Skip to comments.Australia: Hospital Bans Bibles, Crosses From Chapel to Avoid Offending Muslims
Posted on 04/08/2009 11:28:26 AM PDT by JDAM2007
THE decision to ban Christian symbols in the Royal North Shore Hospital chapel could incite rage against other faiths, some religious leaders fear.
The removal of religious images was ordered when the hospital gave Muslims a prayer space inside the chapel.
But last night Islamic leaders criticised the move and feared a backlash.
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.
From 1968 the chapel displayed a cross at the altar and a Bible was on-hand.
(Excerpt) Read more at weaselzippers.net ...
Just wait until we get government run health care. No more hospital names like St. Joseph’s or St. Mary’s.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Word of the Lord is eternal. And, that just hacks off nonbelievers big time.
Hopefully there will be a backlash. How long do Christians have to put up with this kind of crap?
how do you ban a bible or a cross from a chapel with a straight face??
Oh, so we have to accommodate the false prophet and his minnions. I think the Bible said this was coming.
are korans banned? prayer throw rugs?
There, fixed it.
I’m disappointed in the Aussies who did this.
This is beyond ridiculous. These hospitals should consider this kind of move when Islamic countries remove any sign of that religion to avoid making Christians feel uncomfortable, and not one minute before.
“are korans banned? prayer throw rugs?”
Doubtful, I haven’t seen any rampaging Muslim mob stories coming out of Australia today.
Maybe it’s time for Christians to start getting offended. Perhaps we should stop turning the other cheek and start acting like Old Testament warriors.
Turning the other cheek is for personal relationships.
Righteous anger on the other hand, is something Jesus displayed while on earth in the flesh — and WILL display in FULL Force when he comes back in all of his glory.
Let’s just make sure that it is appropriate, and we do not let it turn into plain old hatred or anger.
Names like Allah El Akbar or something similar.
As a Christian whose ancestors were Christian and helped create the modern democratic world with so many conveniences we take for granted and rights we seem to feel were dispensed gratis by ruling monarchs, I take offense to this CONTINUING proskenesis before Islam, political correctness and third world ingrates.
Underarm deodorant, toothpaste, and toilette tissues are but MINISCULE examples of what these third world ingrates did NOT contribute to a better civilization.
This pandering to these people must stop. More of us should be proud to be European and Christian. Its not racist to be proud of your heritage.
I think being hateful and angry towards people who are perscuting oour fellow Christians in Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Eygpt, and attempting to establish a similar situation in western Europe and North America is ENTIRELY “appropriate”.
ENOUGH OF THIS! I do not mind putting a Koran in the chapel or even limiting the stained glass windows to geometric designs but—banning the Bible and crosses is an insult and an outrage. To placate a few, we must all change. This is the march of tyranny my friends and it must stop now. Soon there will be a ban on churches displaying crosses, or the ringing of church bells. The only church permitted will be a mosque.
Yes, soon there will be....
Keyser Soze is lying through his teeth.
If you don’t believe me, look at the Hagia Sophia, where Obama made obeisance a few days ago. The Turks couldn’t tear down the altars and crosses, cover up the mosaics and put up the minarets fast enough.
When a Muslim prays in a church, it becomes a mosque as far as Islam is concerned. And once it becomes a mosque, it stays a mosque.
Wonder if they will remove all the Islamic items, too...i think more people would be offended if religious items of a certain faith were left instead....a faith where their prophet was a pedophile
Did they look into banning Muslims to avoid offending Christians?
Victoria, Australia, has five St. John's of God, St. Vincent's, Mercy, Cabrini, Caritas Christi, Order of Malta, St George's, Villa Maria.
In Canberra, there's the Calvary.
In WA, there's the Bethesda, Mercy, again a number of St John's of God.
Sydney has St George's, St Vincent's, Sydney Adventist, St John of God.
Queensland has six Mater hospitals, St Andrew's, St Vincent's, Mater Misericorde.
South Australia: Calvary, St Andrew's.
Tasmania has Calvary, St John's, St Helen's, St Vincent's, St Luke's.
Australia does have government run health care - but it also has private health care alongside it. A lot of the hospitals above are private ones, but some are government run - and still named after Saint's or other religious references. After the Royal family (hence Royal North Shore - which, incidentally was established in 1887, well before Australia had government funded health care), Saint's names are the second most common source for hospital names in Australia.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
It should look familiar - it was largely copied from the US Constitution. Australia does have separation of church and state.
Forget Australia. In the USA there will be atheists that will file lawsuits about religious names for hospitals if health care is 100% run by the government with taxpayer money.
You know that will happen.
No, I don’t. I can see that it might happen, but I don’t see any reason to suppose that it must.
Also - and this is important - government run health care doesn’t have to mean health care is “100% run by the government with taxpayer money.” That’s an extreme example. A middle ground is absolutely possible - Australia has had universal healthcare for over thirty years now, and there’s a large private system (funded by the users, often via insurance) running parallel to the public system. It works well - everybody has access to the public system, free of charge (or rather paid for by taxes - but no charges at the time and all citizens are covered) but can also choose to use the private system, which is partially subsidised by the same funding system as the public systems, and there are tax breaks for those who voluntarily choose to have private health insurances. And it does work very well. American conservatives seem to have been convinced somewhere along the line that there’s only one possible model for public healthcare - one of 100% government funding and 100% government controlled. That’s not the only model - anymore than having public education means shutting down all private schools. I don’t know if public healthcare can be made to work in the US - I do know that conservatives seem to be allowing socialists to set the agenda almost completely and it won’t work if that happens.