerate the beliefs of others.

I'd personally prefer a society with the latter as it's motivation.

Oh the irony

Explain to me again why this Christian had to say a prayer for these people

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

If people are asked if they want someone to pray for them, there is a two letter answer that works quite well, "No". That's all it takes. There's no need for the commotion and nonsense that is associated with this incident.

No that is not all it takes, because we both know (and anyone who has ever dealt with a pushy religious person before, such as a JW at their door, knows), that "No thank you" is often not an acceptable answer to the person.

As Robin's article points out (and the BA cross wearing crazy person is a good example of) this is just the sort of awkward situation these guidelines and rules are trying to avoid, people being put in unfair position of having to accept the religious offer or risk offending the person making it.

That is difficult enough when it is a co-worker, but when the exchange is between a person in care and the person supposed to be caring for them, it becomes even more difficult.

If this woman was the type of person to go "Oh, ok, sorry won't ask again" she wouldn't have been asking in the first place.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Perhaps some people would be offended by an offer of prayer.

Good, now we're getting somewhere -- we can both agree that religious observances can cause unnecessary grief. Next thing is to work out what do do about them.

Húrin wrote: »

The swastika is widely considered an offensive symbol in western culture. Some countries even prohibit it. Prayer is not.

We're discussing the principle here.

So you're saying that it's ok for a christian to practice their religious observances, but it's not ok for a hindu to do the same?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

If people are asked if they want someone to pray for them, there is a two letter answer that works quite well, "No". That's all it takes. There's no need for the commotion and nonsense that is associated with this incident.

You haven't answered my question and you're still missing the point entirely and I don't know why.

We're trying to establish if, in principle, medical staff can or cannot practice their religious observances with patients.

Bearing this in mind, do you believe that somebody can do whatever they like -- say, something like the swastika example above -- and simply claim that this is their religious belief and the other person should simply not be offended by it?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Bearing this in mind, do you believe that somebody can do whatever they like -- say, something like the swastika example above -- and simply claim that this is their religious belief and the other person should simply not be offended by it?

The fact of the matter is, we are dealing with the reality. You must bring up these silly extremes that have no relationship to what this nurse did in order to 'try' and piece together some kind of rational sounding point. The fact of the matter is, this is western europe. The swastika represents the nazi's to a majority of people. Most folk I would imagine are ignorant of its origin, thus, it would represent racism etc to alot of people here.

The only way this would be a valid comparrison, is if we were in a culture, whereby, the 'offer' of prayer would be considered to represent racism etc. In the real world example, your arguement is merely clutching at straws.

And for the record, I think it has been established, that there 'may' be someone who is offended by an offer of prayer. However, this would be extremely rare, oversensitive, and foolish. So we should not legislate and encourage such behaviour. People can be offended at the most inoffensive things, that does not mean we legislate for them. No-body on this side is missing any point. That is clear. We merely reject yours as irrational rubish.

Fighting Irish

Thats harsh and stupid but so is religion

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its quite unusual to come across a story like this from the British Tabloids,

A nurse could be sacked and even struck off for offering to say a prayer for an elderly patient. Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, has already been suspended for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

She now faces disciplinary action, even though the patient involved did not make a formal complaint.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133423/Persecuted-praying-Nurse-faces-sack-offering-pray-sick-patient.html

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

In the real world example, your arguement is merely clutching at straws. [...] We merely reject yours as irrational rubish.

So, say you were a hospital administrator and a Hindu doctor came to you wanting to wear the swastika -- you'd stop him, even though it's a long-standing part of his religious tradition?

Amalgam

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Thats harsh and stupid but so is religion

We don't all think alike, what you think is stupid might give someone in hospital great solace and comfort.

I was in a ward last week (as a patient) and a patient beside me thought it was hilarious to tell the Chaplain to F-CK OFF very loudly if he caught sight of the man about to make his way in. Total ignorant pig. Staff didn't bat an eyelid, nothing was said or done. Chaplain blanked the person and just had a polite exchange with the rest of us. No harm done.

Fighting Irish

Amalgam wrote: »

We don't all think alike, what you think is stupid might give someone in hospital great solace and comfort.

I was in a ward last week (as a patient) and a patient beside me thought it was hilarious to tell the Chaplain to F-CK OFF very loudly if he caught sight of the man about to make his way in. Total ignorant pig. Staff didn't bat an eyelid, nothing was said or done. Chaplain blanked the person and just had a polite exchange with the rest of us. No harm done.

Payback for all the years of bull****

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

And for the record, I think it has been established, that there 'may' be someone who is offended by an offer of prayer. However, this would be extremely rare, oversensitive, and foolish. So we should not legislate and encourage such behaviour. People can be offended at the most inoffensive things, that does not mean we legislate for them. No-body on this side is missing any point. That is clear. We merely reject yours as irrational rubish.

Now you are telling people what they should and should not be made uncomfortable by.

Uncomfortable by a Hindu person wearing a swastika neck-lace - Ok
Uncomfortable by a Christian person asking to say a prayer for you - Not ok.

By the way, how do you explain that to the Hindu person? It is ok because his religious symbols are more offensive to "us" than Christianity?

I agree with Robin, you guys are missing the point by a mile.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

So, say you were a hospital administrator and a Hindu doctor came to you wanting to wear the swastika -- you'd stop him, even though it's a long-standing part of his religious tradition?

This nurse scenario is nothing to do with religious tradition. Its about the nurse in kindness, motivated by her concern for the patient, 'asking' would she like a prayer said. So its a strawman you are setting up above. The point in this incident is nothing to do with religion, you guys just keep trying to make it about religion.

In your strawman above, you would have to question why a man, in knowing what a swastika represents in western culture, would insist on wearing it knowing that most patients would associate it with Nazi's and nothing else. If you actually want to relate it to the nurse incident we are discussing, it would be more like: The doctor 'asking' a patient if they wanted to know the true origin of the swastika. Even at that, there is no concern etc for the patient involved, unlike the prayer scenario. Rather, its just a doctor wanting to tell a patient some information. As I said, and you guys seem to miss constantly, its about taking situations on their merits. Not doing a blanket ban on everything, in order to catch a few rare (or non existant) cases. Rather, leave communication open, and then on the 'very rare' occasion when you have a dodgy situation, deal with it on its merits. Coming up with extreme hypotheticals, and then inventing legislation because of these extremes, is just stupidity.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree with Robin.

Of course you do. What counts in all of this though, thankfully, is that the NHS don't. I just hope you and Robins views and opinions remain as hot air, and are not involved in any important decisions.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

In your strawman above, you would have to question why a man, in knowing what a swastika represents in western culture, would insist on wearing it knowing that most patients would associate it with Nazi's and nothing else. [...] Coming up with extreme hypotheticals, and then inventing legislation because of these extremes, is just stupidity.

And a muslim who was offered a prayer by a christian might associate christianity with the crusades and get rather offended.

So again, I ask you:

If you were a hospital administrator and a Hindu doctor came to you wanting to wear a swastika -- would you stop him, even though it's a long-standing part of his religious tradition?

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

And a muslim who was offered a prayer by a christian might associate christianity with the crusades and get rather offended.

Muslims pray too.

robindch wrote: »

If you were a hospital administrator and a Hindu doctor came to you wanting to wear a swastika -- would you stop him, even though it's a long-standing part of his religious tradition?

You're now confusing the general with the specific.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

And a muslim who was offered a prayer by a christian might associate christianity with the crusades and get rather offended.

This nurse scenario is nothing to do with religious tradition. Its about the nurse in kindness, motivated by her concern for the patient, 'asking' would she like a prayer said. So its a strawman you are setting up above. The point in this incident is nothing to do with religion, you guys just keep trying to make it about religion.

So again, I ask you:

If you were a hospital administrator and a Hindu doctor came to you wanting to wear a swastika -- would you stop him, even though it's a long-standing part of his religious tradition?

In your strawman above, you would have to question why a man, in knowing what a swastika represents in western culture, would insist on wearing it knowing that most patients would associate it with Nazi's and nothing else. If you actually want to relate it to the nurse incident we are discussing, it would be more like: The doctor 'asking' a patient if they wanted to know the true origin of the swastika. Even at that, there is no concern etc for the patient involved, unlike the prayer scenario. Rather, its just a doctor wanting to tell a patient some information. As I said, and you guys seem to miss constantly, its about taking situations on their merits. Not doing a blanket ban on everything, in order to catch a few rare (or non existant) cases. Rather, leave communication open, and then on the 'very rare' occasion when you have a dodgy situation, deal with it on its merits. Coming up with extreme hypotheticals, and then inventing legislation because of these extremes, is just stupidity.

JimiTime

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Payback for all the years of bull****

I think it comes down to this for many. Pity.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

You're now confusing the general with the specific.

That is the point. You all seem to think this nurse should be given a slide because she is Christian, where as you actually agree with the principle, which is Robin's point with the Hindu and the swastika.

No one here, and certainly not the Daily Mail, would object to the hospital telling a Hindu that they would prefer he didn't wear that religious symbol to work as it might unnerve some patients.

Once again, like so much on this forum, it comes down to the line We agree with secularism in principle but it shouldn't apply to Christianity.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Rather, leave communication open, and then on the 'very rare' occasion when you have a dodgy situation, deal with it on its merits.

You know perfectly well that would never work.

If every case was assessed on its merits how do you possibly justify one case over the other? It is ok for a Christian to ask to pray for someone, but not ok for a Hindu to wear a swastika badge. It is ok for a Jew to talk about Israel but not ok for Muslim to mention 9/11. Who decides this? The person on the case assessing each one independently with no higher guidelines to apply?

And with no general guidelines you are leaving it up individual managers to come down on some and not others, based on their own particular feelings. Imagine a case where a bad manager had that power over a nurse or doctor then didn't particularly like. They would never need to justify based on general guidelines why the discipled a nurse (someone they may not like), simply that in their opinion they were crossing the line, a line that is based completely on their opinion

Once again you guys are missing the point of why these regulations exist in the first place. It is precisely so cases are not dealt with under terms that are made up on the spot based on the "merits" of each individual case.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the point. You all seem to think this nurse should be given a slide because she is Christian, where as you actually agree with the principle, which is Robin's point with the Hindu and the swastika.

No one here, and certainly not the Daily Mail, would object to the hospital telling a Hindu that they would prefer he didn't wear that religious symbol to work as it might unnerve some patients.

Once again, like so much on this forum, it comes down to the line We agree with secularism in principle but it shouldn't apply to Christianity.

This nurse scenario is nothing to do with religious tradition. Its about the nurse in kindness, motivated by her concern for the patient, 'asking' would she like a prayer said. So its a strawman you are setting up above. The point in this incident is nothing to do with religion, you guys just keep trying to make it about religion.


In the swastika strawman, you would have to question why a man, in knowing what a swastika represents in western culture, would insist on wearing it knowing that most patients would associate it with Nazi's and nothing else. If you actually want to relate it to the nurse incident we are discussing, it would be more like: The doctor 'asking' a patient if they wanted to know the true origin of the swastika. Even at that, there is no concern etc for the patient involved, unlike the prayer scenario. Rather, its just a doctor wanting to tell a patient some information. As I said, and you guys seem to miss constantly, its about taking situations on their merits. Not doing a blanket ban on everything, in order to catch a few rare (or non existant) cases. Rather, leave communication open, and then on the 'very rare' occasion when you have a dodgy situation, deal with it on its merits. Coming up with extreme hypotheticals, and then inventing legislation because of these extremes, is just stupidity.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You know perfectly well that would never work.

Unlike you WN, I'm not in the habit of stubbornly arguing my point for the sake of it.

Once again you guys are missing the point of why these regulations exist in the first place. It is precisely so cases are not dealt with under terms that are made up on the spot based on the "merits" of each individual case.

LOL, here we go with the missing points again. The regulations that the NHS have ruled have not been breached? And for the record, I never said that terms are made up on the spot. Do keep up WN. There are so many legislations which protect patients etc, such as racism legislation, discrimination legislation etc. The incident with this nurse, simply did not breach these rules, as the NHS thankfully seen.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

This nurse scenario is nothing to do with religious tradition. Its about the nurse in kindness, motivated by her concern for the patient, 'asking' would she like a prayer said.

That would hold if the only way the nurse could be kind was through her religion, which is nonsense. There are a million other ways the nurse could have said a kind word to the patient, she choose (repeatable) to do it through her religion.

The nurse may have been motivated by kindness, but the expression of that was through religion. If she had said "I'm sure you will be fine" there would be no problem.

JimiTime wrote: »

In the swastika strawman, you would have to question why a man, in knowing what a swastika represents in western culture, would insist on wearing it knowing that most patients would associate it with Nazi's and nothing else.

And I would seriously question why a nurse, when told to not discuss religion with her patients, would continue to do so.

You say that is the patient's problem, not the nurses. If someone gets unnerved by religious expression by this nurse they need to not be so over-sensitive.

On the other hand, if a Hindu brings in a swastika, then that is different, right?

JimiTime wrote: »

If you actually want to relate it to the nurse incident we are discussing, it would be more like: The doctor 'asking' a patient if they wanted to know the true origin of the swastika.

No, it would be nothing like that. The nurse didn't ask any patient if they wanted to know the origin of Christian prayer. She wasn't giving a history lesson

JimiTime wrote: »

Rather, its just a doctor wanting to tell a patient some information.

I know, which is why you are inventing that to try and make it seem like this nurse was providing harmless information, which is not what she was doing. The nurse was not introducing history, she was introducing religion.

The very fact that you are doing that shows that you know what the nurse did could be unnerving for people.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

LOL, here we go with the missing points again. The regulations that the NHS have ruled have not been breached? And for the record, I never said that terms are made up on the spot. Do keep up WN. There are so many legislations which protect patients etc, such as racism legislation, discrimination legislation etc. The incident with this nurse, simply did not breach these rules, as the NHS thankfully seen.

Yes but you aren't arguing that.

You are arguing that there shouldn't be legislation like this at all that applies to Christians. It should apply to Hindus, but not to Christians, apparently. Or it should be done on a case by case basis. Or something new each post (yes Jimi I am having trouble keeping up, you keep changing your position as soon as someone points out the problems with it)

You are simply shifting the goal posts to try and get a win. You never supported the NHS legislation but now you did because they ruled this nurse didn't break them? And you are giving out to me about being stubborn?

So what, now you do support the NHS having guidelines about religious interaction between staff and patient?

MatthewVII

JimiTime wrote: »

The incident with this nurse, simply did not breach these rules, as the NHS thankfully seen.

It might be worth pointing out that this nurse never would have been disciplined had patients not mentioned their behaviour to others. As I understand it she got one complaint and one puzzled mention to another healthcare member. This surely means that what she was doing was offputting to some people (even if only a small minority) and must be avoided?

robindch

Jimi wrote:

I'm not in the habit of stubbornly arguing my point for the sake of it.

Posting the same thing three times does suggest a certain stubbornness:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58959535&postcount=263
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58959952&postcount=267
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58960851&postcount=271

Anyhow, should I assume that you're not going to answer my question? Let me know so I can drop it if not.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Muslims pray too.

And muslims wear symbols too that some people will find offensive.

Húrin wrote: »

You're now confusing the general with the specific.

Not at all. I'm showing why letting medical staff observe religious ritual around patients could be a bad idea.

As an administrator, there are three options:

• let all religions do what they want (turns the place into a church/mosque/whatever probably resulting in civil war as swastika-emblazoned hindus meet elderly jews, or fundamentalist X's carry out religious rituals near fundamentalist Y's)
• let some religions do what they want (annoying everybody who doesn't belong to the chosen religion and entrenching segregation)
• let no religions do what they want.

The last one is not a perfect solution, but it is the best one since it minimizes the chances of conflict by favoring no religious ritual over any other one.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Posting the same thing three times does suggest a certain stubbornness:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58959535&postcount=263
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58959952&postcount=267
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58960851&postcount=271

Anyhow, should I assume that you're not going to answer my question? Let me know so I can drop it if not.

Same question is asked, same answer is given. So yeah, you can drop it. At the end of the day, the case is over. I feel justice has been served and the only reasonable conclusion met. Amen to that. No point in banging my head off a wall for hypotheticals now. Hopefully a precedent has been set. Rationality was the winner......this time.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Same question is asked, same answer is given.

Well, you didn't actually answer my question -- I'm curious why not?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

And muslims wear symbols too that some people will find offensive.Not at all. I'm showing why letting medical staff observe religious ritual around patients could be a bad idea.

As an administrator, there are three options:

• let all religions do what they want (turns the place into a church/mosque/whatever probably resulting in civil war as swastika-emblazoned hindus meet elderly jews, or fundamentalist X's carry out religious rituals near fundamentalist Y's)
• let some religions do what they want (annoying everybody who doesn't belong to the chosen religion and entrenching segregation)
• let no religions do what they want.

The last one is not a perfect solution, but it is the best one since it minimizes the chances of conflict by favoring no religious ritual over any other one.

There's a fourth option, let religions operate if they do so in a way that is gracious and treats other people like adults.

For example, laying hands on someone without their permission and praying for them is an invasion of their privacy. However, it seems pretty inoffensive to ask someone if it would be OK to pray for them (unless someone is badgering them by repeatedly asking such a question).

Sadly it appears, yet again, as if common sense isn't really very common at all.

I recently visited a church member in hospital and prayed for them. Another patient then asked me if I would pray for them too. In the end every patient in the room requested prayer. As I was leaving a doctor stopped me, and I thought maybe I was in trouble for breaching some hospital policy. He said, "Thank God you came in. I could see some of those patients desperately needed someone to pray for them, but I thought I'd lose my job if I mentioned it."

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Well, you didn't actually answer my question -- I'm curious why not?

I gave it 3 times.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Sadly it appears, yet again, as if common sense isn't really very common at all.

Thankfully it came through in the end though:)

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I gave it 3 times.

Not at all; I asked a hypothetical question and you didn't answer it.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

There's a fourth option, let religions operate if they do so in a way that is gracious and treats other people like adults.

I would agree with this if it could be shown to work, but history has shown that it does not.

Hence we're stuck with having to ban religious ritual from professional environments altogether. Not a perfect solution, but it's the one that best minimizes conflict. And if the odd nurse gets offended along the way, well, I'm sorry she feels that way, but it's to prevent greater misery elsewhere.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the point. You all seem to think this nurse should be given a slide because she is Christian, where as you actually agree with the principle, which is Robin's point with the Hindu and the swastika.

No one here, and certainly not the Daily Mail, would object to the hospital telling a Hindu that they would prefer he didn't wear that religious symbol to work as it might unnerve some patients.

Once again, like so much on this forum, it comes down to the line We agree with secularism in principle but it shouldn't apply to Christianity.

"You know perfectly well" (see we all can accuse each other of dishonesty now) that the objection to a swastika is not that it's a religious symbol, but that it's a Nazi symbol (by unfortunate historical chance) as well.

I would have no more objection to the display of a crescent moon, star of David, Dharma wheel or the emblem of Man United, than I would to a cross. Or verbal mention of any of these things. (However I would oppose evangelism.) Though the story that we're talking about involved none of this.

robindch wrote: »

Hence we're stuck with having to ban religious ritual from professional environments altogether.

Would you describe what Petrie said as a 'ritual'?

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Would you describe what Petrie said as a 'ritual'?

She was bringing her religious rituals into her professional life, so yes, she was certainly overstepping the boundary.

sorella

You are hilarious... So funny....uote=Mickeroo;58951518]A swastika is a symbol representing the continuity of life and is found even in christian churches. Yea,I'm takin it back [/quote]

sorella

??? what a bizarre idea.

The love of Jesus is Life. All Wisdom. All compassion.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Thats harsh and stupid but so is religion

sorella

Amen, amen, amen

That is clear. We merely reject yours as irrational rubish.[/quote]

sorella

Because she knows as we know that prayer has huge power.

Do you think she knew not what she was risking? Do you really think that?

Careful lest you create a martyr here.

Wicknight wrote: »

That would hold if the only way the nurse could be kind was through her religion, which is nonsense. There are a million other ways the nurse could have said a kind word to the patient, she choose (repeatable) to do it through her religion.

The nurse may have been motivated by kindness, but the expression of that was through religion. If she had said "I'm sure you will be fine" there would be no problem.


And I would seriously question why a nurse, when told to not discuss religion with her patients, would continue to do so.

You say that is the patient's problem, not the nurses. If someone gets unnerved by religious expression by this nurse they need to not be so over-sensitive.

On the other hand, if a Hindu brings in a swastika, then that is different, right?


No, it would be nothing like that. The nurse didn't ask any patient if they wanted to know the origin of Christian prayer. She wasn't giving a history lesson


I know, which is why you are inventing that to try and make it seem like this nurse was providing harmless information, which is not what she was doing. The nurse was not introducing history, she was introducing religion.

The very fact that you are doing that shows that you know what the nurse did could be unnerving for people.

sorella

for the laughter; thank you.

because it is impossible to believe that you mean these things....

Just trying to wind folk up methinks

robindch wrote: »

She was bringing her religious rituals into her professional life, so yes, she was certainly overstepping the boundary.

JimiTime

sorella wrote: »

for the laughter; thank you.

because it is impossible to believe that you mean these things....

Just trying to wind folk up methinks

Unfortunately Sorella, he's serious:eek:

sink

I haven't the time or inclination to read through all 20 pages but I did scan over the last few.

I see no need to legislate or to punish the nurse, what she did was completely harmless. If I was in the patients position and the nurse asked me would I like her to pray for me I would tell her that I was an atheist but if she felt so inclined I would have no objections to her saying a prayer. So long as she doesn't expect me to partake in any fashion it's no skin off my back and might make her feel a little better. Honestly some of you get so caught up in frivilous conflicts, live and let live is all I say.

sorella

Nah; just a wind up:)

Saw through it as drove through symbolic freezing fog this morning!!

So now I can enjoy his mails!!! And laughter is a great blessing.

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately Sorella, he's serious:eek:

robindch

sorella wrote: »

because it is impossible to believe that you mean these things.... Just trying to wind folk up methinks

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately Sorella, he's serious

Probably best to leave the topic drop here, since debate's descended into cattiness.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Not at all; I asked a hypothetical question and you didn't answer it.

I did, and you called me stubborn for answering it 3 times. Yet here you are, still asking. What you should be saying is that you don't accept my answer, because answer it I did. Your question has been answered and has been shown to be completely irrelavent to the case being discussed, as Hurin has pointed out. You are trying to make it about religion, and religious ritual and symbolism, I'm just not letting you lead me down that path. It got the relevant answer. Here, I'll post your question, accentuate certain parts of my answer in bold, so you don't miss it again. So here we go. Number 4:

robindch wrote:

So, say you were a hospital administrator and a Hindu doctor came to you wanting to wear the swastika -- you'd stop him, even though it's a long-standing part of his religious tradition?

This nurse scenario is nothing to do with religious tradition. Its about the nurse in kindness, motivated by her concern for the patient, 'asking' would she like a prayer said. So its a strawman you are setting up above. The point in this incident is nothing to do with religion, you guys just keep trying to make it about religion.

In your strawman above, you would have to question why a man, in knowing what a swastika represents in western culture, would insist on wearing it knowing that most patients would associate it with Nazi's and nothing else. If you actually want to relate it to the nurse incident we are discussing, it would be more like: The doctor 'asking' a patient if they wanted to know the true origin of the swastika. Even at that, there is no concern etc for the patient involved, unlike the prayer scenario. Rather, its just a doctor wanting to tell a patient some information. As I said, and you guys seem to miss constantly, its about taking situations on their merits. Not doing a blanket ban on everything, in order to catch a few rare (or non existant) cases. Rather, leave communication open, and then on the 'very rare' occasion when you have a dodgy situation, deal with it on its merits. Coming up with extreme hypotheticals, and then inventing legislation because of these extremes, is just stupidity.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Probably best to leave the topic drop here, since debate's descended into cattiness.

No arguement here.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I know, which is why you are inventing that to try and make it seem like this nurse was providing harmless information, which is not what she was doing. The nurse was not introducing history, she was introducing religion.

Wow, your paranoia has no bounds. You are completely muddled as to what my point was there. My point, was actually more in favour of what the nurse did because what she did was 'not' simply give information. She showed concern. All the hypothetical swastika doc did was give info. Why would I even try to say that the nurse was just giving info? She didn't She asked a question, so she was technically seeking info, not giving it. My word, you really do see Christians as quite dim don't you.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

She was bringing her religious rituals into her professional life, so yes, she was certainly overstepping the boundary.

The idea that the question "can I pray for you?" is a ritual in itself is just ridiculous.

JimiTime wrote: »

My word, you really do see Christians as quite dim don't you.

No, he see us as something much worse: a pack of liars.

sorella

Not at all; a sense of humour is divine; saves us from taking ourselves - and others - too seriously.

Jesus laughed a lot after all and He is our King

robindch wrote: »

Probably best to leave the topic drop here, since debate's descended into cattiness.

Mickeroo

sorella wrote: »

You are hilarious... So funny....uote=Mickeroo;58951518]A swastika is a symbol representing the continuity of life and is found even in christian churches. Yea,I'm takin it back

[/QUOTE]

hehe Its true!