bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7988476.stm or should the various churches stump up for the salaries etc etc of their ministries? It costs the NHS £40m a year to provide chaplaincy. Any views on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Churches imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 8 April, 2009 I'm an aetheist. Does the NHS pay for Mr / Ms Nobody to offer me a pat on the head if I'm proper poorly? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Do you not think it falls under palliative care? Easing the suffering of the dying? For most people of faith, their spiritual and religious experience is central to their existence, and the crux of it is when they're facing the end. Wouldn't it be a bit mean to suddenly deprive them of this consolation at the crucial moment? FWIW I reckon faith communities and churches should pay the salaries, but hospitals should still extend the use of their facilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Do you not think it falls under palliative care? Easing the suffering of the dying? For most people of faith, their spiritual and religious experience is central to their existence, and the crux of it is when they're facing the end. Wouldn't it be a bit mean to suddenly deprive them of this consolation at the crucial moment? FWIW I reckon faith communities and churches should pay the salaries, but hospitals should still extend the use of their facilities. I don't have any problem with this. And I don't think they're suggesting that priests SHOULDN'T be allowed to do this. The question is about who should pay. Let's face it, a lot of churches are pretty rich. I wonder, though, how the NHS decides what is and isn't a religion. For example, would a representative of the Church of Scientology be considered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 There was a chaplain on 5Live this morning, he said he was happy to deal with people of all faiths. Said he would be happy to put patients in contact with a humanist. Must admit I don't understand the intricacies of all of this. As far as I can tell, a chaplain can be of any religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 I don't have any problem with this. And I don't think they're suggesting that priests SHOULDN'T be allowed to do this. The question is about who should pay. Let's face it, a lot of churches are pretty rich. I wonder, though, how the NHS decides what is and isn't a religion. For example, would a representative of the Church of Scientology be considered? And a lot of them aren't, a lot of them are closing. They're not all hoarding nazi gold But the article was saying that the salary was only part of the expense, that's what I was getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 8 April, 2009 And a lot of them aren't, a lot of them are closing. They're not all hoarding nazi gold But the article was saying that the salary was only part of the expense, that's what I was getting at. Space is often at a premium in hospitals (it really is) so to provide an office with all the associated costs of cleaning etc. is not small beer. IIRC the different faiths do share one office, however. But other equally worthwhile support (such as the WRVS and various charities) do have to pay rent to the hospitals, so I don't see why the churches can't. I wonder if some churches are closing because they don't get enough people attending services? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 And a lot of them aren't, a lot of them are closing. Good. Sooner they're all gone the better for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Do you not think it falls under palliative care? Easing the suffering of the dying? For most people of faith, their spiritual and religious experience is central to their existence, and the crux of it is when they're facing the end. Wouldn't it be a bit mean to suddenly deprive them of this consolation at the crucial moment? Surely if their faith was that strong, they wouldn't require a salaried sex pest to be help alleviate suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Surely if their faith was that strong, they wouldn't require a salaried sex pest to be help alleviate suffering. Maybe they're some some of those other type of people, the ones who aren't dead inside long before their body gives out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Hmm, are you suggesting people "without faith" are dead inside before their bodies give out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Hmm, are you suggesting people "without faith" are dead inside before their bodies give out? No, I was suggesting you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 'Dead inside' being what exactly? Unwilling to believe what all these bible bashers say and not clutching at straws or requiring the hollow words of an overpaid story teller on one's death bed? If so then please do go on considering me to be 'dead inside', fine by me. In the meantime, I will continue to contribute my portion of tax to support the needs of the weak in this spurious manner. However, in my view, none of this should be paid for by the State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 'Dead inside' being what exactly? Unwilling to believe what all these bible bashers say and not clutching at straws or requiring the hollow words of an overpaid story teller on one's death bed? If so then please do go on considering me to be 'dead inside', fine by me. In the meantime, I will continue to contribute my portion of tax to support the needs of the weak in this spurious manner. However, in my view, none of this should be paid for by the State. I may well agree with your views on the state paying for religion, but the idea of you being "dead inside" stems, in my opinion, from your constant bitterness in posts. Many of your posts attack people for one reason or another and you sneer at other posters. There is an undercurrent of nastiness in your posts that would lead people to think that you are "dead inside". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 'Dead inside' being what exactly? Unwilling to believe what all these bible bashers say and not clutching at straws or requiring the hollow words of an overpaid story teller on one's death bed? No, being unable or unwilling to extend your compassion to people whose beliefs you don't share. I'm not a 'bible-basher' either, but where's the value in pouring scorn on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 I may well agree with your views on the state paying for religion, but the idea of you being "dead inside" stems, in my opinion, from your constant bitterness in posts. Many of your posts attack people for one reason or another and you sneer at other posters. There is an undercurrent of nastiness in your posts that would lead people to think that you are "dead inside". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 No, being unable or unwilling to extend your compassion to people whose beliefs you don't share. I'm not a 'bible-basher' either, but where's the value in pouring scorn on them? Is it about £40m per annum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Churches, 100%. I respect the value to some people of religious ministry and rites during hospital treatment and so on, but it should not come out of the taxpayer's pocket. There would be uproar among many if the NHS forked out £millions for resident Rabbis and Imams in every church, yet for many people receiving treatment, these are just as important as any Christian ideological presence. Maybe add an extra tax for christians or those from other religions requiring in hospital service... or, yes. The religious institution should pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Churches should pay. I think the chaplains do a good job and provide a decent service but it's not something the state should pay for. As an aside if this was in America wouldn't the state be trying to hand over running the hospitals to the churches? They do that with prisons and other state services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 No, being unable or unwilling to extend your compassion to people whose beliefs you don't share. I'm not a 'bible-basher' either, but where's the value in pouring scorn on them? Fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 There are a hell of a lot more wastes of my money than paying someone to help provide spritual relief/guidance to someone else in their darkets moments. A person's own beliefs will always cloud the judgement of anyone having this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 And there's nothing like imminate death, or extreme boredom, to make someone re-evaulate their spiritual beliefs and take an interest in all thing Gody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 My initial reaction to reading seeing this message was "WSS is such a tw*t". But then it got me thinking. Maybe I do come across as dead inside because of my sneering nature. If this is the case then I would like to apologise. I try not to look down on people like Stanley, Gingefella and WSS but it is hard sometimes. I feel a little ashamed that it has taken somone like WSS to point out my failing and I shall do my best to address it. That doesn't mean that I will start to ignore posts that are racist in the nature, like some on this board would like and like some admin already choose to do. But instead of saying something like "WSS, get f*cked, you mentally subnormal c*nt", I will say "WSS, you see the point of view you hold there, well that point of view is wrong for these reasons (I will then go on to list the reasons why the viewpoint is, in my humble opinion, wrong). Thank you WSS for making me a better person. Who'd thought that a completely retarded c*nt like you would be of any use to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 My initial reaction to reading seeing this message was "WSS is such a tw*t". But then it got me thinking. Maybe I do come across as dead inside because of my sneering nature. If this is the case then I would like to apologise. I try not to look down on people like Stanley, Gingefella and WSS but it is hard sometimes. I feel a little ashamed that it has taken somone like WSS to point out my failing and I shall do my best to address it. That doesn't mean that I will start to ignore posts that are racist in the nature, like some on this board would like and like some admin already choose to do. But instead of saying something like "WSS, get f*cked, you mentally subnormal c*nt", I will say "WSS, you see the point of view you hold there, well that point of view is wrong for these reasons (I will then go on to list the reasons why the viewpoint is, in my humble opinion, wrong). Thank you WSS for making me a better person. Who'd thought that a completely retarded c*nt like you would be of any use to anyone. You've waited 24 hours to post a reply and that's the best you could do? Must try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 You've waited 24 hours to post a reply and that's the best you could do? Must try harder. Get f*cked, you mentally subnormal c*nt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 Lol @ this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now