The Daily Telegraph ran a front page story on the eve of Easter about a hospital chapel being stripped of its crosses and bibles.WORSHIPPERS at one of the state's largest hospital chapels have been ordered to get rid of crucifixes and Bibles and pull down religious pictures and symbols for fear of offending other religions ...
Hospital managers ordered the ban on symbols of any kind because the chapel was increasingly being used by a number of different faiths.
The Mayor of Mosman has stepped in by issuing this fatwa.
But Mosman Mayor Dominic Lopez said angry patients were offended that the chapel no longer represented a holy place.We hope Clr Lopez's prayers were answered. Seeing his wife in such a condition must have been a terrible ordeal for him. But seriously, suggesting that only a place of worship with a cross can be considered "a holy place" would surely be offensive to Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons, let alone Jews, Sikhs and followers of other faiths.
"I used to sit there and pray when my wife was dying of breast cancer and look at that cross," he said. "Now it is just a hall and the decision is bulls ... You either have a chapel or you don't. It's offensive to have a church or chapel and not have a cross in it." ...
"Some two-bit bob bureaucrat has made the decision, just like when someone decided we couldn't sing Christmas carols anymore in schools," Mr Lopez said.
"You walk in to the chapel now and it's like walking into a backyard shed.
"It's offensive."
And so why did the board of one hospital make this decision?
The hospital defended its decision to ban all Christian and non-Christian symbols, saying it was appropriate to appease all religions. Each faith is allowed to display their symbols during services but they must be taken down and stored out of sight afterwards ...
The hospital defended its decision to ban all Christian and non-Christian symbols, saying it was appropriate to appease all religions. Each faith is allowed to display their symbols during services but they must be taken down and stored out of sight afterwards ...
A hospital spokeswoman said it was appropriate to "move with the times".
"The chapel is now best described as a multi-faith chapel where people of all faiths feel welcome," the spokeswoman said.
"The decision was made to display the symbols of each faith, for example the chapel's cross and Bible, during specific services and ceremonies only.
"These important religious symbols are appropriately stored and used regularly."
The Tele also ran an editorial on the story which expressed a particular viewpoint without apparently trying to offend anyone.
The non-religious are more inclined simply not to care about Christian images or documents. Likewise, followers of other faiths are more concerned with their own religious icons.It's true. No one was really all that offended. No one felt terribly strongly about it. Apart from the folk at the Daily Telegraph. How so? Simple - it was a slow news day. Nothing like a manufactured controversy.
Yet Royal North Shore Hospital management is so concerned that people may take offence at the display of bibles and crucifixes, among other Christian totems, at the hospital's chapel that they have been removed. This is imbecilic. And, moreover, absolutely unnecessary.
A quick check with other faiths revealed no particular concern at the presence of Jesus-based items at the hospital chapel.
UPDATE I: The Tele's Opinion Editor blogs on the issue here. As usual, Mr Blair has his regular array of neo-Nazis, far-Right fruitloops and white-supremacists leaving paranoid and unmedicated comments about how "the West" has "caved into minorities" thanks to a conspiracy between those two nebulous groups known as "the Left" and "the Muslims". Tim's buddy, Daniel "Irf is stalking me by mentioning my suburb despite the fact that I mention in letters to the editor I get published at least weekly!!" Lewis goes troppo about how nasty Muslims are:
Daniel, of course, doesn't seem to realise that the RNSH board's decision to remove crucifixes and bibles was supported by a young Christian chap who works for the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council. How did I know that? Because on page 2 of the April 9 edition of the Daily Telegraph appears the following words:Keysar Trad, from the Islamic Friendship Society, said Muslims would not be offended to use a multi-faith chapel and see images of the cross.
Tell that to the Muslim Students at RMIT, who have indicated precisely that.
Dan Lewis (Reply)
Thu 09 Apr 09 (08:52am)
The Australian/Jewish Affairs Council [sic.] supported the hospital, saying more people would be likely to use the chapel.
Bren Carlill, a policy analyst, said some from other religions might be offended.
"The fact that they are willing to go to such lengths to encourage religious communities to worship is great,: he said. "There are people from lots of different groups who almost like getting offended - and then there are the other people who fon't get offended."
I couldn't find AIJAC's support for the Hospital board's decision mentioned anywhere on the Tele website. I could, however, find a fair few comments insinuating that suc decisions are all the fault of the families of Muslim patients who are deemed to be programmed to mimic the behaviour of some wackos overseas.
Should I go to Blair's blog and remind his online morons about a prominent Jewish organisation supporting the hospital decision to "De-Jesus" (as Blair puts it) the hospital chapel? Perhaps not. It might unleash more unmedicated comments about how Christian Australia is caving into the multiculturalist agenda of those nasty Jews.
Let's be frank about this. Nazis may have Muslims. But Nazis hate Jews more. And they proved it at least 6 million times during the last world war.
Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
