Nurse suspended for prayer offer

[Rrose Selavy]

A Christian nurse from Weston-super-Mare has been suspended for offering to pray for a patient's recovery.
Community nurse Caroline Petrie, 45, says she asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her. The patient complained to the health trust about Mrs Petrie who follows the Baptist faith.





Mrs Petrie, who qualified as a nurse in 1985, said she became a Christian following the death of her mother.
"My faith got stronger and I realised God was doing amazing things in my life. "I saw my patients suffering and as I believe in the power of prayer, I began asking them if they wanted me to pray for them. They are absolutely delighted."




Mrs Petrie says that she has taken advice from the Christian Legal Centre, which aims to protect the religious freedom of people who follow the Christian faith.

more here


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7863699.stm

[Darat]

Can't see how this has anything to do with her religious freedom. She is employed (I assume) to provide nursing services not religious counseling.

That aside I think the trust's reaction is over the top, I wonder if there is anything more to this?

[tkingdoll]

If she's been suspended then she must be in breach of her contract, and so the action to suspend her pending an investigation is correct. However, it's worth noting that no-one was actually offended here. The woman who complained admitted she wasn't offended but was concerned that someone else might be. Well, that's likely true, but are we that afraid of offending people?

I think it's absolutely inappropriate to express religious belief to patients or mix religion and work. The one thing has nothing to do with the other. So she needs to be told not to do it. I hope it doesn't go as far as her losing her job though. Hopefully this will end in a sensible "leave your personal beliefs at home" lecture and she can get on with her job. A good nurse is more valuable than the principle of avoiding offence.

[slingblade]

Oh, my. As strong as my feelings are, I wouldn't risk someone's career over a mere suggestion such as that one! I'd have said "No, thank you," and that'd be the end. Now, if she'd been harping on it, or badgering me, or it was "Jeebus, Jeebus" all the time, I might have a word.

[linusrichard]

If she really believes in what she says she believes, why would she need to ask the patients if they want her to pray for them? She can do her nursing work at work, and then go home, and pray for her patients at home. Everybody wins. The reason she asked her patients is not because she wanted to pray for them, but because she wanted either (a) to proselytize, even if in a subtle way, (b) to show off for them that she was going to pray for them, or (c) some other reason I haven't thought of that would also be inappropriate.

Did the trust overreact? I don't know.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Unfair. If the nurse, say, was a Christian Scientist and suggested prayer before medical treatment, suspending her would have been appropriate but just for offering to pray? The proper response is "No, and please don't ask me again."

[Beth]

If she really believes in what she says she believes, why would she need to ask the patients if they want her to pray for them? She can do her nursing work at work, and then go home, and pray for her patients at home. Everybody wins. The reason she asked her patients is not because she wanted to pray for them, but because she wanted either (a) to proselytize, even if in a subtle way, (b) to show off for them that she was going to pray for them, or (c) some other reason I haven't thought of that would also be inappropriate.

Did the trust overreact? I don't know.

I think so. She didn't hurt anyone. She hasn't even offended anyone. If it's against company policy, then a 'memo of management concern' would be appropriate, or a discussion about it from her manager.

I also think you forgot to list the fact that knowing that someone is praying for them may make them feel a bit better. It doesn't seem necessarily inappropriate, but would be based on the specific individuals and situations. If the majority of patients are 'delighted' by the offer, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If she really believes in what she says she believes, why would she need to ask the patients if they want her to pray for them? She can do her nursing work at work, and then go home, and pray for her patients at home. Everybody wins. The reason she asked her patients is not because she wanted to pray for them, but because she wanted either (a) to proselytize, even if in a subtle way, (b) to show off for them that she was going to pray for them, or (c) some other reason I haven't thought of that would also be inappropriate.

Did the trust overreact? I don't know.

Well, maybe it's that she feels she must ask permission before praying for someone. Maybe it's respect and consideration.

Or maybe she knows that for the patients who are Christian, it's heart-warming to know that someone is praying for you.

[GodMark2]

I think so. She didn't hurt anyone. She hasn't even offended anyone. If it's against company policy, then a 'memo of management concern' would be appropriate, or a discussion about it from her manager.

Unless this wasn't the first time, or there were more than the one complaint. As well, if the sick woman felt strongly enough to actually report it (thinking it might offend others), it does call into question how casual the offer was.

I can't count the number of bar fights I've seen turn into 'just a casual discussion that may have gotten a little excited' when the cops show up.

[Rrose Selavy]

But if a request for prayer is later withdrawn due to a breach of the employment contract does God then say

"alrighty, if you say so, omnipresent/omni everything thing else or not..." you aint gettin anyof my miracle stuff then I don't want to get into trouble....

[Darat]

Well if god is performing medical interventions I hope he is licenced to do so!

[Lucky]

If she's been suspended then she must be in breach of her contract, and so the action to suspend her pending an investigation is correct.
She’s a bank nurse (http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/78517/001496.pdf), so there isn’t a contract of employment.

bank nurses are not regular employees and have no entitlement to guaranteed or continuous employment
employment rights are generally confined to employees (people working under a contract of employment) and do not cover bank nurses. Bank nurses have no right to maternity leave, have no redundancy rights, and are not able to claim unfair dismissal in an employment tribunal.

The trust can suspend her without pay or dismiss her on the spot, for any minor offence, without having followed its normal disciplinary procedures. Or for no reason at all (provided it’s not a case of legally prohibited discrimination, such as race).


Can't see how this has anything to do with her religious freedom. She is employed (I assume) to provide nursing services not religious counseling.

That aside I think the trust's reaction is over the top, I wonder if there is anything more to this?
I think there could be a religious discrimination issue. It seems that she said something inappropriate to a patient, who wasn’t offended. Would someone making a remark of a similar level of inappropriateness and ‘offence’ that had no religious connection be treated in the same way? If not, then she does have a case that she was discriminated against on religious grounds.

Of course, there may be more to it than we’ve been told, but it’s not at all implausible as it stands. Trusts often do take advantage of their bank nurses’ lack of employment rights to treat them unreasonably. And trust managers and HR people often make decisions devoid of common sense. imo the crucial point is whether she had been warned previously about this behaviour (typical BBC journalism that this isn't mentioned). If not, I think the trust’s action is completely unjustified – though I don’t know whether she’d have any legal case.


Oh, my. As strong as my feelings are, I wouldn't risk someone's career over a mere suggestion such as that one! I'd have said "No, thank you," and that'd be the end. Now, if she'd been harping on it, or badgering me, or it was "Jeebus, Jeebus" all the time, I might have a word.
It doesn’t read to me as though the patient meant to make an official complaint – which makes the trust’s action even more over the top.

[Cavemonster]

My dad was in the hospital over Christmas.
1) The Nurse wrote on the whiteboard in his room. "A Savior is Born!"
2) A Santa Claus stopped by his room and gave him a tiny ornament in the shape of a church.
3) This was not a religious hospital.
4) We're Jews.

We didn't file any reports, we were pretty concentrated on his health problems, but it was damned annoying. It seems pretty extreme to make it a suspension offense, but we don't know the entire history yet.

I have a friend who is a visiting nurse. You may not be surprised to find that the regulations on behavior for nurses visiting patients in their homes are fairly strict. Caroline Petrie signed onto a job that included this rule:

'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'."

Which she has been breaking for years.

[Rodibidably]

I may be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that it happened exactly as the article implies. My guess would be that something was left out of the article, such as this is not the nurse's first offense, or she was pushing her faith more than this article implies.

While I do think that a heath care professional should not be pushing their religion on others, I think a warning would be appropriate in this situation. Perhaps if she had recieved warnings before, then a suspension, or firing would be reasonable.

[Sun Countess]

If the woman who complained wasn't offended, but was worried that other people may be, perhaps Ms. Petrie's offer of prayer was coming on a little stronger than cheery and conversational. I don't think she should lose her job over this, but I definitely believe she should be ordered to curtail the activity.

Nobody needs to be proselytizing to others in their place of business, and certainly not when that place of business is other people's homes. I never allow religious solicitors into my home, and I'd hate to let in a visiting nurse and find out that religion was her sideline.

[tkingdoll]

She’s a bank nurse (http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/78517/001496.pdf), so there isn’t a contract of employment.



I didn't say a contract of employment. There are all sorts of terms of conduct that she may have had to sign in order to be a bank nurse in the first place. It seems unlikely that there are not. If you're employing someone, even on a temporary basis, to represent you in a patient's home, would it really be the case that you don't give them any conduct guidelines whatsoever?

If she had no terms to her employment then on what grounds could they possibly suspend her? It's only misconduct if you define what conduct is.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Unless this wasn't the first time, or there were more than the one complaint. As well, if the sick woman felt strongly enough to actually report it (thinking it might offend others), it does call into question how casual the offer was.

I can't count the number of bar fights I've seen turn into 'just a casual discussion that may have gotten a little excited' when the cops show up.

Most arguments, fights, rows are actually exactly that. A simple situation that got way out of control and turned into something no one wanted and for which they are actually totally willing to bury the hatchet.

Almost all situations the police are called to started over total, total BS. Or a case of "total nonsense being the last straw".

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, my. As strong as my feelings are, I wouldn't risk someone's career over a mere suggestion such as that one! I'd have said "No, thank you," and that'd be the end. Now, if she'd been harping on it, or badgering me, or it was "Jeebus, Jeebus" all the time, I might have a word.And as a skeptic, I doubt the news account tells the story with much accuracy.

If it was overkill evangelizing, time to go.

If it was an employer unaware confused elderly people can exaggerate their perception of overkill evangelizing, shouldn't have happened.

If said nurse has been warned numerous times, time to go.

One is unlikely to know the full circumstances from the news article.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Being suspended from assignment from a temp agency is pretty common. Their business depends on reputation which in turn depends on the people they send out. They have a right to be picky even if it seems unfair.

And from the article, Ms Petrie appears full of enthusiasm for God's work. That may be a clue this was more than an offer of a simple prayer. Maybe she droned on and on throughout the visit.

[Darat]

...snip...

I think there could be a religious discrimination issue. It seems that she said something inappropriate to a patient, who wasn’t offended. Would someone making a remark of a similar level of inappropriateness and ‘offence’ that had no religious connection be treated in the same way? If not, then she does have a case that she was discriminated against on religious grounds.

...snip...

She's going to have a hard time proving that type of discrimination. I would also be quite surprised if, somewhere in the bumpf she got when she took the job on, there wasn't something to do with respecting the religious beliefs and views of the patients.

However her offer of a prayer in her role as a nurse is what she did wrong, regardless of any actual offense caused to anyone.

[gdnp]

I see no problem with nurses trying to make more of a personal connection with their patients. Medicine is often criticized these days for being too impersonal and to dependent on tests and drugs and too hurried to actually treat the psychological components of disease.

Perhaps it would have been better for the nurse to ask the patient if she was religious and to thus scope out her feelings before making the offer, but really: do we really want to set up rules which hinder health care providers from demonstrating that they care about their patients on a personal level, not just as a source of a paycheck?

[gdnp]

However her offer of a prayer in her role as a nurse is what she did wrong, regardless of any actual offense caused to anyone.

Yet many of her patients were delighted, and no one was offended. What is wrong with a nurse delighting her patients? Is this outside of her duties? Shall we ban jokes or questions about the patient's family as outside the scope of duties as well?

[Darat]

I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

[Monketey Ghost]

Strange. I work at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, and we have god in your face on every floor, and on some floors there are unsubtle religious displays. Go figure. I even asked the director when being given my intro tour, "Do you have to be a Christian to work here or something?" The displays are always coupled with statements of patriotism.

[Lucky]

I didn't say a contract of employment. There are all sorts of terms of conduct that she may have had to sign in order to be a bank nurse in the first place. It seems unlikely that there are not. If you're employing someone, even on a temporary basis, to represent you in a patient's home, would it really be the case that you don't give them any conduct guidelines whatsoever?

If she had no terms to her employment then on what grounds could they possibly suspend her? It's only misconduct if you define what conduct is.
My point was that she wasn’t subject to the normal employment conditions and rights of regular trust employees. A nurse on a permanent contract would have to be guilty (or suspected) of very serious misconduct to be suspended without pay, but in this case she could be dismissed for something very trivial (or, as I said, for no reason at all). I was explaining that we can’t infer from this extreme action by the trust that she’s suspected of any serious breach of discipline.


Being suspended from assignment from a temp agency is pretty common. Their business depends on reputation which in turn depends on the people they send out. They have a right to be picky even if it seems unfair.
She wasn’t employed by an agency; it’s an NHS bank (see link in my previous post). This is a flexible arrangement whereby nurses are offered work directly by the trust, as required (they don’t have to accept). That’s fine if it suits both parties, but there’s clearly the potential for injustice. For instance, I think it’s unjustifiable that bank nurses don’t have the same disciplinary and complaints procedures as regular staff - and trusts take advantage of it. Instead of going to the trouble and expense of adequate supervision and management of their staff, they can just sack them if any minor issue occurs. Apart from the ethics of treating nurses (or any other workers) in this way, and depriving them of the legal rights that permanent staff have, I don’t think it’s very efficient management.


She's going to have a hard time proving that type of discrimination. I would also be quite surprised if, somewhere in the bumpf she got when she took the job on, there wasn't something to do with respecting the religious beliefs and views of the patients.

However her offer of a prayer in her role as a nurse is what she did wrong, regardless of any actual offense caused to anyone.
If she was proselytising then I would see that as a very serious offence. But if the story is as she tells it (which I am inclined to think at the moment, in the absence of further evidence), then she should simply be told not to do it, and why. (Some christians don’t realise that asking christ to intervene on their behalf can be offensive to people of other religions, as well as to atheists.) It should probably be put in writing, to avoid any misunderstanding, but I’d say any kind of discipline was a bit harsh (assuming the issue hasn’t been raised with her previously).

[six7s]

That aside I think the trust's reaction is over the topPerhaps, but the nurse's action was under the bottom...

My suggestion to such nurses (with belief in a personal god) would be to bear in mind the primary needs of the patients who - by definition - probably feel less than brilliant and are - often - quite capable of requesting prayers if/when so desired

For me, an unsolicited offer of prayer is akin to a nurse - lacking trust in orthodox medicine - volunteering to nip down the bookies and placing a fiver on me popping my clogs in the next X weeks :(

[gtc]

volunteering to nip down the bookies and placing a fiver on me popping my clogs in the next X weeks :(

You've basically described the life insurance industry.

[six7s]

You've basically described the life insurance industry.Indeed

And, if/when I was in need of nursing, I'd take serious offense at any unsolicited offers of insurance

[jon]

My dad was in the hospital over Christmas.
1) The Nurse wrote on the whiteboard in his room. "A Savior is Born!"
2) A Santa Claus stopped by his room and gave him a tiny ornament in the shape of a church.
3) This was not a religious hospital.
4) We're Jews.

We didn't file any reports, we were pretty concentrated on his health problems, but it was damned annoying. It seems pretty extreme to make it a suspension offense, but we don't know the entire history yet.

I have a friend who is a visiting nurse. You may not be surprised to find that the regulations on behavior for nurses visiting patients in their homes are fairly strict. Caroline Petrie signed onto a job that included this rule:

'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'."

Which she has been breaking for years.

Likewise, non-Christian relatives of mine have been annoyed by (non-nursing) people in hospitals making more than one unsolicited offer of prayer. Certainly very far from the worst thing that someone can do, but I don't think it's professional behaviour.

I'd also wonder if people from different cultural/religious backgrounds could be unduly worried by offers of prayer. I'd associate praying for a person more with prayers for God to welcome people after their death: I appreciate that many/most Christians use prayers in other ways, but I still don't think I'd find hospital staff offering to pray for me especially comforting :eek:

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

That's a darkly funny thought but myself, I wouldn't associate that with the expectation of death at all.

Catholics are expected to pray every day- at dinner, at other meals, while repenting sins (which is usually undertaken very regularly), going to bed, for themselves, for friends, for relatives. At least in the tradition I know.

So praying for a sick person would be very usual to me. And that's whether the sick person has anything from a cough to lethal cancer.

[six7s]

I, too, was raised a catholic and prayed for everything and anything from spelling tests to getting lucky

However, the OP describes a significantly different scenario; the nurse is a health professional and part of nursing is providing appropriate care - physical, cultural, emotional, etc

She failed in her responsibility

How would you feel if a panel beater (auto body shop thingy in teh US?) offered to pray for speedy repairs to your crashed car?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I believe that would be called a "automobile body work repairer" here in America.

Prayer is not harmful in and of itself. Depending on your point of view, it's either alot of help or totally harmless anyway. It's when you substitute prayer for action that it's bad.

If the nurse had refused treatment in lieu of prayer, she failed. If she worried a patient by offering to pray for him or her, she failed. If she behaved in some very inappropriate manner, she failed.

If she did all her duties and prayed, she did her job.

Same with the hypothetical repairer- if he checked your engine and changed your tires in addition to something else, he did his job.

[gdnp]

However, the OP describes a significantly different scenario; the nurse is a health professional and part of nursing is providing appropriate care - physical, cultural, emotional, etc

She failed in her responsibility

So the patients who were "delighted" when she offered to pray for them should be denied this benefit to their emotional health because someone might at some point in the future be offended.

bizarre.

[SusanB-M1]

I understand (from the BBC 'Christian Topic' board (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213235?thread=6284652) that the nurse in question had already been disciplined for handing out some sort of prayer cards.

[Darat]

If that is the case then I have no sympathy for her and I would say the handing out of "prayer cards" was a more serious offence.

[tkingdoll]

Same with the hypothetical repairer- if he checked your engine and changed your tires in addition to something else, he did his job.

Well, no. If he wagged his crotch at me, I'd be rightly moved to complain. If he picked his nose, swore, spat on the floor, made a racist comment, wore Nazi symbols, offered to give me a seeing to, asked me if my mom was single, made sexist jokes, squashed a fly against his forehead, or sang "who ate all the pies" (any or all of those things) I'd be rightly moved to complain.

It's absurd to think that 'doing a job' is only about the tasks of the job and not behaviour. Unless you own the company and don't care about your reputation, then you have every obligation to behave in a socially appropriate manner, and certainly to the rules or requirements of your employers.

In 2009 in Britain, I would say it's not socially appropriate for a healthcare giver or indeed anyone not representing a church or other religious body on official business, to offer to pray, unsolicited, for a customer. If the customer initiates the conversation that would be one thing, but isn't what happened here and this nurse has discovered the consequences of putting one's pet personal beliefs before one's duty to one's employer.

[six7s]

So the patients who were "delighted" when she offered to pray for them should be denied this benefit to their emotional health because someone might at some point in the future be offended.

bizarre.Your argument - for want of much better word (like 'crap') - is bollocks - something you probably know already...

If not, try thinking, critically, about this issue and recognise that the opposition to her woo in NO WAY WHATSOEVER suggests that she and her fellow wooists can't/shouldn't supplement orthodox health care with woo... if/when a patient requests it

[Hokulele]

So the patients who were "delighted" when she offered to pray for them should be denied this benefit to their emotional health because someone might at some point in the future be offended.

bizarre.


It is the nurse facing discipline claiming they were "delighted", not the patients themselves.

[Beerina]

Can't see how this has anything to do with her religious freedom. She is employed (I assume) to provide nursing services not religious counseling.

That aside I think the trust's reaction is over the top, I wonder if there is anything more to this?


We shall see if the old money funders want the nurse treated that way or not.



Unfair. [B]ut just for offering to pray? The proper response is "No, and please don't ask me again."


The proper response

...is "No, and I'm old and enfeebled. Have you ever heard of a "happy ending"?






Oh, wait a second. Oh my god! :eek: Wait!













Oh, whew!

n/m

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=139&pictureid=625

[biomorph]

I think so. She didn't hurt anyone. She hasn't even offended anyone.

We/you don't know that, however someone thought someone might be..........so no not yet she hasn't.

If it's against company policy, then a 'memo of management concern' would be appropriate, or a discussion about it from her manager.

Just sack her, end of problem, and a strong message to the religious to keep their personal deluded nonsense out of the work place, forever thanks. Ok that's a bit OTT maybe, but hell why not?..lol

I also think you forgot to list the fact that knowing that someone is praying for them may make them feel a bit better.


maybe not if they read this....or even if they didn't...
prayer makes things worse (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/)



It doesn't seem necessarily inappropriate, but would be based on the specific individuals and situations.

It's an outright assumption that it's ok to ask to start with isn't it?, and completely inaproppriate.

Not just for the unbelievers, but those of other faiths, misbegotten as they might be too. It doesn't work, where does the word appropriate come in to it if it doesn't work at all, which it doesn't.
And yes I do know about the placebo effect. Prayer is not one IMO,..

If the majority of patients are 'delighted' by the offer, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

Then you are blind. If she want s be a preacher, be a preacher.
If you want to be a nurse do that...

But using your position as a person who is highly likely to come in contact with vunerable sections of the community to pray for them comes into the realm of religion picking on the old, the weak, and the young.

It does this because in a moment of doubt or weakness it may infect the possibly uninfected mind of the victim.

Yes, victim, and yes infect are the correct terms to use.

C'mon Beth, you do know better than this surely?

[biomorph]

It is the nurse facing discipline claiming they were "delighted", not the patients themselves.

Well said, and a damn good point. After what else could the silly nurse say?

She's deluded, sack her I say.....hangings to good for them............hang on, where's me meds gone?. Ah found 'em............well I think a suspension during the enquiry is something that you have to do.

It protects her and protects the trust, while the facts are figured out.....ah stuff it, just sack her. Find an excuse, anything..........:D

[Safe-Keeper]

Wouldn't you know, a Norwegian midwife is in trouble for pretty much the same reason:D!

A woman offered a curse-laden sentence during childbirth, and the midwife told her to stop cursing and recommended prayer. She told the mother, translated, that to lie there and call upon the devil would only result in greater injuries, and that she then would deserve a tough birth, but that if she wanted, they could all turn towards another and ask Him for help. Then maybe the childbirth would go better.

A complaint has been sent to the health district.

http://www.bt.no/innenriks/article784810.ece (Norwegian)

[Skeptic Guy]

My father, who is an atheist and battling lymphoma, when asked by an in-hospital interfaith representatitve if he would like to be prayed for, replied, "Not to the same guy who's trying to kill me, I hope". They didn't come back around after that.

[Elizabeth I]

I had a cousin who at the age of 10 or 11 developed a particularly nasty form of liver cancer. My aunt and uncle decided not to tell him at first, until they could assess the potential treatments, their possibility of success, etc.

My cousin was in a Catholic hospital. Not long after the diagnosis, a nun came into his room and gushed, "Isn't it wonderful? You're going to live with Jesus!"

[dafydd]

I heard an item yesterday morning about this.The fiirst reaction of the lady on hearing the question "Shall I pray for you?" was to think "Oh no ,am i that far gone?"

[Furi]

I heard an item yesterday morning about this.The fiirst reaction of the lady on hearing the question "Shall I pray for you?" was to think "Oh no ,am i that far gone?"

Pretty much what my reaction would be,

Nursey Nursey : "I can say a prayer for you if you like"
Ickle Kitten : "Huh! Parsnips? The Consultant said it was routine, like nothing to worry about."
NN: "Either way I will pray for you."
IK : "ARRRGH where is that waiver I signed I want to read the small print, and a second opinion, can I visit the library to look up the procedure, - Kernal Panic"

In general, I believe the reaction unless has been stated is a repeat offense is overkill, but then in a lot of places suspension can be immediate on any complaint whether it is upheld or not.

[Professor Yaffle]

These sorts of stories in the media lately (eg the one about the airport worker being asked to remove a cross) have all come from the same source - the Christian Legal Centre. Read about them here:

http://layscience.net/node/482

[Darat]

Thanks for the link - very interesting!

[cj.23]

I think it's absolutely inappropriate to express religious belief to patients or mix religion and work. The one thing has nothing to do with the other. So she needs to be told not to do it. I hope it doesn't go as far as her losing her job though. Hopefully this will end in a sensible "leave your personal beliefs at home" lecture and she can get on with her job. A good nurse is more valuable than the principle of avoiding offence.


Others agree with you --"we don't want God-bothering brought in to the workplace. The concern is this might happen" - from an Industrial Society survey, following The Turnbull Report, 1993*

However, in my days in the NHS, we were encouraged to express our personal faith if we felt it might offer comfort to a client. It was a personal judgment call. I very much doubt any disciplinary action will ensue...

* If you are unaware what the workplace in question was ---
It was a comment in the survey frequently recorded, and the employees in question were the staff of the Church of England.
cj x

[Beth]

We/you don't know that, however someone thought someone might be..........so no not yet she hasn't.

Just sack her, end of problem, and a strong message to the religious to keep their personal deluded nonsense out of the work place, forever thanks. Ok that's a bit OTT maybe, but hell why not?..lol

Because sacking someone undeservedly is not a good thing to do. Although, depending on the circumstances, about which I know little, she could have crossed the line of what is appropriate and deserve the action. It’s possible there was more to it than was reported in the brief article linked in the OP.

It's an outright assumption that it's ok to ask to start with isn't it?, and completely inaproppriate. Yes, it’s an assumption that it’s okay to ask. Asking doesn’t hurt. What harm was done by her making the request?

Then you are blind. If she want s be a preacher, be a preacher.
If you want to be a nurse do that... I don’t think that a nurse asking if a patient would like her to pray for them is the equivalent of the nurse wanting to be or acting like a preacher. I think you are seeing things that aren’t there.

But using your position as a person who is highly likely to come in contact with vunerable sections of the community to pray for them comes into the realm of religion picking on the old, the weak, and the young.

It does this because in a moment of doubt or weakness it may infect the possibly uninfected mind of the victim.

Yes, victim, and yes infect are the correct terms to use.

C'mon Beth, you do know better than this surely?

I think your response is completely over the top. The nurse has ‘victimized’ her patients by asking them if they would like her to perform an additional service at no charge? She might ‘infect’ them with the meme for religion? You talk as if they’ve never been exposed to it elsewhere!

I look at it this way, it’s a reasonable conjecture that some of her patients would appreciate the gesture. It doesn’t harm those who aren’t interested. They can decline without any repercussion. OTOH, I don’t think it would appropriate for a patient to make the request. I think it’s okay for her to offer but not okay for them to ask because I don’t think it would be appropriate for the patient to make any request of their nurse regarding what something to be done during their off hours, whether it be prayer or something else entirely.

[Professor Yaffle]

If a nurse offered to pray for me (even back when I was religious), it would just worry me that I was in worse shape than I thought I was.

[Hokulele]

If the prayers are ineffective, could I sue for medical malpractice? False advertising?


Hmm, I sense an easy get-rich-quick scheme!

[Piscivore]

I don’t think it would appropriate for a patient to make the request. I think it’s okay for her to offer but not okay for them to ask because I don’t think it would be appropriate for the patient to make any request of their nurse regarding what something to be done during their off hours, whether it be prayer or something else entirely.

I have disagree with that. I can't see anything wrong at all with a patient making a request for the nurse to pray with them.

[six7s]

If the prayers are ineffective, could I sue for medical malpractice? False advertising?


Hmm, I sense an easy get-rich-quick scheme!You'll need a ('scuse teh pun) damn good lawyer

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjE3MzgzNDk2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzIzOTE0MQ@@._ V1._SX286_SY400_.jpg
imdb.com/title/tt0268437/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/)

[Beth]

I have disagree with that. I can't see anything wrong at all with a patient making a request for the nurse to pray with them.

Well, if it's something to be done during the nurses working hours, you have a point. I was thinking of the nurse praying for the patient during her off hours. OTOH, if the patient requests it, is the nurse allowed to refuse? And how would you feel about the nurse being paid, perhaps from public funds, for her time spent praying with the patient?

[six7s]

Well, if it's something to be done during the nurses working hours, you have a point. I was thinking of the nurse praying for the patient during her off hours. :confused:
Why?

What relevance does that have to this issue?

OTOH, if the patient requests it, is the nurse allowed to refuse? Did you major in rhetoric?

Of course a nurse is allowed to refuse to provide a service that they have no expertise in... they are obliged to refuse...

However, nurses are equally obliged to consult with and enlist the aid of any parties qualified to administer to the physical and emotional needs of a patient

And how would you feel about the nurse being paid, perhaps from public funds, for her time spent praying with the patient?Doh! Teh rhetoric... it burnz

Seriously Beth... do you need to believe that all those who deny your woo are vile, despicable, baby-munching bastards?

[Sun Countess]

Asking doesn’t hurt. What harm was done by her making the request?
Others have stated that the simple request may cause them to become alarmed that things are worse than told, so there could definitely be harm in that.

As a non-believer, I would really get ticked if someone offered to pray for me. I would honestly wonder what I did or said that made them think I believed in something so utterly ridiculous. Do I look stupid or something? I must be sicker than I thought! Either way, I think there's definite harm in offending someone or raising their blood pressure, as they're trying desperately to avoid a religious debate with the otherwise nice-seeming nurse.

I can see a nurse making the offer if the homeowner has displayed a cross or a picture of Jesus in the house, and she has reason to believe their brand of jesus-loving is the exact same brand as hers. Even if it's a nice gesture in that case, it's certainly not in the job description, and is best avoided.

I honestly can't imagine a patient asking a visiting nurse to pray with them or for them either on or off the clock (although I'm sure it happens). Why would anyone assume that a virtual stranger believes in the same favor-granting skydaddy, unless you already knew them from church?

[Piscivore]

Well, if it's something to be done during the nurses working hours, you have a point. I was thinking of the nurse praying for the patient during her off hours.
What six7s said. There's no harm in asking another human being to pray for you at your time of need, if that's the sort of thing that's important to you. On the job or off, all they need do is say "no".

OTOH, if the patient requests it, is the nurse allowed to refuse?
That depends on the rules of the hospital. I would imagine that since it is not part of the job, yes, the nurse certainly could. A Christian-run hospital might have different rules.

In the same vein, no rule prevents a patient from asking a nurse for her phone number, yet it does not obligate her to give it.

And how would you feel about the nurse being paid, perhaps from public funds, for her time spent praying with the patient?
I would consider it part of the emotional care of the patient. Were I in the same position, I would pray with them if requested. If at the very least it provides a little emotional comfort it's a plus, and to do so inflicts no harm whatsoever on me.

[Carnivore]

Caroline Petrie has admitted that she was previously cautioned for breaching equality and diversity regulations, received remedial training and was warned she could face formal disciplinary action if she repeated her behaviour. She was specifically told she could only discuss religious topics with patients if they brought it up first.



Last October Mrs Petrie was reprimanded for offering a small, homemade prayer card to an elderly male patient who had happily accepted it.

The patient’s carer had raised concerns, and Mrs Petrie was sent a letter which said: “Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that ‘you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity’ and ‘you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health’.”

The letter warned: “If there is any further similar incident it may be treated as potential misconduct and the formal disciplinary procedure could be instigated.”

Mrs Petrie was asked to attend an ‘equality and diversity’ course following the incident.

“I stopped handing out prayer cards after that but I found it more and more difficult [not to offer them]. My concern is for the person as a whole, not just their health.

“I was told not to force my faith on anyone but I could respond if patients themselves brought up the subject [of religion].”

She also claims her prayers actually cure people 's medical conditions, citing a "Catholic woman" whose urinary infection cleared up "a few days" after Petrie said a prayer for her. (Doctors and medicines clearly get no love from her.)

This seems a straightforward case of an employee wilfully disregarding her conditions of employment.

She doesnt agree with the regulations because she believes she can perform magic cures in addition to what the NHS offers. They have told her not to offer these cures but she does it again anyway.

How is this case different from a nurse offering patients her homemade homeopathic remedies, or offering to make a voodoo cure?

Her behaviour is clearly inappropriate but Nurse Petire doesnt see why she should have top follow the rules when she is doing so much "good". Whatever disciplinary measures are taken against her, she has only herself to blame.

[Beth]

:confused:
Why?

What relevance does that have to this issue? I thought that was what the nurse was doing - asking permission to pray for them during her off hours.


Seriously Beth... do you need to believe that all those who deny your woo are vile, despicable, baby-munching bastards?

Er, no. I don't think I made any reference to their dietary preferences. :p Do you assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a believer? I'm agnostic.

What six7s said. There's no harm in asking another human being to pray for you at your time of need, if that's the sort of thing that's important to you. On the job or off, all they need do is say "no".

I would consider it part of the emotional care of the patient. Were I in the same position, I would pray with them if requested. If at the very least it provides a little emotional comfort it's a plus, and to do so inflicts no harm whatsoever on me. Okay. Different people have different ways of looking at things. I see the nurse making the offer as less likely to cause problems/offense than the patient doing so.

[Piscivore]

Okay. Different people have different ways of looking at things. I see the nurse making the offer as less likely to cause problems/offense than the patient doing so.

This isn't a case of subjective judgement or "point of view". The nurse- as illustrated by Carnivore's post- had rules regarding her offering to provide the prayer. Doing so anyway is a violation of those rules, by definition a "problem". There are no rules preventing a patient requesting one.

[Beth]

This isn't a case of subjective judgement or "point of view". The nurse- as illustrated by Carnivore's post- had rules regarding her offering to provide the prayer. Doing so anyway is a violation of those rules, by definition a "problem". There are no rules preventing a patient requesting one.

Okay, you're right. Carnivore's post does indicate there was more to it and she was out of line.

[tkingdoll]

Oh screw her, she's got rationality issues and it's dangerous when someone believes they answer to a power which overrules their employer. She shouldn't be a nurse at all, but certainly not one paid for with my tax revenue.

OK, that was a bit Daily Mail Rant of me but MEH. Stupid woman. I hate people who don't do their job.

[six7s]

Well, if it's something to be done during the nurses working hours, you have a point. I was thinking of the nurse praying for the patient during her off hours. :confused:
Why?

What relevance does that have to this issue?I thought that was what the nurse was doing - asking permission to pray for them during her off hours.That still doesn't explain how your point is relevant

Tip: what is re relevant is not the timing but the action of the nurse's offer to pray

Do you assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a believer?.No, of course not - and I'd really appreciate a concerted affort on you part to quit with the inane, the irrelevant and the rhetorical

I'm agnostic.I don't believe you

;)

On a more serious note, it's not your personal beliefs (or lack of, etc) that I take issue with. Instead, it's your defense - from a seemingly uncritical-thinking perspective - of the indefensible; a repeat offense

If you had watched the BBC News video in the OP link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/7863699.stm) and/or actually read the posts in this thread, you would have noticed that this is not Caroline Petrie's first such offense

I understand (from the BBC 'Christian Topic' board (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213235?thread=6284652) that the nurse in question had already been disciplined for handing out some sort of prayer cards.

[biomorph]

Because sacking someone undeservedly is not a good thing to do. Although, depending on the circumstances, about which I know little, she could have crossed the line of what is appropriate and deserve the action. It’s possible there was more to it than was reported in the brief article linked in the OP.

Looks like there is more to it.


Yes, it’s an assumption that it’s okay to ask. Asking doesn’t hurt. What harm was done by her making the request?

I could ask a child if they'd like some heroin.

I see little difference morally, though in practice there's a big difference.

Heroin actually does something.

You do know what the word "pusher" means I'm sure.

This is not, for comparison, the same as asking if they'd like a cup of tea either, just to get some balance in the argument.

Do I think that pushing religion is the same as pushing heroin? no. but it's nearer than asking something that is completely innocuous. Religion changes lives, unfortunatly.


I don’t think that a nurse asking if a patient would like her to pray for them is the equivalent of the nurse wanting to be or acting like a preacher. I think you are seeing things that aren’t there.

Look, if you are ill, and you want to be prayed for (why the reason escapes me) you routinely ask for a priest, or whatever.

Not a nurse.

There are of course many examples of this in real life.


I think your response is completely over the top. The nurse has ‘victimized’ her patients by asking them if they would like her to perform an additional service at no charge? She might ‘infect’ them with the meme for religion? You talk as if they’ve never been exposed to it elsewhere!

No my response is not over the top IMO. I would find offensive that she might assume I am of the nurses faith, or have any truck with faith.

The nurse is not "victimising" the patient.

The religion is doing that after already infecting the nurse.

The nurse can't help it. The religion has an expansionist drive, like malaria. It seeks to infect, breed and also reinfect whenever it can. That's a fact.

Yes they might have been exposed to it elsewhere, but the neither the nurse, nor the meme knows that. It's irrelevant. It must breed, or confirm that the victim is already infected.

I look at it this way, it’s a reasonable conjecture that some of her patients would appreciate the gesture.

Of course, and I agree with you. However in that case the asking woouldn't be needed maybe.

It doesn’t harm those who aren’t interested.

It seeks to get them interested. This is not just asking, it's sly preaching. That's my point.


They can decline without any repercussion.

Like if it's an accepted practice then the response from the nurse might in the future be "well go to hell".

You might find it difficult to absolutely deny that that might not cause some stress, maybe just not in the place you are expecting it. Yes? If this became accepted practice.




OTOH, I don’t think it would appropriate for a patient to make the request.

No, but the correct response would be "I'll find the preacher for you", surely?

I think it’s okay for her to offer but not okay for them to ask because I don’t think it would be appropriate for the patient to make any request of their nurse regarding what something to be done during their off hours, whether it be prayer or something else entirely.
See above. This is reversing the argument. It doesn't do much for your case in point, I feel.

Also


Christians hover like vultures over sick people in hospitals. They do not have an automatic right to push their empty dogma onto others, especially the vulnerable. If the woman concerned wants to preach, let her become a preacher.

from
a coment on the BBC site. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213235?thread=6284652)

The original article, read it.
nurse puts god first. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html)

[Rrose Selavy]

Seems she's got "previous" on this issue as mentioned.Also if she really wanted to pray for anyone she knew she could have done so anyway without anyone's knowledge - without requiring "consent" - the idea of asking specificially implies some kind of directable "service" - either God is omnipotent etc or he isn't - he shouldn't need someones consent to affect them or someone else - "It's a kind of self deluded ego trip for some to think they have a hotline to God.

(the usual standard answer to any incoherency is he "moves in mysterious ways"

[biomorph]

Seems she's got "previous" on this issue as mentioned.

Somehow I fail to be surprised at that.....

Also if she really wanted to pray for anyone she know could have done so anyway without anyone's knowledge -

Exactly, but of course she's not interested in that. I wonder why lol?

without requiring "consent" - the idea of asking specificially implies some kind of directable "service" - either God is imnipotent etc or he isn't - he shouldn't need someones consent to affect them or someone else - "It's a kind of self deluded ego trip for some to think they have a hotline to God.

good point

(the usual standard answer to any incoherency is he "moves in mysterious ways"

Yeah, so mysterious as to be untraceable......lol

[Piscivore]

Do I think that pushing religion is the same as pushing heroin? no. but it's nearer than asking something that is completely innocuous. Religion changes lives, unfortunatly.
The difference between religion and heroin is that ingesting heroin will change a life- whether the ingester wants it to or not. Ingesting religion isn't going to affect everybody.



No my response is not over the top IMO. I would find offensive that she might assume I am of the nurses faith, or have any truck with faith.
That would be you deciding to be offended, and wouldn't have anything to do with the nurse, or religion. What offends you is all up to you.

The nurse is not "victimising" the patient. The religion is doing that after already infecting the nurse.
"Religion" can't do anything of the sort. People victimise people, ideas do not.

And you are still using emotive words ("infect"? really?) to try to lend strength to your assertions. That's not going to fly far here.

The nurse can't help it. The religion has an expansionist drive, like malaria. It seeks to infect, breed and also reinfect whenever it can. That's a fact.
Not only is that not a fact (it is just more emotional drivel, and appeal to fear), it is impossible, as "religion" has no drive, no desire, no intelligence. People seek to expand the ranks of those that agree with them. Not ideas.

It seeks to get them interested. This is not just asking, it's sly preaching. That's my point.
So? If critical thinking has any merit at all it should not matter what ideas are spread or championed. Ideas should be welcomed, then analysed, tested, and examined. Never proscripted.

Look, if you are ill, and you want to be prayed for (why the reason escapes me) you routinely ask for a priest, or whatever.

Not a nurse.

There are of course many examples of this in real life.

No, but the correct response would be "I'll find the preacher for you", surely?

In "Real Life" I work in an insurance office. Sometimes, that means I get to talk to people who are having really bad days- not "drycleaner lost my best suit and the kid is getting a "D" in algebra" kind of bad day, but the kind where their wife has been diagnosed with cancer. Or their son has been injured in an auto accident. Or the car they need to keep the job that's the only income in the family has just been stolen. Or the house and everything in it has burnt down. Or a spouse has just died, leaving the widow alone for the first time in decades and scared about what's going to happen now. Some of these people ask me to keep them in their prayers. I'm not such an ass that I feel it necessary to refuse, or to "correct" their request.

If that's the kind of person you want to be, that's up to you.

[tkingdoll]

Has anyone posted that she's unsuspended? Cause she is.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Prayer-row-nurse-work/article-675827-detail/article.html

[six7s]

The difference between religion and heroin is that ingesting heroin will change a life- whether the ingester wants it to or not. Ingesting religion isn't going to affect everybody.




That would be you deciding to be offended, and wouldn't have anything to do with the nurse, or religion. What offends you is all up to you.

"Religion" can't do anything of the sort. People victimise people, ideas do not.
"Religion" can't do anything of the sort. People victimise people, ideas do not. Non sequitur

Religion is a culture, its a system of organising societies and controlling individuals, its (usually) a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam, it is not (merely) an idea

[Professor Yaffle]

Has anyone posted that she's unsuspended? Cause she is.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Prayer-row-nurse-work/article-675827-detail/article.html

More here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4530384/NHS-staff-face-sack-if-they-discuss-religion.html

[six7s]

whoops

[Piscivore]

Non sequitur
How is that a "non sequitur"? Without people there is no religion.

Religion is a culture,
Sometimes. Fred Phelps and his little band are not a "culture" unless one stretches the definition past the breaking point, and his religion differs enough from any other similar religion that to lump them together would be erroneous at best.

Further, "cultures" do not victimise people, people do- and not all people in any culture victimise other people.

its a system of organising societies and controlling individuals,
Sometimes. Neither "organising societies" nor "controlling individuals" is a fundamental, inseparable quality of "religion". And these qualities and the religions that espouse them do not exist or "do" anything on their own- people do. And not all people that follow the religions- the people you assert are "organised" or "controlled" somehow by a religion that they themselves create- will necessarily do the same things. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be any schisms.

And without people filling the societies, without individuals to "control", any "system" of doing so is just theoretical- an idea.

, its (usually) a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam,
Sometimes. I won't even stipulate your "usually" without evidence, because in my experience that's not the case (few "hierarchical structures" have anything in common with MLM structures beyond the fact that some members have more authority than others. The only other hierarchical structure that I can think of off the top of my head that is at all similar to an MLM structure is a cell-based guerrilla insurgency.

And without people filling the ranks, any "hierarchical structure" is just an idea.

it is not (merely) an idea
On its own, without followers, it is. Without people desiring things for it, "religion" wants nothing. Without people deciding things in its name, "religion" decides nothing. Without people doing things in its name, "religion" does nothing.

As always, if you have any actual, factual evidence otherwise, I'm all ears.

[Rasmus]

Forgive me if that point had already been made - I did see a similar notion at least:

Who would still think her behaviour was acceptable if she had offered to sacrifice a chicken?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Forgive me if that point had already been made - I did see a similar notion at least:

Who would still think her behaviour was acceptable if she had offered to sacrifice a chicken?

Sure. Why not? If anyone asked me if they wanted them to pray for me, I think I would be capable of saying, "Go right ahead but it won't make any difference," and I'm a BAAWA.

[gdnp]

Religion is a culture, its a system of organising societies and controlling individuals, its (usually) a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam, it is not (merely) an idea

Huh. I always thought of MLM scams as like ponzi schemes where the people who get in at the top make out like bandits with lesser and lesser rewards as you go down. What was the nurse in question's reward for offering to pray? What was her priest's cut, and the bishop above him?

Perhaps some televangelists organize their "ministries" on an MLM model, but I doubt it: I think all the money goes straight to the top.

On a different note, patients are held to different standards than physicians. A patient is perfectly within her rights to choose a gynecologist because she is a woman. They can even discriminate on the basis of race or religion if the so choose. Physicians and other heath care professionals, however, do not have that right.

I have had several patients (all orthodox Jews) ask to pray with me/over me before performing biopsies on them or their family. I have no idea what they said, and presumed that they were asking God to guide my hand and bring them through alive, or perhaps to make the cancer cells go away. Who knows? I don't know Hebrew. In any event, if it makes the patient even slightly more comfortable during a very stressful time, I see no harm in it. It took a minute or less each time.

[SusanB-M1]

In "Real Life" I work in an insurance office. Sometimes, that means I get to talk to people who are having really bad days- not "drycleaner lost my best suit and the kid is getting a "D" in algebra" kind of bad day, but the kind where their wife has been diagnosed with cancer. Or their son has been injured in an auto accident. Or the car they need to keep the job that's the only income in the family has just been stolen. Or the house and everything in it has burnt down. Or a spouse has just died, leaving the widow alone for the first time in decades and scared about what's going to happen now. Some of these people ask me to keep them in their prayers. I'm not such an ass that I feel it necessary to refuse, or to "correct" their request.

If that's the kind of person you want to be, that's up to you.
The difference between these very difficult events and the patient/nurse relationship I think is that the patient is being 'cold called' for the prayer, rather than requesting it herself. As has been said (on BBC MB too) the patient should have been informed of services available and could request them.

Has anyone posted that she's unsuspended? Cause she is.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Prayer-row-nurse-work/article-675827-detail/article.html
Yes, and I am just listening to the report at the moment (BBC Radio 4 'Today' at 07:07). I heard earlier that a member of the House of Lords said that to have suspended the nurse was 'political correctness gone mad'. I do hope the BHA and NSS are on to this comment too!

[Piscivore]

The difference between these very difficult events and the patient/nurse relationship I think is that the patient is being 'cold called' for the prayer, rather than requesting it herself. As has been said (on BBC MB too) the patient should have been informed of services available and could request them.
As far as this specific case, yes, you're absolutley right. My comment above was meant to address biomorph's assertion "Look, if you are ill, and you want to be prayed for (why the reason escapes me) you routinely ask for a priest, or whatever. Not a nurse."

The point being, that the person in trouble often asks the person who is there- and that not sharing their faith isn't a license to be a jackass to them when they are stressed or hurting. Biomorph's angry rhetoric suggests to me he does not see people with faith as worthy of consideration or kindness. I'm not sure he sees them as people, frankly, so much as a faceless, nameless "enemy".

I don't like seeing that kind of emotional, partisan, and decidedly uncritical thinking being equated with skepticism.

[tkingdoll]

When I went to my last confession, the priest asked me if I wanted him to take my blood pressure while he was there. Of course I was offended, everyone knows that's just a jumpy spider.

[legne]

Woah I thought this was about something that recently happened here (the land of Snåsamans and blasfemy-laws).

A woman was in labor and she said a naughty word, she said two actually; "Faen dette går jævlig tråkt" both words are new versions of the word "devil" (both roughly translates to fcuk).
The midwife then told her that she was summoning the devil, and deserved a horrible birth, then she told her and her family to pray - and she threatened to walk out of the room and let the lady give birth on her own.

Yeah she's suspended now. I'd link to an article but you wouldn't understand a word anyway.

[six7s]

I'd link to an article but you wouldn't understand a word anyway.See post #42 for - if not the answer to LTUAE - a link :)

[six7s]

How is that [""Religion" can't do anything of the sort. People victimise people, ideas do not."] a "non sequitur"? Without people there is no religion.Insofar as it doesn't follow to imply that religion is merely an idea

Further, "cultures" do not victimise people, people do- and not all people in any culture victimise other people.Please name the individuals responsible for the oppression of atheists in 17th-century Britain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A44196906)

Sometimes. Neither "organising societies" nor "controlling individuals" is a fundamental, inseparable quality of "religion".Please cite one religion that does separate such 'qualities'

[drkitten]

Please name the individuals responsible for the oppression of atheists in 17th-century Britain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A44196906)'

You're not that crazy, are you?

From the relevant bbc cite (cited to by the article you linked):


Aikenhead had talked about his reading with friends. After John Frazer was imprisoned and sacklothed for reading deist literature, one of them, possibly Mungo Craig, informed on him. In the autumn of 1696 Thomas was arrested and remitted to the Tolbooth Prison "to be tryed for his life" for blasphemy. He mouldered there until December 23, when he crossed Parliament Square to the High Court to be charged under both of Scotland's Blasphemy Acts, one enacted before and one after the Revolution of 1689.

[The members of Parliament who passed] The 1661 Act ordained death for anyone "not being distracted in his wits" who shall "rail upon or curse or deny God, and obstinately continue therein." [The members of Parliament who passed] The 1695 Act confirmed the earlier act but graduated its penalties: first offence, imprisonment and sackcloth; second offence, imprisonment, sackcloth, and a fine; third offence, death.

The charges were that for more than twelve months Aikenhead had blasphemed against God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and all revealed religion. Five student 'friends' appeared as prosecution witnesses. Aikenhead was accused of having said that theology was "a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense" and made up of "poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras". It was reported that he had called the Old Testament "Ezra's Fables" and the New Testament "the History of the impostor Christ who learned magic in Egypt and picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows". The 'friends' told the court that Aikenhead rejected the Trinity as "not worth any man's refutation", scoffed at the incarnation as contradictory, professed pantheism, and denied creation. They further reported that he had declared that he preferred Mohammed to Jesus and hoped to see Christianity soon extirpated. Finally, he was accused of having wished, when cold, to warm in Hell.

No defence was recorded, but the prisoner did have defence counsel. On December 24, the next day, came the verdict [from the jury]: "that. . . Thomas Aikenhead has railed against the first person, and also cursed and railed our blessed Lord and second person of the holy Trinity, and further finds the other crimes libelled proven, viz. The denying of the incarnation of our Saviour, the Holy Trinity, and scoffing at the Holy Scriptures." He was sentenced [by the judge] to be hanged on the 8th of January.

Aikenhead petitioned the Privy Council to consider his "deplorable circumstances and tender years." Also, he had forgotten to mention that he was also a first time offender. Two ministers and two Privy Councillors pleaded on his behalf, but to no avail. On January 7, after another petition, the Privy Council ruled that they would not grant a reprieve unless the church interceded for him. The Church of Scotland’s General Assembly, sitting in Edinburgh at the time, urged "vigorous execution" to curb "the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land". Thus Aikenhead’s sentence was confirmed [by the Privy Council].

"Religion" didn't take any of those actions. Laws are created by people, enforced by people, and executed by people. Decisions don't make themselves. No confirmation ever happened, except that a person confirmed something. No one has ever been sentenced except by a person.

[six7s]

You're not that crazy, are you?

From the relevant bbc cite (cited to by the article you linked):

[a bunch of names highlighted]Are you seriously (non-crazily) implying that those names constitutes a comprehensive list of all the oppressors

If so, you're nuts


"Religion" didn't take any of those actions. Laws are created by people, enforced by people, and executed by people. Decisions don't make themselves. No confirmation ever happened, except that a person confirmed something. No one has ever been sentenced except by a person.:confused: :confused: :confused:

Although I am very familiar with each and every word, your arrangement of them conveys nothing of meaningful relevance

[drkitten]

Are you seriously (non-crazily) implying that those names constitutes a comprehensive list of all the oppressors

A comprehensive list? No.

But a list, nevertheless. And "religion" did not appear on that list, nor would it appear on a comprehensive list.

Every oppressor of Mr. Aikenhead was a person.

None were a belief. Beliefs cannot oppress anyone; they possess no mass, have no energy, cannot convey momentum, and cannot have any physical effect on the material universe whatsoever.

Or to put it another way --- how much does a person's stupidity weigh?

[six7s]

A comprehensive list? No.

But a list, nevertheless. And "religion" did not appear on that list, nor would it appear on a comprehensive list.

Every oppressor of Mr. Aikenhead was a person. And how would you describe, collectively, the actions, mores and values of those persons?
An amporphous, non-homogeneous, unconnected irrelevance?

I'd use the term culture

[drkitten]

And how would you describe, collectively, the actions, mores and values of those persons?

I wouldn't, because I would be committing a category error in trying to collectivize those disparate things.

[six7s]

I wouldn't, because I would be committing a category error in trying to collectivize those disparate things.Yet you are content to use the terms belief and religion in this discussion... how quaint

[Piscivore]

Please name the individuals responsible for the oppression of atheists in 17th-century Britain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A44196906)

Regardless if I (or anyone) can name them, even in asking the question you admit that "individuals" did so.

Please cite one religion that does separate such 'qualities'
Wicca. Buddhism. Taoism. Shakers/Quakers. There's four.

[legne]

See post #42 for - if not the answer to LTUAE - a link :)

I'm so incredibly good at missing things, could've sworn I read the whole thread. Bah.

[six7s]

Please name the individuals responsible for the oppression of atheists in 17th-century BritainRegardless if I (or anyone) can name them, even in asking the question you admit that "individuals" did so.Bollocks

My point is that for oppression to 'work', it is typically perpetrated by an infinite number of people - infinite as in uncountable, simply cos they come from an exceedingly wide range of 'societal-strata' (or whatever 'they' call it) with an equally diverse range of 'convictions': overt/covert active/passive

If y'ain't part of the solution...
...you're part of the precipitate

Please cite one religion that does separate such 'qualities'Wicca. :confused: Shirley Wicca is merely a minority-interest hobby, not a religion

Buddhism. Bollocks

Go to Thailand and see how wrong you are

Or simply ask some Buddhists about the uber class-conditioning woo that is karma

Taoism. Shakers/Quakers. There's four.Maybe you're right... I know next to nothing about them... but I doubt it

If you think about it, the phrase religion is the opiate of the masses is more than merely a hackneyed t-shirt slogan

[Piscivore]

My point is that for oppression to 'work', it is typically perpetrated by an infinite number of people - infinite as in uncountable, simply cos they come from an exceedingly wide range of 'societal-strata' (or whatever 'they' call it) with an equally diverse range of 'convictions': overt/covert active/passive

Yeah, that is still people doing the oppressing. People doen't stop being people because you cannot count or name them.

:confused: Shirley Wicca is merely a minority-interest hobby, not a religion.
They consider it so, and most reference sources call it a religion. Unless you have some qualification for what constitutes "true" religion of which I am unaware?

Maybe you're right... I know next to nothing about them... but I doubt it.
Don't take my word for it. But don't consider your ignorance proof that your premise is correct, either.

If you think about it, the phrase religion is the opiate of the masses is more than merely a hackneyed t-shirt slogan
Thank you for restating your assertion. I agree that it is, sometimes, for certain people. That does not make it a fundamental, necessary, or defining quality of "religion". Neither does it make "crowd control" the purpose of or reason for the existence of religion. And it certainly does not make "religion" a pernicious, self-aware entity that can think, feel, and act apart from the people that create it.

Television and sports has a similar effect on some people, but that does not make it a fundamental, necessary, or defining quality or purpose of televison or sports. Neither does it make "crowd control" the purpose of or reason for the existence of televison or sports. And I dare say that you would never make the same sorts of assertions about television or sports that you do about religion- assertions that imply that they are pernicious, self-aware entities that can think, feel, and act apart from the people that create them.

Or would you?

In any case, I don't advocate being an ass to someone who wants to tell you about their favorite televison program or asks you to root for their favorite sports team, either. So what's your point?

[six7s]

Neither does it make "crowd control" the purpose of or reason for the existence of televison or sports. And I dare say that you would never make the same sorts of assertions about television or sports that you do about religionAu contraire, mon poisson muncher, I do... maybe not exactly the same... ok... not exactly the same superficially... but fundamentally, yes

I work (occasionally) in the performing arts industry and see sports, the arts and other 'leisure activities' (incl theism) as competitors in essentially the same market (their are only so many disposable notes and coins at large)

assertions that imply that they are pernicious, self-aware entities that can think, feel, and act apart from the people that create them.Please, don't put words in my mouth

You might infer as much

I did NOT imply that, at all

[Piscivore]

Au contraire, mon poisson muncher, I do... maybe not exactly the same... ok... not exactly the same superficially... but fundamentally, yes

I work (occasionally) in the performing arts industry and see sports, the arts and other 'leisure activities' (incl theism) as competitors in essentially the same market (their are only so many disposable notes and coins at large)
Do you feel that television watchers form a "culture" with collectively the same actions, mores and values?
Do you feel that television watching fundamentaly constitues a system of organising societies and controlling individuals and/or a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam?

Do you feel that sports fans form a "culture" with collectively the same actions, mores and values?
Do you feel that the following or watching of sports fundamentaly constitues a system of organising societies and controlling individuals and/or a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam?

Please, don't put words in my mouth

You might infer as much

I did NOT imply that, at all
Fair enough. Explain then what you meant when you said religion, separate and apart from the people that follow it, is "is not (merely) an idea".

[CORed]

Unfair. If the nurse, say, was a Christian Scientist and suggested prayer before medical treatment, suspending her would have been appropriate but just for offering to pray? The proper response is "No, and please don't ask me again."

Maybe it's just me, but, nonbeliever that I am, if somebody offered to pray for me, I think I would say thank you, at least if the offer was made in a sincere belief that it would help, not as an attempt to proseletyze. I don't believe for a minute that the prayer would help, but it wouldn't hurt, etither.

[SusanB-M1]

Maybe it's just me, but, nonbeliever that I am, if somebody offered to pray for me, I think I would say thank you, at least if the offer was made in a sincere belief that it would help, not as an attempt to proseletyze. I don't believe for a minute that the prayer would help, but it wouldn't hurt, etither.
Yes, in almost all circumstances except that of when you are a patient in hospital. I do not know how unwell the patient was, but s/he is not at home, or meeting people elsewhere, or in fact anywhere where s/he can alter the circumstances. S/he is in an unequal and, to some degree, vulnerable position. Although it seems in itself to be a minor incident, it needs to be dealt with firmly I think.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Shirley Wicca is merely a minority-interest hobby, not a religion


Shirley Wicca? I think I went to school with her!

:p

What, precisely, is your basis for judging which religions are "real" and which are "merely hobbies". Is it a black-and-white distinction, or is there a sliding scale?

BTW, my husband is a Wiccan and he strongly disagrees with your assessment of his religion (it's even on his old Army dogtags).

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, in almost all circumstances except that of when you are a patient in hospital. I do not know how unwell the patient was, but s/he is not at home, or meeting people elsewhere, or in fact anywhere where s/he can alter the circumstances. S/he is in an unequal and, to some degree, vulnerable position. Although it seems in itself to be a minor incident, it needs to be dealt with firmly I think.

Minor correction: the nurse in question was a community nurse, and the patient was not in hospital.

[six7s]

What, precisely, is your basis for judging which religions are "real" and which are "merely hobbies". Is it a black-and-white distinction, or is there a sliding scale?For me, this is an interesting question - simply cos I haven't really thought about it before and I doubt if I can give you a "precise" answer... but I'll try

I think, for me, the qualifiers are primarily concerened with 'power and influence' on a political/societal/cultural/etc level

I'm thinking that its a religion if...
If the adherents, in accepting - on the basis of woo - a (typically) prescribed set of rules, attitudes, collectively equate to a significant 'force' as a lobby group on the fundamental issues such as health, education, peace/war, etc - the issues that have a real day-to-day and generation-to-generation impact on human rights and the associated responsibilities
Please note... this is merely my 'first draft' on what I think is a fascinating question

Anyhoo... by the above 'criteria' (combined with the exceedingly little I know about a lot o'stuff) I think that Wicca ain't a religion

It's with no offense intended that I say that, for me - in my ignorance, Wicca is but one of the many 'hobby clubs' that is variously and interchangeably practiced by angst-ridden teens and those that view reality as a lifestyle choice for those who can't handle drugs

BTW, my husband is a Wiccan and he strongly disagrees with your assessment of his religion (it's even on his old Army dogtags).Whilst not wanting to hijack this thread, I'd be very interested to know if - by my 'criteria' - your husband (dis)agrees with me and/or can (is willing to) alleviate some of my ignorance in regard to the depth (real-world influence) and breadth of Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#Demographics)

[Piscivore]

For me, this is an interesting question - simply cos I haven't really thought about it before and I doubt if I can give you a "precise" answer... but I'll try

I think, for me, the qualifiers are primarily concerened with 'power and influence' on a political/societal/cultural/etc level

I'm thinking that its a religion if...
If the adherents, in accepting - on the basis of woo - a (typically) prescribed set of rules, attitudes, collectively equate to a significant 'force' as a lobby group on the fundamental issues such as health, education, peace/war, etc - the issues that have a real day-to-day and generation-to-generation impact on human rights and the associated responsibilities
Please note... this is merely my 'first draft' on what I think is a fascinating question

Anyhoo... by the above 'criteria' (combined with the exceedingly little I know about a lot o'stuff) I think that Wicca ain't a religion

Some information for you:
Religion (http://www.answers.com/religion):

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Religion is ALL and ANY of those things. Your "definition" seeks to limit the word to a narrow version of the third, and then apply it to any and all religions. That's equivocation.

[six7s]

Some information for you:

Religion (http://www.answers.com/religion):

Quote:
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Slow down Pisci and get off your high horse

Firstly, that ain't information for me - simply because it does not inform me of anything new whatsoever

Religion is ALL and ANY of those things. Your "definition" seeks to limit the word to a narrow version of the third, and then apply it to any and all religions. That's equivocation.
Secondly, stop putting words in my mouth

My "definition"? Bollocks

I described a loose, "first draft" of a criteria that I cobbled together simply in an attempt to show where my head's at

If you want/need to criticise me and prove how clever you are, then that's your problem

And...

Even if it was my "definition", I do NOT seek to limit the word to a narrow version of the third, and then apply it to any and all religions. For you to suggest that I do is bizarre in a pathetically sad kinda way

[Piscivore]

Slow down Pisci and get off your high horse

Firstly, that ain't information for me - simply because it does not inform me of anything new whatsoever
Well, you were struggling so to come up with a definition- or "criteria", if you prefer- that I thought you must be unaware there was one already in place. My apologies. Why is the one in place insuffcient for your needs?

Secondly, stop putting words in my mouth
Are these not your words?
Shirley Wicca is merely a minority-interest hobby, not a religion.

I'm thinking that its a religion if...
If the adherents, in accepting - on the basis of woo - a (typically) prescribed set of rules, attitudes, collectively equate to a significant 'force' as a lobby group on the fundamental issues such as health, education, peace/war, etc - the issues that have a real day-to-day and generation-to-generation impact on human rights and the associated responsibilities
If they are your words, what did you mean them to signify if not an attempt to define Wicca as something other than a religion?

My "definition"? Bollocks

I described a loose, "first draft" of a criteria that I cobbled together simply in an attempt to show where my head's at
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Why not use the "criteria" that's already in place?

Even if it was my "definition", I do NOT seek to limit the word to a narrow version of the third, and then apply it to any and all religions.
My apologies. I didn't realise you intended to create a special "criteria" that applied only to Wicca. Why do you feel Wicca warrants a special set of "criteria" to determine if it is a religion or not?

[Piscivore]

If you want/need to criticise me and prove how clever you are, then that's your problem

...And excuse me, but you're the one that chose to interject your thoughts upon a comment I made to biomorph.

[six7s]

We seem to be at crossed purposes... or is that porpoises?

Whatever, I have no desire to persist with what I see as a waste of time and bandwidth

[SusanB-M1]

Minor correction: the nurse in question was a community nurse, and the patient was not in hospital.
Ah, right; thank you. to save me plodding back through the posts to try to find the correct info, may I ask you please to mention where in fact the patient was? Thank you.

[six7s]

Ah, right; thank you. to save me plodding back through the posts to try to find the correct info, may I ask you please to mention where in fact the patient was? Thank you.

Susan, see the OP:

A Christian nurse from Weston-super-Mare has been suspended for offering to pray for a patient's recovery.
Community nurse Caroline Petrie, 45, says she asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her.<snip/>

<snip/>

more here


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7863699.stm

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

This is a little off-topic but there are certain behaviors I'll give a nurse, doctor, technician, medic or EMT more leeway on and brush off more easily coming from them than other professional people.

When a nurse, physician or technician is rude, snappish, angry, cold or impatient, it doesn't bother me. And many often behave that way; maybe it's a New York thing. A nurse loses her temper when you do something wrong, you think "Single mother raising two kids in Camden, black woman working overtime at a tough job, she's allowed to get ticked off once in a while".

It doesn't give you anything if a nurse is fun and nice to talk to but doesn't know what she's doing. Same thing with a doctor- everyone would rather have an unpleasant but competent jerk taking care of their health than a cool guy who is not as competent.

[thegrave]

Can't see how this has anything to do with her religious freedom. She is employed (I assume) to provide nursing services not religious counseling.

That aside I think the trust's reaction is over the top, I wonder if there is anything more to this?

My wife works for the NHS & she was shocked to hear this 'nurse' was offering prayers. You are not allowed to do this type of thing in that profession. 'Love', 'Dear' & 'Bless You' are all taboo.

To my way of thinking, she had a dam cheek!

That poor old lady was probably scared stiff that this nurse was trying to give her the last rights & implying she didn't have too long to live.

It just goes to prove the arrogance of faithers that they ram their views down other's throats at every chance!:boxedin: