HSE to review removal of statue of Jesus at Kerry hospital for the Elderly

Keylem

lmaopml wrote: »

Don't lose the head over this, really introducing the Taliban is beneath you Donatello? No?

Seriously, it was a statue that was moved - maybe somebody thought it would be hilarious, who cares, they live with themselves at the end of the day - maybe it was done for health and safety reasons - but it was just a statue, not a hugely important piece of our culture. There are so many small grottos dotted around the country, churches are in every town, such faith, people who bless themselves in a small prayer for whomever an ambulance is blazing it's sirens for as it goes on it's journey.....these are all parts of living in a free society. We are NOT downtrodden....

If, it were a case that we became a society that was intolerant, time enough to sound an alarm, but 'this' is a mad thread, and the alarm rings hollow. It's doing us no favours imo...

Yes, I'm aware of an element that takes delight, but really what a shallow delight, and why feed it?

Let's assume it's was for health and safety reasons the statue was taken down, then fair enough. Then again who knows that they may be testing the waters to see will anyone notice, and if not then they may may take down religious statues wholesale!

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

Don't lose the head over this, really introducing the Taliban is beneath you Donatello? No?

If, it were a case that we became a society that was intolerant, time enough to sound an alarm, but 'this' is a mad thread, and the alarm rings hollow. It's doing us no favours imo...

Yes, I'm aware of an element that takes delight, but really what a shallow delight, and why feed it?

Look sweetheart, it's not beneath me. Please don't patronise Donatello.

Lookit - there's another thread about stopping church bell-ringing. Can't you see what's happening here? You're so naive.

lmaopml

Keylem wrote: »

Let's assume it's was for health and safety reasons the statue was taken down, then fair enough. Then again who knows that they may be testing the waters to see will anyone notice, and if not then they may may take down religious statues wholesale!

Well, they can be pretty sure that somebody will notice, especially if 'they' use the internet - but let's not mount that high horse just yet? Please?

People still have power when roused, let's not mute them with unfounded controversy. Have a little faith in people too...

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

Let's assume it's was for health and safety reasons the statue was taken down, then fair enough. Then again who knows that they may be testing the waters to see will anyone notice, and if not then they may may take down religious statues wholesale!

And then they will force women to cover up and stay inside, blow up your schools, form a totalitarian government, close the border, start a holly war against the West.

Slippery slope and all that ....

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

lmaopml

I wasn't trying to patronise you Donatello. I am a Catholic, one of billions. I don't appease anybody, I just post it as I see it not meaning offence, on this 'Christian' forum on boards...be 'mature' and deal with that. We aren't 'typical' or typically Catholic - we're Catholic, we come in every shape size colour and are full of diversity...that's what it's all about. It's not Donatello's church, it's 'mine' too - we are the church.

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

I wasn't trying to patronise you Donatello. I am a Catholic, one of billions. I don't appease anybody, I just post it as I see it not meaning offence, on this 'Christian' forum on boards...be 'mature' and deal with that. We aren't 'typical' or typically Catholic - we're Catholic, we come in every shape size colour and are full of diversity...that's what it's all about. It's not Donatello's church, it's 'mine' too - we are the church.

I do find your posts patronising. You did it again with that post. ''Deal with it''. ''Be mature''. It's annoying, no?

Depends what you mean by diversity. Sometimes it's used to promote acceptance of sin, all in the interests of the secular 'virtue' - tolerance.

BTW, Church is with a capital C.

jimmydec

dvpower wrote: »

They moved it from the roof to a garden at the front of the hospital. Nothing was destroyed. Its probably more accessible now than it was.

yes it is much more accessible and very respectfully and tastefully done ,with nice flower beds and benches to sit-- AS WAS ALWAYS INTENDED-- of course the conspiracy theorists who love all the self publicity dont want to hear that!! I suppose they also dont want to reflect on the fact that where it was was a great site for the birds to sh*t on it all the time!!! I for one would hope although it is a pain to have to do it and a total waste of resources that the planning can be got to leave it where it is now where it looks much better.

swiftblade

Donatello wrote: »

I do find your posts patronising. You did it again with that post. ''Deal with it''. ''Be mature''. It's annoying, no?

Depends what you mean by diversity. Sometimes it's used to promote acceptance of sin, all in the interests of the secular 'virtue' - tolerance.

BTW, Church is with a capital C.

LOL! complaining of patronising and then correct their grammer. Nice... :pac:

How can diversity be a bad thing? Im genuinely interested

lmaopml

I'm sorry, I can be fiery sometimes...I do like you Donatello, I may not always agree, even if I 'mostly' agree, I may not agree with your expression or how you impart that knowledge - and that's par for the course on the internet - not everybody agrees all of the time about every single thing. It would be a pretty boring state of affairs if we didn't pull each other up every now and then on Church affairs...

I'm not an enemy though, I can assure you of that much, just one of the crowd.

Quo Vadis

swiftblade wrote: »

How can diversity be a bad thing? Im genuinely interested

You mean the type of diversity where a Catholic statue that stood for 70 years is not allowed to remain in place ?, yet pagan, greek, protestant statues etc. are allowed to remain in place without interference and prejudice ?

jimmydec

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Why was it not re-secured in place, why was it permanently removed to storage until local people complained?

The conspiracy theorists went to the media THE SAME DAY THE STATUE WAS TAKEN DOWN without even bothering to check what the plans for repositioning it were, with a load of ranting and raving about secularism.

dvpower

jimmydec wrote: »

yes it is much more accessible and very respectfully and tastefully done ,with nice flower beds and benches to sit-- AS WAS ALWAYS INTENDED-- of course the conspiracy theorists who love all the self publicity dont want to hear that!! I suppose they also dont want to reflect on the fact that where it was was a great site for the birds to sh*t on it all the time!!! I for one would hope although it is a pain to have to do it and a total waste of resources that the planning can be got to leave it where it is now where it looks much better.

That sounds much better - now people can get up close to the statue and sit by it, and perhaps pray by it.

What are people complaining about? Is it that the statue was high up, maybe representing a position of authority and now its down on the same level as the people?

Fanny Cradock

Donatello wrote: »

Look sweetheart, it's not beneath me. Please don't patronise Donatello.

Lookit - there's another thread about stopping church bell-ringing. Can't you see what's happening here? You're so naive.

Enough with the patronising remarks.

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm telling ya, it will happen if we don't restore our Catholic roots

Robert ninja

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You mean the type of diversity where a Catholic statue that stood for 70 years is not allowed to remain in place ?, yet pagan, greek, protestant statues etc. are allowed to remain in place without interference and prejudice ?

What?

MrPudding

Quo Vadis wrote: »

There are dozens of war memorials in Ireland, its a very valid comparison, many people do not agree with the politics of WWI or memorials to it, but it would be respected and left alone.

Until we find out otherwise, the statue was taken down for health and safety reasons. Now, if there was a war memorial which was in a dangerous state then possible actions would have to be looked at for it. Clearly the options are likely to be 1) Make it safe, or, 2) Remove it. In order to make this decision the HSE will have to look at the social utility of the thing.

So, let's take the statue. Remove it or repair it? Well, it is a religious icon on the top of a building run by a secular department. It is a symbol for a particular religion in a state that is supposed to not advance the notion of a particular religion. Additionally, it is a icon that may offend people from a different faith. Weighing these issues up objectively (which I understand you are incapable of doing) it seems correct that it be taken down.

A war memorial is something different. First of all, it is likely to be much easier to make safe. It is at ground, or very low level, so is unlikely to fall on anyone. Even if it was, it would be easier to ensure that people were not in a zone of risk should it fall. All in all, probably much easier to make safe that a statue 50 feet above the main entrance to a public building. War memorials also have a greater social utility that a statue representing one religion. A war memorial serves the whole community, irrespective of religion. It serves as a reminder of what happens when we lose control.

I am interested to see how the planning application turns out.

MrP

Donatello

MrPudding wrote: »

Until we find out otherwise, the statue was taken down for health and safety reasons. Now, if there was a war memorial which was in a dangerous state then possible actions would have to be looked at for it. Clearly the options are likely to be 1) Make it safe, or, 2) Remove it. In order to make this decision the HSE will have to look at the social utility of the thing.

So, let's take the statue. Remove it or repair it? Well, it is a religious icon on the top of a building run by a secular department. It is a symbol for a particular religion in a state that is supposed to not advance the notion of a particular religion. Additionally, it is a icon that may offend people from a different faith. Weighing these issues up objectively (which I understand you are incapable of doing) it seems correct that it be taken down.

A war memorial is something different. First of all, it is likely to be much easier to make safe. It is at ground, or very low level, so is unlikely to fall on anyone. Even if it was, it would be easier to ensure that people were not in a zone of risk should it fall. All in all, probably much easier to make safe that a statue 50 feet above the main entrance to a public building. War memorials also have a greater social utility that a statue representing one religion. A war memorial serves the whole community, irrespective of religion. It serves as a reminder of what happens when we lose control.

I am interested to see how the planning application turns out.

MrP

This post ignores the fact that the statue is an intrinsic part of the building. It is a matter of historical fact that the building was built with the statue attached. It would be a kind of iconoclasm and historical revisionism to remove the statue for any of the reasons you've cited. If it was insecure, it could easily have been re-affixed.

How do you respond?

keano_afc

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You mean the type of diversity where a Catholic statue that stood for 70 years is not allowed to remain in place ?, yet pagan, greek, protestant statues etc. are allowed to remain in place without interference and prejudice ?

Have you exmaples of these?

swiftblade

Quo Vadis wrote: »

You mean the type of diversity where a Catholic statue that stood for 70 years is not allowed to remain in place ?, yet pagan, greek, protestant statues etc. are allowed to remain in place without interference and prejudice ?

I was refering to Donatello's post

Doctor DooM

Donatello wrote: »

This post ignores the fact that the statue is an intrinsic part of the building. It is a matter of historical fact that the building was built with the statue attached. It would be a kind of iconoclasm and historical revisionism to remove the statue for any of the reasons you've cited. If it was insecure, it could easily have been re-affixed.

How do you respond?

Why is it historical revisionism?

Buildings get changed or taken down or modernised all the time.

Besides which, reading above, they were planning to make the statue more accessible for the patients... seriously.



!=

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

I do find your posts patronising. You did it again with that post. ''Deal with it''. ''Be mature''. It's annoying, no?

Depends what you mean by diversity. Sometimes it's used to promote acceptance of sin, all in the interests of the secular 'virtue' - tolerance.

BTW, Church is with a capital C.

How is diversity used to promote this concept you speak of; "sin"?

Donatello

Why is it historical revisionism?

Because we now act like these hospitals were not founded by religious. We tear down the statues and pretend they never existed as religious foundations. That's historical revisionism.

old hippy wrote: »

How is diversity used to promote this concept you speak of; "sin"?

Because with the calls for 'diversity' and 'tolerance', what we are really talking about is toleration of evil and celebration of sin. If you wish to discuss it further, I suggest you start a new thread as this one is about statues.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

Because with the calls for 'diversity' and 'tolerance', what we are really talking about is toleration of evil and celebration of sin. If you wish to discuss it further, I suggest you start a new thread as this one is about statues.

It depends whether you believe in such archaic concepts, of course. I suggest you stop telling me to leave your threads when the questions get too awkward & actually answer the question.

Diversity and tolerance are about acceptance of others. I accept your need to justify life and purpose with religion - don't have to agree with it, mind. You seem to be rather intolerant of those who don't hold with your views.

Keylem

old hippy wrote: »

It depends whether you believe in such archaic concepts, of course. I suggest you stop telling me to leave your threads when the questions get too awkward & actually answer the question.

Diversity and tolerance are about acceptance of others. I accept your need to justify life and purpose with religion - don't have to agree with it, mind. You seem to be rather intolerant of those who don't hold with your views.

I agree with that sentiment, but tolerance is a 2 way street, and I haven't seen much of that when it comes to Catholics sharing their faith with each other without heckling from others who don't agree with our Religion!

old hippy

Keylem wrote: »

I agree with that sentiment, but tolerance is a 2 way street, and I haven't seen much of that when it comes to Catholics sharing their faith with each other without heckling from others who don't agree with our Religion!

I have no problem with you sharing. Not you personally.

I do have a problem with being told to eff off from threads because I don't hang on every word a poster says.

And I have to chuckle when I hear diversity equates to "evil" and "sin" in much the same way the faithful here would chuckle if I equated religion to "evil"

Doctor DooM

Donatello wrote: »

Because we now act like these hospitals were not founded by religious. We tear down the statues and pretend they never existed as religious foundations. That's historical revisionism.

Eh no. We take down the statue so it wont fall on peoples heads. No one anywhere is saying we ignore the history of the building. You've just decided we do.

Fanny Cradock

A nice compromise might be to put the statue on the grounds somewhere. If they had gardens they could nestle it in amongst the foliage and stick a bench or two beside it. Patients, family and friends could go there if required.

swiftblade

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A nice compromise might be to put the statue on the grounds somewhere. If they had gardens they could nestle it in amongst the foliage and stick a bench or two beside it. Patients, family and friends could go there if required.

I think that is what they have done.

Fanny Cradock

Problem solved surely

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A nice compromise might be to put the statue on the grounds somewhere. If they had gardens they could nestle it in amongst the foliage and stick a bench or two beside it. Patients, family and friends could go there if required.

This is the amazing thing considering the rhetoric being flung around- that was always the plan!

Surely the situation is even better, as if someone wanted some nice quiet time or even time to pray they can go spend some time there.

Fanny Cradock

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Surely the situation is even better, as if someone wanted some nice quiet time or even time to pray they can go spend some time there.

Exactly. I think the problem arises from a confusion between removal and relocation.

jimmydec

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A nice compromise might be to put the statue on the grounds somewhere. If they had gardens they could nestle it in amongst the foliage and stick a bench or two beside it. Patients, family and friends could go there if required.

As my previous posts that is EXACTLY what has been done-- and done very nicely with flowerbeds-- roses-- and benches and this was what was PLANNED right from the beginning--if the conspiracy theorists had chosen to enquire before they rushed to the media it would have been best-- but if you already have an agenda you dont bother with the facts

Quo Vadis

From The local Labour Senator for Kerry South, Marie Moloney

This statue has been up for over 70 years and has never been a danger to anyone.

If this statue is being removed on Health and Safety grounds, then why not carry out works to secure the statue and leave it in place.

It is appalling to see it being removed. As a member of the Health Forum coming from the Killarney area, I am deeply disappointed and to say the least annoyed, that the H.S.E. removed the statue without prior consultation, with staff of the hospital, church officials Members of the Health Forum or Killarney Town Council

Under the Heritage Act 1995 Section 2, I believe the statue of the Sacred Heart, which is over 70 years old, is a heritage object as defined in the act as follows:

"heritage objects" means objects over 25 years old which are works of art or of industry (including books, documents and other records, including genealogical records) of cultural importance;"

http://www.labour.ie/mariemoloney/news/1296816627860059.html

jimmydec

Quo Vadis wrote: »

From The local Labour Senator for Kerry South, Marie Moloney

this is a very old statement from 2010, lots of local politicians jumped on this bandwagon as it was pre election.I personally heard one local politician admit that they had only made a statement because some one else had. This is politics Irish style

Quo Vadis

jimmydec wrote: »

this is a very old statement from 2010, lots of local politicians jumped on this bandwagon as it was pre election.I personally heard one local politician admit that they had only made a statement because some one else had. This is politics Irish style

Oh right, so she was lying then, that’s not what she thinks ?
Being a Labour Senator, she could have easily supported its removal, and got just as many votes ?

drkpower

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Oh right, so she was lying then, that’s not what she thinks ?
Being a Labour Senator, she could have easily supported its removal, and got just as many votes ?

Would the views of the local Labour senator matter to you if she supported its removal?

And Im not sure what point she is making re: heritage objects.

jimmydec

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Oh right, so she was lying then, that’s not what she thinks ?
Being a Labour Senator, she could have easily supported its removal, and got just as many votes ?

no , i would never say she is lying she is a very honorable lady, who is well worthy of being in the senate, but on local issues politicians can get pushed into making statements in the run up to elections by vocal people with agendas and a rather one sided version of events.
Ithink I will resign from this thread now as the argument can go round and round in circles, and I need to spend my energy on more worth while matters!!

Quo Vadis

jimmydec wrote: »

She is a very honorable lady, who is well worthy of being in the senate, but on local issues politicians can get pushed into making statements in the run up to elections by vocal people with agendas and a rather one sided version of events.

So she was "pushed" into making that statement, where's the proof of that ?

Also being a Labour Senator, would she not get just as many votes supporting the removal of the Statue ?

Quo Vadis

drkpower wrote: »

Would the views of the local Labour senator matter to you if she supported its removal?

I'm interested in the views of all the elected representatives of the area, as they represent the electorate.

Are there any elected representatives in favour of the removal ?

drkpower

Quo Vadis wrote: »

I'm interested in the views of all the elected representatives of the area, as they represent the electorate.

Are there any elected representatives in favour of the removal ?

You may be interested, but if a majority of the local elected representatives favoured its relocation, would that be a persuasive factor for you?

Robert ninja

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Problem solved surely

Still have the terrorist HSE and god hating secret atheist army that caused all this to take care of.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Problem solved surely

You would think...

MrP

gigino

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, it is a religious icon on the top of a building run by a secular department. It is a symbol for a particular religion in a state that is supposed to not advance the notion of a particular religion. Additionally, it is a icon that may offend people from a different faith. Weighing these issues up objectively (which I understand you are incapable of doing) it seems correct that it be taken down.

+1. Are'nt sectarian / religous objects banned from the workplace in many places / jurisdictions ? Should'nt they be here as well ? You would think there would be an EC law about that, seeing as they are banned in at least some parts of the EC ?

looksee

I am an ex-protestant, now of no faith. In response to some of the comments made in these posts:

It would not have bothered me on religious grounds if the statue had been left there.

The fact that it had been there for so long meant it was part of the 'scenery' or local tradition, or whatever. It could have stayed.

I doubt it was a 'Protestant' decision within the HSE that caused it to be removed, or that there are enough Protestants with 'clout' in the area that demanded its removal.

I do not agree with the whole 'offending other beliefs' business, when carried to these extremes. The RC church has treated me with varying degrees of contempt and dismissal (though I still get envelopes through the door to support the local church), but I do appreciate there are many people to whom the church is important, so I ignore it and let them get on with their beliefs, provided they do not interfere with mine.

I do not consider it a 'work of art' - reference one comment by a local politician.

I do not consider that it improved the front of the building aesthetically.

It might well have been a safety hazard after so many years.

The pragmatic solution of taking it down and putting it safely in the garden where it can be appreciated by those who want to observe it seems quite reasonable.

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

Did you read my post? I said the statue was an intrinsic part of the building - it was placed there as part of the building. If only for historic and cultural reasons, it ought to be left alone. To do otherwise is a form of historical revisionism of Taliban-esque proportions. I'll keep saying it until you accept it.

I've read all of your posts. The idea that the State should of necessity put the statue at the front of the hospital is absurd. They could have completely removed it but they didn't. It's still there.

goose2005

Quo Vadis wrote: »

From The local Labour Senator for Kerry South, Marie Moloney

No such thing as a "local" senator, at least in theory.

looksee

'Taliban-esque'? Oh, please! That kind of comparison trivialises the real religious and human persecution that goes on around the world. We have little to worry about here in those terms.

Morbert

looksee wrote: »

'Taliban-esque'? Oh, please! That kind of comparison trivialises the real religious and human persecution that goes on around the world. We have little to worry about here in those terms.

I wouldn't pay much attention. That kind of language tells us they're just throwing their rattle out of the pram.