Secularism Discussion (Offshoot Thread)

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.