It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hospital removes crosses from chapel

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Hospital removes crosses from chapel


www.news.com.au

CRUCIFIXES, Bibles and all other Christian symbols have been banned from a hospital's chapel when it is not being used for a church service.

The Mosman Daily has learnt that Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney has bes been ordered to remove Christian content by New South Wales bureaucrats to avoid offending Muslims, Hindus or other non-Christian believers who may want to pray in the chapel.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I can see the reasoning in this decision. Not everyone happens to be christian, so why cater for them and to them?

However, I have a problem with this line in the article:

The chapel building also contains a separate Muslim prayer room.

The Chapel was supposedly built for christians, but now they must remove all of their toys from the walls, etc. Yet, muslims are able to enjoy the exclusive use of a different prayer room?

It seems arse backwards to me. Not surprising though, as religion is the most 'kind' and 'honourable' way to discriminate against other people, that's ever been thought of.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 8-4-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I saw the reasoning of it until you mentioned the seperate prayer room for Muslims.

Why not just have a seperate prayer room for Christians too and make the main Chapel non denominational?

Christianity is still the main religion in Australia.
So, it is silly if the majority don't have somewhere to pray in appropriate surroundings.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


If the chapel was originally built for the Christians, then they shouldn't have to remove their religious items. And if the Muslims have their own private prayer room why would they care what is in the Christian chaple ? Was anybody actually complaining about what was in there, or did they order this to be done because they are just trying to be politically correct ?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Double standards only serve to create friction. What's that old saying...

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Perhaps those who wish to have the Christian symbols removed from a hospital in a Christian founded nation need to be introduced to this concept? I'm all for cultural diversity but I take a dim view of people who bite the hand of the nation that feeds.

Our politically correct appeasers have to learn how to say, "Build a bridge or go back to the wild country where intolerance is practiced in such ways".

IRM


[edit on 8/4/09 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I can understand making a chapel non-specific (especially since it is a public hospital and all sorts of people will be paying for its upkeep via taxes).

But why is there a separate prayer room for muslims? It's not right that non-muslim taxpayers must provide the funds for a muslims-only room at a public hospital.

These bureaucrats need to take a lesson or two from the Indian army- they have a single room called an MMGC (Mandir, Masjid, Gurdwara, Church)- soldiers of all the different faiths go and pray at the same time before going into battle. It's quite a spectacle... I've never seen it anywhere else.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
The above decision was made as a buisness one. I whole heartedly promise that it was done for profit not for the benifit of any one denomination of religion or to create a neutrality of religion. Most hospitals are privately owned therefore allowing the board that represents the hospital to decide what is acceptable and not as pertaining to religion and the sort. Follow the money if you want to see what is really behind a decision.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Ahh, good old positive discrimination


This kind of thing only seeks to breed resentment and hatred between religions. Why are bureaucrats so completely stupid?!



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Most hospitals are privately owned therefore allowing the board that represents the hospital to decide what is acceptable and not as pertaining to religion and the sort. Follow the money if you want to see what is really behind a decision.

It appears to me that the Royal North Shore Hospital is a public hospital, not private.

I'm not sure how following the money trail applies to this decision?

You may be right though. Lately, I've learnt that most decisions are made on two things, money or ego. Practicality makes no sense.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by chise61
And if the Muslims have their own private prayer room why would they care what is in the Christian chaple ?


I'd be willing to bet that they don't care. I've known many muslims, and I've never found one yet that was offended in any way by Christian symbols - aside from a few who find it disrespectful to Christ to portray his image.

The prayer room comes down to the different style of praying - prayer mats vs. pews.

I've also never found a buddhist who was offended by other religious symbols. Most of the ones I know generally require a quiet place to sit or stand. Same with the hindus I've known.

I wonder who is complaining?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

I can see the reasoning in this decision. Not everyone happens to be christian, so why cater for them and to them?

However, I have a problem with this line in the article:

The chapel building also contains a separate Muslim prayer room.

The Chapel was supposedly built for christians, but now they must remove all of their toys from the walls, etc. Yet, muslims are able to enjoy the exclusive use of a different prayer room?

It seems arse backwards to me. Not surprising though, as religion is the most 'kind' and 'honourable' way to discriminate against other people, that's ever been thought of.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 8-4-2009 by tezzajw]




HHAHAHAHAHA Has anyone noticed that before 911 we didn't have to show any sympathy to muslims, yet since 911, in which the government openly blames muslim extremists, now we must cater to their every whim and not offend them?

To clarify, I do not hate muslims, and I do not care if they are or are not offended, additionally, I do not believe muslims has any part in 911.

But, for me, knowing that the government did it, and then blamed muslims, I find it absolutely hilarious that now all the sudden we have to cater to them and worry about offending them.

Its like TPTB want to thank them for using their race as the fall guys.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
I've also never found a buddhist who was offended by other religious symbols. Most of the ones I know generally require a quiet place to sit or stand. Same with the hindus I've known.


I've found the exact same thing! Never a problem in all these years they've been in Australia.


I wonder who is complaining?


Probably the same people that had Piggy Banks removed from sale in banks because the Pig is a filthy creature? Just wondering...

IRM



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Lol what next, the Cross of Jesus in Rio de Janerio being pulled down incase it offends any Muslim holidaymakers



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join