NationStates Jolt Archive

'Offensive' hospital bibles may be banned
By Nick Britten

The century-old tradition of bibles in hospital bedside lockers could be ended in one health trust today after officials decided they might offend ethnic minorities.

Senior executives at the University of Leicester NHS Trust said it was also concerned that the books helped to spread the MRSA bacteria and it would rule on whether to remove them from wards.

The proposal angered Christians and Muslims who accused the hospital of political correctness.

Leicester has one of Britain's largest ethnic minority populations and the trust is concerned that the many non-Christian patients might be offended. A spokesman refused to say who suggested the ban, but said that she was "not aware" that any complaints about bibles had been made.

"Discussions are still in the early stages,'' she said. "Regardless of the outcome, patients can be reassured that religious texts will continue to be made available at hospitals through the chaplaincy."

Gideons International, the missionary organisation whose bibles are placed at patient bedsides, said the proposal was "sad" and "ridiculous". Iain Mair, an executive director, said the charity commissioned a surgeon and microbiologist to carry out a study on the risk of infection as soon as it learned that a ban was being considered.

"Doctors told us that to claim an MRSA risk is nonsense - and it is ridiculous to think having bibles in lockers discriminates against other religions," said Mr Mair.

"We have told the trust that we will put a note beside our Testament to advise patients who to contact if they wish a book of another faith."

The hospitals that would be affected if a ban were implemented are Leicester General, Leicester Royal Infirmary and Glenfield Hospital. Such a move would be especially embarrassing for Gideons, whose British headquarters is a few miles away in Lutterworth, Leics.

Mr Mair said: "The proposal is completely outrageous and the reasons put forward for justifying it, we believe, are totally without foundation.

He had not received "a single letter, e-mail or telephone call from any member of another faith to say that they have been offended by a hospital bible. Even other local faith leaders disagree with the proposal. The only thing I can think of is that this is motivated by political correctness.''

He said he felt sad that in a country that had been Christian for so long "we have got people that consider the Bible to be offensive".

Suleman Nagdi, of Leicestershire's Federation of Muslim Organisations, said: "This is a Christian country and it would be sad to see the tradition end."

Resham Singh Sandu, Sikh chairman of the Council of Faiths, said: "I don't think many ethnic minority patients would object to the Bible in a locker."

The Diocese of Leicester urged officials to vote against a ban when discussions - which will include the thoughts of the hospital chaplaincy, infection control, service equality and volunteer services - are held.

A diocese spokesman said: "There is a long tradition of bibles being readily available for those who are in need of spiritual as well as physical help.

"People need this consolation at hospital. For example, they may need to reach for a Bible in the middle of the night for comfort and solace.

"What right does the trust have to do this when Gideons has been putting bibles in hospitals and other institutions for more than 100 years?''

What are your opinions. Personally I think its stupid. If there had been a consoritum of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and various other non Christian faiths complaining about this then I might give it some credeance. But its not, its just politically correct people sticking their noses in where its not needed and isnt wanted

Imporant note: Please only comment on the actuall instance at hand, I do not want this degenerating into a flame war about the rights and wrongs of Bibles in hospitals.

In short: Political Correctness can go f**k itself.

Are these bibles being put there by a non-government organization? If so that's free speech and shouldn't be stopped.

I'm not a christian but I wouldn't be offended. I just wouldn't read it.

Are these bibles being put there by a non-government organization?


Yes, its the Gideon Society. It is government sponsered (the government gives it some money/tax breaks) but thats because its a registered charity regarding the furtherment of religion. In the UK any instution that is involved in the furtherment of religion (any religion) has the right to claim charity status and all the benefits therein.

I find this amusing, but unrealistic. People will insist on practicing their religion in public and oppress others no matter what. People need to learn to deal with it. I have.

Are these bibles being put there by a non-government organization? If so that's free speech and shouldn't be stopped.


Freedom of Speech mind you. Bibles don't have vocal cords.

In short: Political Correctness can go f**k itself.

Are these bibles being put there by a non-government organization? If so that's free speech and shouldn't be stopped.

I'm not a christian but I wouldn't be offended. I just wouldn't read it.

Damn Straight. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to read it. I'd read it, but that's just me. ;)

Freedom of Speech mind you. Bibles don't have vocal cords.

Is that intended to be sarcasm or do you actually want to make that point. Its hard to tell in the vocal vacum of the forums.

Are these bibles being put there by a non-government organization? If so that's free speech and shouldn't be stopped.

Placing a Bible on state run property is hardly a matter of 'free speech', even by the American definition of the term.

Also, I believe the hospitals were worried about them transmitting MRSA. A rather better (not that that says much) reason.

A reason the article has dismissed out of hand.

If only the Gideons are allowed to leave copies of their holy book then it's a problem and they should be removed, but if any religious organization is allowed to leave any holy book, be it the koran, satanic bible, whatever, then I don't see what the fuss is about.

Also, I believe the hospitals were worried about them transmitting MRSA. A rather better (not that that says much) reason.

A reason the article has dismissed out of hand.

To be fair, if handling a bible is a way of transmitting MRSA, its hardly the main factor. The main factor is the poor quality of the privately employed cleaning contractors work. Things were much better when the cleaning contractors were under government employment like the rest of the NHS.

Which always makes me laugh when the Cons start ranting on about standards of cleanliness in hospitals.

I think that this is a prime example of reverse disgrimination. its almost like chiristians can't profese their beliefs (sp? whatever) any more because it could offend someone. do you ever hear about cases where some christan complains about the koraan (sp? once again whatever)? the constitution does not say freedom FROM religion. it says freedom OF religion.

Placing a Bible on state run property is hardly a matter of 'free speech', even by the American definition of the term.

Yeah, good point.

Also Britain,to my recollection, actually has no laws protecting free speech. So really you can't say "that's illegal" or so and so if it was to be constrained. Of course you could argue that it was wrong, but legions of bureaucracy would confound you at every step until you admitted you were a terrorist. of course.

Anyway... it seems fairly silly given there have been no complaints, but I've seen similar things happen. it's just silliness that hopefully people will get over one day and everything will go back to as it was. Either that or it will when I'm in charge.

1) People can still bring in their own Bibles or whatever they want to hospitals so this robs no one of their rights.

2) Ambulance-chasing lawyers, none of which are specifically liberal or conservative, are to blame for political correctness thanks to retarded lawsuits. (However conservative groups like religious groups, soccer moms and RIAA-supporting corporations promote censorship).

3) The things should be removed anyway since lots of sick people touch them and God only knows what bacteria they are passing on to people who touch them. I don't think they are sterilized.

Freedom of Speech mind you. Bibles don't have vocal cords.

Neither does the Tora and the Qu'ran but yet its shoved in our faces but the bible is not. Why?

Neither does the Tora and the Qu'ran but yet its shoved in our faces but the bible is not. Why?

I have never in my life seen an actual copy of the Tora or the Qu'ran, though I have read some excerpts for certain classes.

In every hospital and hotel/motel I have been to, the de facto standard religious text has been the bible.

Now this is all anecdotal, so I am not proving that the bible is being shoved anywhere. But given my previous experience I have a lot of doubt that the other texts you mentioned are being aggressively put to us.

So, how exactly are other religious texts "shoved in our faces"?

Neither does the Tora and the Qu'ran but yet its shoved in our faces but the bible is not. Why?


How hypocritical. The bible, as the source says, is left at every hospital bed. There is one left in every hotel. Blasphemy laws only protect christians. Oaths in court are sworn on the bible by default, city laws which may be still in practice in Britain require a city to have a cathedral to qualify, Christmas is the most vocal and shouted out of all festive days whilst Hannukah and Ramadan get only passing mentions, though this is because it is largely a marketing holiday now. Schools perform nativity plays but not scenes from other religious books.
I'd say the bible can be equally shoved in peoples faces... no?

havre you heard about the little town which is actually named Political Correctnes, they wanted to change their name, but their choice were conisdered political incorrect by the federal goverment, so they then chose to name it Political Correctness, which couldn't be classified as Political Incorrect and was allowed.

Neither does the Tora and the Qu'ran but yet its shoved in our faces but the bible is not. Why?

Really? I have yet to have that happen. I can't tell you anything from the Tora. The Qu'ran I can but I got the book on my own.

Yet, I always hear about Christians trying to project their version of morality on me by trying to censor TV and or books. I read about Christians protesting companies that have policies supporting homosexuals.

So basically?

PC is out of control. If you don't like the book, don't read it. If you con't like the show, don't watch it. If you don't like the company, don't buy it's products.

Just because you don't like something; it doesn't mean you over rule everybody else.

In the matter of the Bibles? It could be said, "What goes around; comes around."

"Oh noes!!111 t3h bible iz in t3h cabin3t!!!!1111 w3 r t3h d00m3d!!!11"

Seriously, some people need to find better things to do than infringing on the rights of Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

That takes the cake for PC stupidity.

I don't understand the big deal. It's just a book, what does it matter if they take it away? Would it be that hard to just get one from the chaplain?

And it's not really political correctness if no one is offended. And who knows, maybe they do spread diseases.

How hypocritical. The bible, as the source says, is left at every hospital bed. There is one left in every hotel. Blasphemy laws only protect christians. Oaths in court are sworn on the bible by default, city laws which may be still in practice in Britain require a city to have a cathedral to qualify, Christmas is the most vocal and shouted out of all festive days whilst Hannukah and Ramadan get only passing mentions, though this is because it is largely a marketing holiday now. Schools perform nativity plays but not scenes from other religious books.
I'd say the bible can be equally shoved in peoples faces... no?

Well, England is an officially Christian country - acts of toleration aside. It's been that way for a very long time. It even has a state religion. If jews and muslims don't like that, they should never have imigrated there in the first place.

Honestly, they are fucking lucky they don't get treated the same way as 'infidels' do in Saudia Arabia.

Your all complaining because somebody goes around putting free books in various rather boring places?
Whatever. There has been many I time when Ive been very thankful for those that place Bibles in Hotels, especialy when I forget to bring some sort of entertainment.
In any case, theres no rule stopping other religious from putting their holy books in places. In Hotels its differnt, the owner might object to having copies of the Satanic Bible placed in their bedside tables. And guess what? They can do that because the hotel is THEIR PROPERTY! Hooray!
Im not sure if the hospital in question is a private institution or not. If its private, they can do as they wish. If its govornment Im thinking this is another case of PCitis and/or appeasement.

In short: Political Correctness can go f**k itself.

Are these bibles being put there by a non-government organization? If so that's free speech and shouldn't be stopped.

I'm not a christian but I wouldn't be offended. I just wouldn't read it.

But, but, haven't you watched the X-Files, the Secret Government uses those bibles as survalience equipment to read your mind! </sarcasm>

Well, England is an officially Christian country - acts of toleration aside. It's been that way for a very long time. It even has a state religion. If jews and muslims don't like that, they should never have imigrated there in the first place.

Honestly, they are fucking lucky they don't get treated the same way as 'infidels' do in Saudia Arabia.

I wasn't commenting on that, merely the fact that you can't say the Torah and the Qu'ran are pushed in anyones face as much as the bible.... I'm agnostic and couldn't really care one way or the other. None of the books offend me, why should they? And I wouldn't say they're lucky. if we pride ourselves so much on our civilisation and justice, it shouldn't matter a bit how other countries treat outsiders to their religion, etc, because we're above it. or so we say.

If i was in the hospital, I would want my cabinet full of my stuff, thank you very much, not whatever the local church dragged in.... Honestly, if you are a true XYZite, you would own a holy book, or could ask your priest/imam/rabbi/cardinal/temple girl/alterboy for one.

If i was in the hospital, I would want my cabinet full of my stuff, thank you very much, not whatever the local church dragged in.... Honestly, if you are a true XYZite, you would own a holy book, or could ask your priest/imam/rabbi/cardinal/temple girl/alterboy for one.
Well, you could attempt the enourmous effort required to, say, lift the offending book out of the closet/drawer/whatever and put it somewhere else, maybe take it to the front desk and say "I dont want this in my room, please put it somewhere else.".
Or you could ignore it.
Its easy, I do it to PETA all the time.

Umm, what does Hospital admin worried about Bibles spreading diseases got to do with political correctness.

The claim put forward by the Hospital was that bibles could help spread MRSA, unless I have missed something in the article. Bibles offending people isn't the reason.

Or maybe there is some new definition of "Politcal Correctness" I haven't been informed about.

I think Gideon is doing an honest to goodness charity by suppyling those Bibles. There are enough Christians around in Canada and the States at least, that there is a good chance someone convalseing in a hospital will find some comfort from. There are no strings attached to these free bibles.

With that said, it would be a lot better if the were free Qurans and other Holy Books from other religions. I'm not Christian myself, but I found the Gideon Bible to be much better reading material than Readers Digest. I was being held under observation after having pins instewrted into my shattered wrist. I was high as a kite on all the different painkiling meds, which made reading the bible a trippy rather than religious expereince.

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but in New Brunswick, Canada, a Hospital recently backed down from removing bedside Bibles. The reason for the proposed ban was that the Bibles were a breeding ground for bacteria. Parasites like Oral Roberts tend to back the hospitals arguements for banning the Bibles, but vigorous oppossition from interest groups (not just christians) ended the ban.

SNIP

But as it has been said, it is a breeding ground for MRSA or something. You want me to touch that?!?!? Honestly, I couldn't care less. Just BYOB if you get sick.

This must be one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard of. Seriously, this has just made my entire day. First of all, a book is unobtrusive. Free speech is protected in Britain, as in the US, and that's something that (on a personal level) is far more invasive than a simple book. If yelling racial slurs in public is protected, the presence of a book (hidden in a locker, no less) which the patient is under no compunction to even see, let alone pick up and read, should definitely be allowed.
Secondly, there haven't been any complaints! I hate these people who think they know what other people get touchy about. Let's think here for a moment: which is more potenetially offensive, a book which your religion doesn't value or a book which your religion does? Remember this is a hospital environment. There's unlimited potential for the "abuse" of the Quran - getting various bodily fluids or excreta on it, etc. - and Lord knows none of us wants more of that.

Ok! Someone fill me in. What is MSRA?

Ok! Someone fill me in. What is MSRA?

it's called "the superbug"... it's a bacteria that is resistant to known antibiotics, and so can spread around the hospital VERY easily, and can be fatal. I don't know what it evolved/mutated from, though. It can be killed, but requires very vigourous cleaning. Quite dangerous, I'd imagine, if it spreads unchecked.

Umm, what does Hospital admin worried about Bibles spreading diseases got to do with political correctness.

The claim put forward by the Hospital was that bibles could help spread MRSA, unless I have missed something in the article. Bibles offending people isn't the reason.

Or maybe there is some new definition of "Politcal Correctness" I haven't been informed about.
"Political Correctness," like "bias" and other buzz words, is a term you now throw about with self-rightious zeal when you don't get your way. If you simply state the case then people might actually say, "Hey, hospitals do have to be concerned with cleanliness if anybody has to be." But, if you drape the whole thing in "Politically Correct" clothing then the largest, most represented religion that even the leader of the country believes appointed him can act like an opressed victim, which would seem silly if they "political correctness" wasn't waved around as a red herring.

Ok! Someone fill me in. What is MSRA?

www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/27000607/

it's called "the superbug"... it's a bacteria that is resistant to known antibiotics, and so can spread around the hospital VERY easily, and can be fatal. I don't know what it evolved/mutated from, though. It can be killed, but requires very vigourous cleaning. Quite dangerous, I'd imagine, if it spreads unchecked.

Did they find it on paper?

I thought it was only by contact and say bed linen?

Corneliu: MRSA is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. It's a strain
of Staphylococcus aureus, a common bacterium that's often found on the skin and in the nose. Staphylococcus aureus is a major agent in wound infections.

Did they find it on paper?

I thought it was only by contact and say bed linen?

Fomites (bed linens, towels, pajamas, dishes, etc.) have not been implicated as vectors in the transmission of MRSA. Environmental surfaces, in most instances, are not important vectors of MRSA. Daily routine cleaning must be done with a disinfectant registered with EPA and performed in a sanitary manner as is done in all rooms regardless of the presence of MRSA. Equipment should be routinely cleaned, disinfected or sterilized per institution policy.
http://goapic.org/MRSA.htm

So, maybe, maybe not.

Are the hospitals run by the government? If so, then the Bibles have no place being there.

Want a Bible? Bring your own!

The MRSA scare is warranted. Although I doubt that they would be considerably important vectors for transmission, but if there is a suspicion, then it should be addressed.

Umm, what does Hospital admin worried about Bibles spreading diseases got to do with political correctness.

The claim put forward by the Hospital was that bibles could help spread MRSA, unless I have missed something in the article. Bibles offending people isn't the reason.

Or maybe there is some new definition of "Politcal Correctness" I haven't been informed about.
Any time Christianity is mentioned in any way, you will see the words "political correctness," "secularists," "anti-Christian," "anti-religion," "liberal," and "biased" thrown about. If a shipment of Bibles was proven to be infected with a deadly disease, there would still be people bitching if the shipment were temporarily delayed for disinfection, and people claiming that Christianity itself was under attack by the politically correct anti-Christian biased liberal hatemachine.

Yes, its the Gideon Society. It is government sponsered (the government gives it some money/tax breaks) but thats because its a registered charity regarding the furtherment of religion. In the UK any instution that is involved in the furtherment of religion (any religion) has the right to claim charity status and all the benefits therein.

The "furtherment of religion" is not charity, it is indoctrination. I have not yet heard of anyone who avoided starvation by eating a Gideon's bible.

I thought that the UK had a strong separation between church and state, but I was apparently wrong.

Neither does the Tora and the Qu'ran but yet its shoved in our faces but the bible is not. Why?

:confused:

I have never had a Tora or a Quran shoved in my face, nor have I had a single passage read to me from either, nor have I even seen the cover of either.

I have however been confronted at least 5 times by Jehovas Witnesses who did literally shove bibles in front of my face.

Just what neck of the woods are you from? (if you don't mind my asking)

Is that intended to be sarcasm or do you actually want to make that point. Its hard to tell in the vocal vacum of the forums.

Yes I was being facetious, but apparently my point seems to have escaped you.


Marmite Toast was arguing that the act of placing a piece of literature somewhere constituted free speech. In reality, physically picking up, putting down, carrying in your left hand, or performing any other action on a tangible object is not a recognized communication of thought and thus not speech.

In other words, I challenge you to write down on a piece of paper exactly what someone is saying when they pick up or put down a bible, along with what language they are using.

The MRSA scare is warranted. Although I doubt that they would be considerably important vectors for transmission, but if there is a suspicion, then it should be addressed.

So you advocate the banning of all printed materials in hospitals then?

What are your opinions. Personally I think its stupid. If there had been a consoritum of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and various other non Christian faiths complaining about this then I might give it some credeance. But its not, its just politically correct people sticking their noses in where its not needed and isnt wanted

Imporant note: Please only comment on the actuall instance at hand, I do not want this degenerating into a flame war about the rights and wrongs of Bibles in hospitals.

Shame on you. The story you report has already been discredited.

In the actual instance at hand, the primary concern is controlling the spread of dangerous infections.

Nor have Bibles been banned. The trust's chaplain stalled a request to replace Bibles. Gideons went hysterical and some irresponsible media reported this as ban.

Here are some facts:

Row as hospital Bibles linked to bug (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1499112,00.html)

Leicester hospitals were struggling to escape a public relations disaster last night after the trust's chaplain stalled a request from Gideons International to be allowed to replace patients' bedside Bibles.

His decision was interpreted on the front pages of tabloid newspapers yesterday as tantamount to banning the Bible from NHS wards.

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust disputed claims that it thought having the Bible on the wards might offend non-Christians.

...

Anne McGregor, head of communications, said the infection control team was considering whether the Bibles might contribute to the spread of MRSA and other infections, while the equality panel was looking into whether there was equitable provision of religious material suitable for Leicester's multifaith community.

The trust might also want to make religious material available in a different way, providing the Bible, Qur'an and other texts on request.

Hospitals defend MRSA Bible move (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/4605827.stm)

Hospitals in Leicester have denied they are preparing to remove copies of the Bible from their wards.

NHS trust spokesperson Anne McGregor said they were considering where to store the books and would consult staff on the possible risk of MRSA infection.

...

Ms McGregor denied reports that the move was prompted by concerns the Bibles might offend non-Christians.

She said: "We are looking at safer storage of religious materials, but we want to accommodate all types of religions material on the wards."

The Bibles might be removed from lockers but they would be available elsewhere, she said.

"We are taking advice from our infection control teams - and our service equality panel - to see how we can best make religious material available."

...

Pauline Tagg, hospital director of nursing said: "They are not disposable they haven't got a wipeable cover.

"If they are stained or contaminated then they cannot be cleaned effectively."


Media infected by rogue Bible ban story bug -04/06/05 (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05064bug.shtml)

The Gideons have overreacted. They are throwing a childish tantrum and painting simple sanitation concerns as an anti-Christian conspiracy.

Shame.

Shame on you. The story you report has already been discredited.

In the actual instance at hand, the primary concern is controlling the spread of dangerous infections.

Nor have Bibles been banned. The trust's chaplain stalled a request to replace Bibles. Gideons went hysterical and some irresponsible media reported this as ban.

Here are some facts:

Row as hospital Bibles linked to bug (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1499112,00.html)



Hospitals defend MRSA Bible move (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/4605827.stm)




Media infected by rogue Bible ban story bug -04/06/05 (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05064bug.shtml)

The Gideons have overreacted. They are throwing a childish tantrum and painting simple sanitation concerns as an anti-Christian conspiracy.

Shame.
Seriously, you need to have a tv show. It'll be called, "No, Really...w/The Cat" (played in by Jimmy Smith's version of The Cat-because dammit, thats cool. It's just a half hour show once a week where you collect these stories and go through them one by one, starting off with, "No, really..."

ah, researchers...

Seriously, you need to have a tv show. It'll be called, "No, Really...w/The Cat" (played in by Jimmy Smith's version of The Cat-because dammit, thats cool. It's just a half hour show once a week where you collect these stories and go through them one by one, starting off with, "No, really..."

ah, researchers...

:D

Thank you, thank you very much. ;)

I suppose the Times is a tabloid now. :rolleyes:

linky (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1639084,00.html)

Edit: And frankly Cat, I expect better from you, the Guardian article is dated a day after the times. And they are well know for spinning shit.

I suppose the Times is a tabloid now. :rolleyes:

linky (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1639084,00.html)

Edit: And frankly Cat, I expect better from you, the Guardian article is dated a day after the times. And they are well know for spinning shit.

<sigh>

You conveniently disregarded the BBC article and the other link.

Do you want me to link to every report correcting the original misinformation?

Or do all sources other than the Times "spin shit," but the Times is flawless?

The Gideons spread a "shocking" story that was widely reported, but was false. The media is catching up.

Even the article you cite doesn't support Neo C's original hysteria. You might note the article you cite attributes most of its "facts" to the Gideons' spokesman. Buried at the bottom is what the hospital trust had to say:

The trust said in a statement: “The trust can confirm that discussions are currently taking place between the chaplaincy, infection control, service equality and volunteer services departments to determine whether religious texts will continue to be provided in patients’ bedside lockers at Leicester General Hospital, Leicester Royal Infirmary and Glenfield Hospital.

“However, discussions are still in the early stages, meaning no proposals have yet been put forward by staff and no final decision has yet been made on this issue.

“Regardless of the outcome of the discussions, patients can be reassured that religious texts will continue to be made available at the trust’s three hospitals through the chaplaincy.”

I thought that the UK had a strong separation between church and state, but I was apparently wrong.

Question: why do so many Americans assume such things of Europe ? Many countries are officially ruled by a monarch who "rules by the grace of God". Many have influential political parties with the word "Christian" in their names. Europe is in many ways far more Christian than the USA will ever be.

Though oddly enough, in practice the actual implementation of seperation of church and state is more pronounced in Europe - even though there is no legal requirement. Apparantly some Christian politicians seem to think that forcing their religion down your throat is not a good thing[tm]/ understand that a legal system based on religion can not be consistent.

To the original topic: I would indeed appreciate it if Gideons would stop spreading infectious diseases. And I do think there is some moral wrongness involved in giving sick and maybe dieing people the holy book of a particular fate if they did not request it.

So you advocate the banning of all printed materials in hospitals then?

You need to look into how many people end up using the Bibles vs. the other printed materials. Anything that would be handled by a succession of sick people is a threat in a hospital environment. I would have nothing against the banning of other printed material if it was putting people in danger.

I am for the banning of Bibles in government run institutions, though.

:confused:

I have never had a Tora or a Quran shoved in my face, nor have I had a single passage read to me from either, nor have I even seen the cover of either.

I have however been confronted at least 5 times by Jehovas Witnesses who did literally shove bibles in front of my face.

Just what neck of the woods are you from? (if you don't mind my asking)

I probably should've made myself more clearer. I apologize for sounding confusing.

It has been of my opinion that everywhere I look, Christianity is being taken off the shelfs. We can't even go around saying Merry Christmas anymore because it'll offend people. We can't pray in school with our own people but yet they allow the muslims to do so.

This is what I mean. I probably shouldn't have said shoved in my face. I apologize.

Thanks to those that described MRSA. Much appreciated. This is the first time I've heard of it in reality. However, I"m confused on how a bible can transmit this disease.

<sigh>

You conveniently disregarded the BBC article and the other link.

Do you want me to link to every report correcting the original misinformation?

Or do all sources other than the Times "spin shit," but the Times is flawless?

The Gideons spread a "shocking" story that was widely reported, but was false. The media is catching up.

Even the article you cite doesn't support Neo C's original hysteria. You might note the article you cite attributes most of its "facts" to the Gideons' spokesman. Buried at the bottom is what the hospital trust had to say:


A trust spokeswoman confirmed that concerns about the Bibles spreading MRSA and offending other faith groups would be discussed.

Suonds like it does to me. The fact that the trust is now backpeddling is beside the point. (Or are you saying the times is lying).

Look, you posted a Guardian article (which in its first paragraph described the Times as a tabloid :rolleyes: ), a bbc news article (the BBC is not a credible source) and some guy's blog.

The very fact the times said what it did is enough to raise eyebrows. You just cannot declare this 'case closed' especially since you probably don't know all that much about birtish hospital trusts and how they are managed to begin with.

I know you very much want to believe that the NHS doesn't do things like this, and isn't run by assholes, but you just don't know anything about it. So try and keep an open mind. Is that possible?

It has been of my opinion that everywhere I look, Christianity is being taken off the shelfs.

Well.. yes. The shop used to only stock Christianity, but now it shelfs also need to be filled with dozens of other options. Since those shelfs are not infinite in size some of the Christianity taking up room must go.

We can't even go around saying Merry Christmas anymore because it'll offend people. We can't pray in school with our own people but yet they allow the muslims to do so.

True, there is indeed some overcompensation and "positive discrimination" going on. But still... Christian children do get sundays off to go to church, while many other faiths most work on their holy day, right ?

However - new thread for this ? Although the point put forward in the first article has been proven moot already..

True, there is indeed some overcompensation and "positive discrimination" going on. But still... Christian children do get sundays off to go to church, while many other faiths most work on their holy day, right ?

Actually, under law, they can get their holy day off and their bosses has to let them.

However - new thread for this ? Although the point put forward in the first article has been proven moot already..

Agreed.

How hypocritical. The bible, as the source says, is left at every hospital bed. There is one left in every hotel. Blasphemy laws only protect christians. Oaths in court are sworn on the bible by default, city laws which may be still in practice in Britain require a city to have a cathedral to qualify, Christmas is the most vocal and shouted out of all festive days whilst Hannukah and Ramadan get only passing mentions, though this is because it is largely a marketing holiday now. Schools perform nativity plays but not scenes from other religious books.
I'd say the bible can be equally shoved in peoples faces... no?

exactly. And now they're taking a possibly unhygenic book out of a room where the majority of people wouldn't even look at it and where the people that do want it can easily obtain one and Christians are crying 'reverse discrimination!' OH NOES!1 it's ridiculous.

"Political Correctness," like "bias" and other buzz words, is a term you now throw about with self-rightious zeal when you don't get your way. If you simply state the case then people might actually say, "Hey, hospitals do have to be concerned with cleanliness if anybody has to be." But, if you drape the whole thing in "Politically Correct" clothing then the largest, most represented religion that even the leader of the country believes appointed him can act like an opressed victim, which would seem silly if they "political correctness" wasn't waved around as a red herring.

that phrase is so overused now it's lost whatever meaning it had. It's just a word to discredit your 'opponant'

We can't pray in school with our own people but yet they allow the muslims to do so.

but they don't gather every pupil in the school to pray as Christians like assemblys do. In most schools Muslims are allowed a seperate room to pray if they wish. Also, Christianity requires no set time nor direction nor 'props' nor cleaning nor position to pray. You can pray however and whenever you like but for Muslims (unless it's dua, personal prayer) they need a space for them to pray. I doubt if a group of Christians asked for a room where they could gather to prey there would be a problem, most people just have a problem with the whole of the student body forced to pray to one religion.

Question: why do so many Americans assume such things of Europe ? Many countries are officially ruled by a monarch who "rules by the grace of God". Many have influential political parties with the word "Christian" in their names. Europe is in many ways far more Christian than the USA will ever be.

I watched a panel show and read an article that each had a British journalist that expressed shock at the level of politicising of religion in America. I assumed that meant there was a strong separation of church and state, while I guess what they really meant is that it was less of a hot topic.

Placing a Bible on state run property is hardly a matter of 'free speech', even by the American definition of the term. Britain.

Also Britain,to my recollection, actually has no laws protecting free speech. So really you can't say "that's illegal" or so and so if it was to be constrained. Of course you could argue that it was wrong, but legions of bureaucracy would confound you at every step until you admitted you were a terrorist. of course. No, I don’t think that we do... Could be wrong, of course. Though we’re more likely to say ‘heritic’ rather than ‘terrorist’. ^_^

1) People can still bring in their own Bibles or whatever they want to hospitals so this robs no one of their rights. Hear hear. No-one is stopping people from bringing in their own books.


IMO, Britain is Christian country, to the extent that a good deed is known as ‘the Christian thing to do’, even by people who aren’t Christian.


Yet, I always hear about Christians trying to project their version of morality on me by trying to censor TV and or books. I read about Christians protesting companies that have policies supporting homosexuals. So true.

Well, England is an officially Christian country - acts of toleration aside. It's been that way for a very long time. It even has a state religion. If jews and muslims don't like that, they should never have imigrated there in the first place.

Honestly, they are fucking lucky they don't get treated the same way as 'infidels' do in Saudia Arabia. Pagans get by because we don’t yell about it, and besides, we were there first.

Ok! Someone fill me in. What is MSRA?
MRSA: Methicillin-Resistant Staphlococcus Aureus. It’s the only thing that isn’t killed in normal sterilisation techniques (i.e. cooking the equiptment), is the reason why hospitals have to have disposable gloves instead of normal ones, and is covering your skin all the time.

It’s when it gets into the bloodstream that’s the problem.

The "furtherment of religion" is not charity, it is indoctrination. I have not yet heard of anyone who avoided starvation by eating a Gideon's bible.

I thought that the UK had a strong separation between church and state, but I was apparently wrong.
*laughs* What gave you that idea? It’s the law that school (public, private and independent) have to have a Christian worship every morning!

Suonds like it does to me. The fact that the trust is now backpeddling is beside the point. (Or are you saying the times is lying).

Oooh. You found one sentence at the end of the article that -- in a non-quote -- confirms that concerns about offending non-Christians and the spreading of MRSA "will be discussed"[I] by the trust.

Following the direct quotes explaining (emphasis added):

“The trust can confirm that [I]discussions are currently taking place between the chaplaincy, infection control, service equality and volunteer services departments to determine whether religious texts will continue to be provided in patients’ bedside lockers at Leicester General Hospital, Leicester Royal Infirmary and Glenfield Hospital.

“However, discussions are still in the early stages, meaning no proposals have yet been put forward by staff and no final decision has yet been made on this issue.

“Regardless of the outcome of the discussions, patients can be reassured that religious texts will continue to be made available at the trust’s three hospitals through the chaplaincy.”

So, no -- other than the fear-mongering by the Gideons' spokesman -- the story does not support the "political correctness run amok" or "Bibles banned because they may offend" spin put on the story.

I'm not suggesting the Times is lying. Its version of the story is closer to what I reported than to what Neo Cannen said and you are defending. :rolleyes:

Look, you posted a Guardian article (which in its first paragraph described the Times as a tabloid :rolleyes: ),

No. The article did not. It said some tabloids had started off with hysterical misreporting. That is a fact. It did not saying anything about the Times.

a bbc news article (the BBC is not a credible source) and some guy's blog.

The BBC is not a credible source?

So, neither the Guardian nor the BBC are reliable -- even when confirming parts of and explaining the Times article with updated information?

I'm afraid I will not cater to your intellectual blinders.

The very fact the times said what it did is enough to raise eyebrows. You just cannot declare this 'case closed' especially since you probably don't know all that much about birtish hospital trusts and how they are managed to begin with.

I know you very much want to believe that the NHS doesn't do things like this, and isn't run by assholes, but you just don't know anything about it. So try and keep an open mind. Is that possible?

Sorry, I'm not bowing to your bluster about superior knowledge.

What the NHS may or may not be capable of is beside the point -- they aren't and weren't doing what Neo Cannen claimed they were doing.

The Times did not report the story in the hysterical manner that Neo Cannen did. Nonetheless, additional developments have been reported that clarify the situation.

Your persistence in denying the facts reflects on you, not I.

So you advocate the banning of all printed materials in hospitals then?

Try a little harder.

Yea lets ban all paper. You don't need the reports and forms. :rolleyes:

What are your opinions. Personally I think its stupid. If there had been a consoritum of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and various other non Christian faiths complaining about this then I might give it some credeance. But its not, its just politically correct people sticking their noses in where its not needed and isnt wanted

Imporant note: Please only comment on the actuall instance at hand, I do not want this degenerating into a flame war about the rights and wrongs of Bibles in hospitals.

I think you are looking for yet another reason to bitch about poor little Christianity, which, let's face it, has SUCH a hard time...

Neo. The book is a possible vector for contamination.

It is that simple.

Bibles are made of paper, and the Gideons Bible doesn't even have a mylar cover or anything... just plain old board.

Hotels are one thing... Bibles should not be in a (supposedly) sterile area.

It's ridiculous that you are even trying to make an argument about this.

Placing a Bible on state run property is hardly a matter of 'free speech', even by the American definition of the term.

Placing of a bible by a non-governmental, charity organization composed of persons who do strictly volunteer work for this organization, have to front their own expenses (including purchase of the bibles themselves), is freedom of speech, especially by the "American" definition of the term.

1) People can still bring in their own Bibles or whatever they want to hospitals so this robs no one of their rights.

2) Ambulance-chasing lawyers, none of which are specifically liberal or conservative, are to blame for political correctness thanks to retarded lawsuits. (However conservative groups like religious groups, soccer moms and RIAA-supporting corporations promote censorship).

3) The things should be removed anyway since lots of sick people touch them and God only knows what bacteria they are passing on to people who touch them. I don't think they are sterilized.
Worked in a nursing home environmental services … there is no real good way to disinfect paper … specially with print on it (any of the spray’s that are commonly used tend to cause ink to run)

Placing of a bible by a non-governmental, charity organization composed of persons who do strictly volunteer work for this organization, have to front their own expenses (including purchase of the bibles themselves), is freedom of speech, especially by the "American" definition of the term.
Though as stated by neo they do receive governmental reimbursement as a charity (just pointing it out not trying to argue lol)

What are your opinions. Personally I think its stupid. If there had been a consoritum of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and various other non Christian faiths complaining about this then I might give it some credeance. But its not, its just politically correct people sticking their noses in where its not needed and isnt wanted

Imporant note: Please only comment on the actuall instance at hand, I do not want this degenerating into a flame war about the rights and wrongs of Bibles in hospitals.

Maybe some people are offended by being automatically supplied with pornographic literature in their hospital rooms, as if they were so low-minded that they would consider such literature to be somehow more edifying than others (e.g., see Ezekiel 23)? Perhaps the hospitals could keep a store of literature of various types and simply let their patients know that it is available upon request?

The "furtherment of religion" is not charity, it is indoctrination. I have not yet heard of anyone who avoided starvation by eating a Gideon's bible.

I thought that the UK had a strong separation between church and state, but I was apparently wrong.

Kindly notice where I said ANY religion. No one particualr religion is supported by this. Mosques, Synogouges etc all come under the "furtherment of religion" charity bracket. And let us not forget that religious institutions are designated charities because of the work they do for the disadvantaged in society.

Neo. The book is a possible vector for contamination.

It is that simple.

Grave, I dont know how much you know about MRSA but let me tell you its only concerning when it gets into the bloodstream via a cut or other open sore. If your going to cut yourself on a bible's very sharp surfaces then of course it might be valid, but thats very doubtful. And if you had read the article, you would see that the reason that they are trying to remove it is that they claim it might "offend" someone, but no one has actually been offended yet so the point is moot. The Bibles are placed there by a NGCO and so its not an issue of the goverment forcing religion onto people so there is, as far as I can see nothing wrong.

Hmmm I wonder what would happen if I tossed the bible I was provided in the trash next time I have a hospital stay

Hmmm I wonder what would happen if I tossed the bible I was provided in the trash next time I have a hospital stay

The Gideon Society would replace it with another one. That happens more than you would think

Worked in a nursing home environmental services … there is no real good way to disinfect paper … specially with print on it (any of the spray’s that are commonly used tend to cause ink to run)

What about the kind of gamma ray sterrilizers they used to use for irriadating strawberrys.

Grave, I dont know how much you know about MRSA but let me tell you its only concerning when it gets into the bloodstream via a cut or other open sore. If your going to cut yourself on a bible's very sharp surfaces then of course it might be valid, but thats very doubtful. And if you had read the article, you would see that the reason that they are trying to remove it is that they claim it might "offend" someone, but no one has actually been offended yet so the point is moot. The Bibles are placed there by a NGCO and so its not an issue of the goverment forcing religion onto people so there is, as far as I can see nothing wrong.
Even without MRSA we have had to toss more then a few bibles … things like scabies (a contagious skin rash condition) has been spread on them at our facility before (though if there is no BIG issue putting it in a freezer for 24 hrs will kill it too)

Just pointing out that MRSA is not the only contagious disease that does not mind paper

What about the kind of gamma ray sterrilizers they used to use for irriadating strawberrys.
That be great … though I would love to see how much THAT would cost a facility

:p

Grave, I dont know how much you know about MRSA but let me tell you its only concerning when it gets into the bloodstream via a cut or other open sore. If your going to cut yourself on a bible's very sharp surfaces then of course it might be valid, but thats very doubtful. And if you had read the article, you would see that the reason that they are trying to remove it is that they claim it might "offend" someone, but no one has actually been offended yet so the point is moot. The Bibles are placed there by a NGCO and so its not an issue of the goverment forcing religion onto people so there is, as far as I can see nothing wrong.

First - you make a point about MRSA needing an entry-point for infection... I assume you have BEEN in a hospital, Neo?

Strange though it may seem, quite a lot of people in hospitals tend to have injuries of various kinds.... open wounds, cuts, abrasions... even surgical incisions.

The article you posted makes it quite clear that MRSA is considered a possible risk. Personally, I don't care if Gideon's recieve charitable status or not... placing a health risk is not acceptable under any 'religious' freedom conception that I can understand.

The Gideon Society would replace it with another one. That happens more than you would think
No doubt (my mind just went on a tangent sorry lol)

That be great … though I would love to see how much THAT would cost a facility

:p

Especially in a nationalised health service that is ALWAYS complaining about being underfunded...

Especially in a nationalised health service that is ALWAYS complaining about being underfunded...
Lol I work at a private nursing home (Environmental services for 3 years and until recently as security) and it is a private catholic institution (one of the largest in the Midwest) and we are STILL massively under funded (in fact they had to cut 1 hr off of all their cleaning staff’s hours recently because they were so massively under funded)

First - you make a point about MRSA needing an entry-point for infection... I assume you have BEEN in a hospital, Neo?

Strange though it may seem, quite a lot of people in hospitals tend to have injuries of various kinds.... open wounds, cuts, abrasions... even surgical incisions.
How about Bible-free wards for those who require them?
Over Here we have the:
Bible-Free wards

and here:
Normal wards
(where you die)

How about just: Clean Wards ?
That might work.

Failing that, boil every Bible before it's introduced and schedule regular boilings for potentially infected ones. The f*ckers are only bacteria, a good 100 degrees'll sort'em out.

oh, and the removal of magazines from doctor's waiting rooms. Because I find 'Hello' religiously offensive.

First - you make a point about MRSA needing an entry-point for infection... I assume you have BEEN in a hospital, Neo?

Strange though it may seem, quite a lot of people in hospitals tend to have injuries of various kinds.... open wounds, cuts, abrasions... even surgical incisions.

I assume Grave that you are not British and therefore know nothing about the Gideon tradion. The Bible's are put into the recovery wards, just after an operation in bedside tables NOT at a point where they should have any open wounds. By that time they should have bandages or someother such protection over their cuts/wounds/inscisions. If the infection is spread by a Bible at that point then it is the fault of the hospital for putting a patient in a revovery ward when the patient should not be there.

That be great … though I would love to see how much THAT would cost a facility

:p

Erm, they already use those kinds of sterilisers on a regular basis for surgical equipment.

Considering the varying standards of cleanliness from facility to facility, pointing out the Bibles as one source of infection is only pointing out one source.

We should also make people stop bringing in those gift balloons, the flower vases (with their germ-filled water that sits in the room for days), the stuffed animals, and any of the patient's personal items.

What I think is hilarious about political correctness is that it assumes that everyone is offended by the trappings of Western Civilization.

Erm, they already use those kinds of sterilisers on a regular basis for surgical equipment.
Well if it kills bacteria/viruii … go for it but personally unless I could be sure that (unlike the rest of the room which should be thoroughly sterilized) I personally would not want to see a book of any sort in my room unless I was sure I was not going to get sick from it

Considering the varying standards of cleanliness from facility to facility, pointing out the Bibles as one source of infection is only pointing out one source.

We should also make people stop bringing in those gift balloons, the flower vases (with their germ-filled water that sits in the room for days), the stuffed animals, and any of the patient's personal items.

What I think is hilarious about political correctness is that it assumes that everyone is offended by the trappings of Western Civilization.
At least those other personal items I have a choice to allow into my room

At least those other personal items I have a choice to allow into my room
man's got a point. The number of times I've seen Gideons Bibles open the drawer they were in, clamber onto a bed and throw themselves into an unguarded orifice.. makes me shiver.

I think the word you were looking for is 'virii'. but people generally say 'viruses'. except that MRSA (staphylococcus aureus etc) is a bacterium. the kind of thing that can be cleaned off with the right antibacterial soap and some water.

At least those other personal items I have a choice to allow into my room

We don't allow those items into the operating theater for reasons of antiseptic control. I see no reason why the patient should be allowed these items in their room.

I bet that we could also lower rates of infection by requiring that all visitors bathe on arrival, be dressed in fresh scrubs, and go through the same antiseptic procedure that surgeons undergo before entering the operating theater. I would also forbid visitors from carrying in any items from outside - they can put those in a locker until it's time to leave.

We also need to examine the ventilation system - which in some older hospitals is full of old dust and mold.

I'm just trying to be scientific about the imposition of antiseptic rules. Just pointing out a single book as a source of noscomial infection shows an obvious bias.

We don't allow those items into the operating theater for reasons of antiseptic control. I see no reason why the patient should be allowed these items in their room.

I bet that we could also lower rates of infection by requiring that all visitors bathe on arrival, be dressed in fresh scrubs, and go through the same antiseptic procedure that surgeons undergo before entering the operating theater. I would also forbid visitors from carrying in any items from outside - they can put those in a locker until it's time to leave.

We also need to examine the ventilation system - which in some older hospitals is full of old dust and mold.

I'm just trying to be scientific about the imposition of antiseptic rules. Just pointing out a single book as a source of noscomial infection shows an obvious bias.

Agreed … and a lot of those things (including bathing) a patient can request of visitors.
Just because it is impractical to eliminate ALL sources of infection does not mean that we should not take care of the easy to correct ones

All I would be asking for is the ability to choose if the risk of a paper source of possible contamination is placed in my room without my consent (everything in that room should be able to be disinfected and at least at the recovery unit at the nursing home I was at it could be … even to the point of special tv’s that were sealed so they could be sprayed down as well)

Agreed … and a lot of those things (including bathing) a patient can request of visitors.
Just because it is impractical to eliminate ALL sources of infection does not mean that we should not take care of the easy to correct ones
maybe the Bibles should just have health warning on them, and be supplied with a waiver that would have to be signed before use

I assume Grave that you are not British and therefore know nothing about the Gideon tradion. The Bible's are put into the recovery wards, just after an operation in bedside tables NOT at a point where they should have any open wounds. By that time they should have bandages or someother such protection over their cuts/wounds/inscisions. If the infection is spread by a Bible at that point then it is the fault of the hospital for putting a patient in a revovery ward when the patient should not be there.

Assume what you like, Neo... you must be getting used to being wrong.

I was born a UK citizen, and have lived there for about 25 years... and have even spent time in hospitals. Maybe it has changed since I was there - but I have actually been in both the Glenfield and the General hospitals in Leicester... the very hospitals in the article.

When I was in the Glenfield hospital - there were bibles in the pre-op ward, and there were bibles in post-op. I don't know about the emergency wards... because, although I have been there (a friend of mine broke her hand), we didn't really stay there long.

In the General hospital I know there were bibles in the recovery wards.

The point is, I think - that risk should be minimised. What is your justification for ANY EXTRA risk? Anyone can handle the bedside bible... you must be aware of that? Why risk additional disease vectors?

You must realise that, after surgery, for example, even WITH bandages and sterile materials, wounds often still 'bleed'.

I find it humourous that you seem to think that Gideons is somehow a peculiarly 'British' tradition, also.

maybe the Bibles should just have health warning on them, and be supplied with a waiver that would have to be signed before use
I would settle for simply having an option for requesting one
(Though I am sure the giddions people wouldn’t like that … the only people usually requesting a bible already believe in it (usually) … hard to spread your message that way)

We don't allow those items into the operating theater for reasons of antiseptic control. I see no reason why the patient should be allowed these items in their room.

I bet that we could also lower rates of infection by requiring that all visitors bathe on arrival, be dressed in fresh scrubs, and go through the same antiseptic procedure that surgeons undergo before entering the operating theater. I would also forbid visitors from carrying in any items from outside - they can put those in a locker until it's time to leave.

We also need to examine the ventilation system - which in some older hospitals is full of old dust and mold.

I'm just trying to be scientific about the imposition of antiseptic rules. Just pointing out a single book as a source of noscomial infection shows an obvious bias.

I realise there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek here, to make a good point... but there is one consideration that the slightly sarcastic tone might miss.

If someone (healthy) brings me a get-well card in hospital, I COULD chose not to accept it... I could refuse that item being near me.

The Gideons Bible 'defaults' to the bedside... you actually have to ask to have that 'risk' removed.

Also - again - my healthy visitor brings me a card... this time I accept. I have accepted a certain amount of risk, but I can assess that risk, by the health of my visitor.

The Gideon Bible could have been touched by (literally) thousands of hands, some (or many) of whom may have later died of horrible gross diseases.

These books are, after all, left in a hospital... which is a place with plenty of health-risks already.

Assume what you like, Neo... you must be getting used to being wrong.

I was born a UK citizen, and have lived there for about 25 years... and have even spent time in hospitals. Maybe it has changed since I was there - but I have actually been in both the Glenfield and the General hospitals in Leicester... the very hospitals in the article.

When I was in the Glenfield hospital - there were bibles in the pre-op ward, and there were bibles in post-op. I don't know about the emergency wards... because, although I have been there (a friend of mine broke her hand), we didn't really stay there long.

In the General hospital I know there were bibles in the recovery wards.

The point is, I think - that risk should be minimised. What is your justification for ANY EXTRA risk? Anyone can handle the bedside bible... you must be aware of that? Why risk additional disease vectors?

You must realise that, after surgery, for example, even WITH bandages and sterile materials, wounds often still 'bleed'.

I find it humourous that you seem to think that Gideons is somehow a peculiarly 'British' tradition, also.

Yeah we had a giddions person on campus he chucked a bible at me and my friend because she was wearing a knee length skirt (I am serious) … (though don’t get me wrong I hardly think that is how the rest of them act … he was a little bit psycho)

He got kicked off campus for actually hitting another student with one … haven’t seen him in a year or two though must have got into trouble or something

Yeah we had a giddions person on campus he chucked a bible at me and my friend because she was wearing a knee length skirt (I am serious) … (though don’t get me wrong I hardly think that is how the rest of them act … he was a little bit psycho)

He got kicked off campus for actually hitting another student with one … haven’t seen him in a year or two though must have got into trouble or something
ah the real practice of 'Bible Bashing'

ah the real practice of 'Bible Bashing'
Lol yeah it was interesting … but spring seems to draw out all the crazies to campus … ehh I am fine with them as long as they don’t physically assault me I am good :)

Yeah we had a giddions person on campus he chucked a bible at me and my friend because she was wearing a knee length skirt (I am serious) … (though don’t get me wrong I hardly think that is how the rest of them act … he was a little bit psycho)

Hmmmm Dude, its called a Kilt!

Hmmmm Dude, its called a Kilt!
I said she was wearing a skirt

:)

I realise there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek here, to make a good point... but there is one consideration that the slightly sarcastic tone might miss.

If someone (healthy) brings me a get-well card in hospital, I COULD chose not to accept it... I could refuse that item being near me.


There's some talk in my area of screening visitors by having an examination by a nurse or physician's assistant before allowing a visit - because you can't assess the health of someone just by looking at them normally.

And, even if you wanted a get-well card in the operating theater, they wouldn't let you bring it in. I think that's common sense, not sarcasm.

If you really want to lower risk, I have no problem in getting rid of the books - it's just that it should be part of a comprehensive review and plan to minimize risk.

We could start at your doctor's office - in the waiting room. Think of the sick patients that sat there handling the magazines, and now you're sitting there thumbing through one.

...We could start at your doctor's office - in the waiting room. Think of the sick patients that sat there handling the magazines, and now you're sitting there thumbing through one.
Thank you, my beef exactly. Plus there are only so many editions of 'Tractor Monthly' that you can look through without wanting to shoot yourself.

There's some talk in my area of screening visitors by having an examination by a nurse or physician's assistant before allowing a visit - because you can't assess the health of someone just by looking at them normally.

And, even if you wanted a get-well card in the operating theater, they wouldn't let you bring it in. I think that's common sense, not sarcasm.

If you really want to lower risk, I have no problem in getting rid of the books - it's just that it should be part of a comprehensive review and plan to minimize risk.

We could start at your doctor's office - in the waiting room. Think of the sick patients that sat there handling the magazines, and now you're sitting there thumbing through one.


Yeah ... they do make some spray coating stuff books can be treated with so they can be sterilized thoroughly (but lets just say it would be a pain in the ass spraying down every page in the bible … you would almost have to dip it … and while the coating keeps the ink from running for spray on stuff I don’t think it makes the bible waterproof (just resistant))

But yes in a recovery ward and such all that should be optional … the doctors office … being a public area I don’t think should REQUIRE it but I think it would be a good idea

Thank you, my beef exactly. Plus there are only so many editions of 'Tractor Monthly' that you can look through without wanting to shoot yourself.
I get more tired of the "style" and family life and womans day :) not exactly intrest reading for me (tired of the sports illustrated as well )

I said she was wearing a skirt

:)

Actually, I've met people from this society on my own campus and guys were wearing them too. They are called kilts but its not really important is it?

Actually, I've met people from this society on my own campus and guys were wearing them too. They are called kilts but its not really important is it?
Ok I am getting confused what does this have to do with my story ?

I originally included her skirt in the story because she was deemed a “slut” by the person with the bibles and therefore deserved her punishment of getting hit with a bible.

Ok I am getting confused what does this have to do with my story ?

I originally included her skirt in the story because she was deemed a “slut” by the person with the bibles and therefore deserved her punishment of getting hit with a bible.

My bad. I was getting confused. My apologies :)

My bad. I was getting confused. My apologies :)
No problem :)

Actually, I've met people from this society on my own campus and guys were wearing them too. They are called kilts but its not really important is it?
in clarification let us make a distinction between:
a) being celtic and having a vague purpose in wearing a kilt
kilt :- tartan (denoted by clan) wrapping around the legs, secured by pins, usually accompanied by a sporran (small container acting as a pocket) and lack of underwear.

and
b) cross-dressing...

as somewhere there was mention of the word 'campus' (therefore college/university etc.) I'd guess that we're probably dealing with transvestism. Which, when heavily under the influence of alcohol, is perfectly acceptable.

is transvestism even a word? I think I made it up. ah well

in clarification let us make a distinction between:
a) being celtic and having a vague purpose in wearing a kilt
kilt :- tartan (denoted by clan) wrapping around the legs, secured by pins, usually accompanied by a sporran (small container acting as a pocket) and lack of underwear.

:rolleyes: I already knew this!

and
b) cross-dressing...

as somewhere there was mention of the word 'campus' (therefore college/university etc.) I'd guess that we're probably dealing with transvestism. Which, when heavily under the influence of alcohol, is perfectly acceptable.

I think he said SHE was wearing a skirt!

is transvestism even a word? I think I made it up. ah well

It is a word.

:rolleyes: I already knew this!
I think he said SHE was wearing a skirt!
aye, but you were equating a skirt (traditionally worn by the fairer sex) to a kilt (traditionally, but not exclusively I grant you, worn by the uglier sex), a practice which will see you beaten to a bloody pulp in the average Glasgow pub.


and how the flying monkeys did we get from the recall of Gideons Bibles from hospitals to the ins and outs of Celtic traditions?

There's some talk in my area of screening visitors by having an examination by a nurse or physician's assistant before allowing a visit - because you can't assess the health of someone just by looking at them normally.

And, even if you wanted a get-well card in the operating theater, they wouldn't let you bring it in. I think that's common sense, not sarcasm.

If you really want to lower risk, I have no problem in getting rid of the books - it's just that it should be part of a comprehensive review and plan to minimize risk.

We could start at your doctor's office - in the waiting room. Think of the sick patients that sat there handling the magazines, and now you're sitting there thumbing through one.

I think a revision of what is an acceptable risk is a good idea. Doctor surgeries are perhaps a little lower on the potential risk list - since they are often less likely to be the scene of really serious health problems. Of course, magazines get tossed fairly regularly, also... whereas a Bible is able to stand up to quite an extended period of diseased fingers handling it.

Like you say - they wouldn't let you bring a card (which is probably going to be pretty clean) into theatre - but you CAN have a worn copy of the Bible in the ward... at least if the patient brings their OWN Bible, they are lowering their risk of catching something.... well, something they don't already have...

We can never eliminate ALL risks, but we can try to move in that direction a little.

Assume what you like, Neo... you must be getting used to being wrong.

I was born a UK citizen, and have lived there for about 25 years... and have even spent time in hospitals. Maybe it has changed since I was there - but I have actually been in both the Glenfield and the General hospitals in Leicester... the very hospitals in the article.

When I was in the Glenfield hospital - there were bibles in the pre-op ward, and there were bibles in post-op. I don't know about the emergency wards... because, although I have been there (a friend of mine broke her hand), we didn't really stay there long.

In the General hospital I know there were bibles in the recovery wards.

The point is, I think - that risk should be minimised. What is your justification for ANY EXTRA risk? Anyone can handle the bedside bible... you must be aware of that? Why risk additional disease vectors?

You must realise that, after surgery, for example, even WITH bandages and sterile materials, wounds often still 'bleed'.

I find it humourous that you seem to think that Gideons is somehow a peculiarly 'British' tradition, also.

Grave you are missing the point. While the hospital is also considering investigating the posibility that the Bibles are helping the spread of MRSA, the original complaint was made that some may consider it relgiously offensive. The idea that the Bibles spread MRSA is not one which at present has any creedence (as there hasnt been a case that suggested that handling a Bible was the cause).

Grave you are missing the point. While the hospital is also considering investigating the posibility that the Bibles are helping the spread of MRSA, the original complaint was made that some may consider it relgiously offensive. The idea that the Bibles spread MRSA is not one which at present has any creedence (as there hasnt been a case that suggested that handling a Bible was the cause).
What about other diseases, come to think of it in our sub-acute ward the only thing NOT sterilized is the bible provided

Grave you are missing the point. While the hospital is also considering investigating the posibility that the Bibles are helping the spread of MRSA, the original complaint was made that some may consider it relgiously offensive. The idea that the Bibles spread MRSA is not one which at present has any creedence (as there hasnt been a case that suggested that handling a Bible was the cause).

Only according to the one source you cited... other sources have seemed to believe the contrary.

In fact - one of the sources cited in this thread has stated that the discussion arose around the cancelling of renewel (temporarily) while a disease-risk-assessment was carried out... and that the furore caused about 'banning bibles' or whatever, was a result of baseless accusations by the Gideon representative.

Have you considered looking at other, more recent, sources... or do they not fit your need well enough?

And, MRSA aside, there are a lot of other reasons why a well-handled book might be a risk of contamination, especially in a sickness/injury environment.

I get really irritated at finding the damn Gideon bibles in hospitals and hotel rooms. The assumption that everyone is Christian does offend me. Should they be prevented from doing so? I'm not sure about that. But I sure wish they would quit.

Political correctness is the "Great Idea Gone Wrong" It keeps us from saying what we want and believing what we want to. All it does is shut us up. And silence is sometimes dangerous, as serial killers are always described as being quiet.

I get really irritated at finding the damn Gideon bibles in hospitals and hotel rooms. The assumption that everyone is Christian does offend me. Should they be prevented from doing so? I'm not sure about that. But I sure wish they would quit.
because a Bible's presence implies that you must read it and be offended by what it says.

actually your argument's more like saying, "I'm offended by the presence of the lamp by the bed because I like the dark better".

Political correctness is the "Great Idea Gone Wrong" It keeps us from saying what we want and believing what we want to. All it does is shut us up. And silence is sometimes dangerous, as serial killers are always described as being quiet.

Political Correctness doesn't regulate what you can believe, at all... it is a catch-all phrase for, basically, people keeping their mouths shut when they have nothing good to say.

Political Correctness is an unweildy beast, and should be unnecessary - but, unfortunately, there will always be some people who think that their philosophy, racial view, religion, gender-orientation, etc... is more 'important' or better than those of other people... to the point that they will attempt to control or condemn those others.

Regarding your assertion about serial killers "always described as being quiet"... I think that is something of a generalisation, my friend... and one easy to disprove.

You have, I assume, heard of John Wayne Gacy? The host of elaborate street parties, active community member, children's entertainer... and secret gay-rapist and murderer...

because a Bible's presence implies that you must read it and be offended by what it says.

actually your argument's more like saying, "I'm offended by the presence of the lamp by the bed because I like the dark better".

A friend of mine had the little leggy-fish with "Evolve" in it, on the back of his car. I could have told him this wouldn't last long in rural Georgia, and I was right... it was on his car about a day, before it ended up in pieces on the floor next to his car.

Non-denominational symbols aresometimes resented by those of certain beliefs... and yet it is inapproriate for someone to merely object to the ubiquitous-ness of one religions manifesto?

because a Bible's presence implies that you must read it and be offended by what it says.

actually your argument's more like saying, "I'm offended by the presence of the lamp by the bed because I like the dark better".Eer? WTF? :confused:

Eer? WTF? :confused:
damn, no one likes my little analogies.

the parallels being:

a) there is a Bible in the drawer in close proximity to hospital beds : there is a lamp in close proximity to hospital beds (I think).

b) you don't have to pick the Bible up and read it. Indeed, leave it in the drawer and it does not even trouble your vision : you do not have to use the lamp if you do not want to.

ok it was thin.


Non-denominational symbols are sometimes resented by those of certain beliefs... and yet it is inappropriate for someone to merely object to the ubiquitous-ness of one religion's manifesto?
it's a good point and being of the 'Evolution fits almost perfectly into Creation' school of thought I don't understand the problem with a leggy fish. Do the inhabitants of rural Georgia run after cars with 'shit happens' bumper stickers on? Guessing not. And the fact that the perpetrators didn't confront your mate and say, "we're not happy about the fish on your car; if you could remove it that would be good" before destroying his properly behind his back would seem to indicate that the problem runs a little deeper.

damn, no one likes my little analogies.

the parallels being:

a) there is a Bible in the drawer in close proximity to hospital beds : there is a lamp in close proximity to hospital beds (I think).

b) you don't have to pick the Bible up and read it. Indeed, leave it in the drawer and it does not even trouble your vision : you do not have to use the lamp if you do not want to.

ok it was thin.

But I find the assumption that patients need a lamp logical.
I find the assumption they'll all need a bible presumptuous, as well as damn irritating.

damn, no one likes my little analogies.

Because they don't make sense?

the parallels being:

a) there is a Bible in the drawer in close proximity to hospital beds : there is a lamp in close proximity to hospital beds (I think).

I have a lamp by my bed but the bible isn't near it. Your not required to read the bible Schnappslant. It is there incase you do want too.

b) you don't have to pick the Bible up and read it. Indeed, leave it in the drawer and it does not even trouble your vision : you do not have to use the lamp if you do not want to.

Here, you make sense.

ok it was thin.

Vacuum thin.

But I find the assumption that patients need a lamp logical.
I find the assumption they'll all need a bible presumptuous, as well as damn irritating.
why do they need a lamp? to read stuff and generally shed light.
why do they need a Bible? to understand stuff and shed more light...

come on it was too good to miss!!

hee hee, Schnappslant.. trotting out trite eloquencies for almost 300 years.

Because they don't make sense?
Here, you make sense.
I'll let you work that one out.

I have a lamp by my bed but the bible isn't near it. You're not required to read the bible Schnappslant. It is there in case you do want too.
ANALOGY POLICE!! TAKE THIS PERSON AWAY!!

sorry. got a bit carried away there.


Vacuum thin.
which begs the question.. How thin is your vacuum?

I'll let you work that one out.

Well you did ask why no one gets my analogy so I'll let you work that one out.

ANALOGY POLICE!! TAKE THIS PERSON AWAY!!

sorry. got a bit carried away there.

Funny like a crutch

which begs the question.. How thin is your vacuum?

Not as thin as yours!

Well you did ask why no one gets your analogy so I'll let you work that one out.
actually I didn't so I'll stop now and let you improve your reading capabilities too

actually I didn't so I'll stop now and let you improve your reading capabilities too

Rephrase:

No one likes them because no one understands them.

Rephrase:

No one likes them because no one understands them.
that's better (and very pertinent).

I still don't get the thin vacuum thing, vacuums not having a volume or mass etc.

I get really irritated at finding the damn Gideon bibles in hospitals and hotel rooms. The assumption that everyone is Christian does offend me. Should they be prevented from doing so? I'm not sure about that. But I sure wish they would quit.

I wonder if they stick them in hospital rooms where children are staying? After all, much of the bible is little more than porn without the pictures to go along with it. I mean really, would you let your young child read Ezekiel 23?

1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:

3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.

4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,

6 Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses.

7 Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself.

8 Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her.

9 Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted.

10 These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her.

11 And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.

12 She doted upon the Assyrians her neighbours, captains and rulers clothed most gorgeously, horsemen riding upon horses, all of them desirable young men.

13 Then I saw that she was defiled, that they took both one way,

14 And that she increased her whoredoms: for when she saw men pourtrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans pourtrayed with vermilion,

15 Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity:

16 And as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she doted upon them, and sent messengers unto them into Chaldea.

17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

18 So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister.

19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.

20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh [read "penis"] of asses, and whose issue [read "semen"] the issue of horses.

21 Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.

22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;

23 The Babylonians, and all the Chaldeans, Pekod, and Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them: all of them desirable young men, captains and rulers, great lords and renowned, all of them riding upon horses.

24 And they shall come against thee with chariots, wagons, and wheels, and with an assembly of people, which shall set against thee buckler and shield and helmet round about: and I will set judgment before them, and they shall judge thee according to their judgments.

25 And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.

26 They shall also strip thee out of thy clothes, and take away thy fair jewels.

27 Thus will I make thy lewdness to cease from thee, and thy whoredom brought from the land of Egypt: so that thou shalt not lift up thine eyes unto them, nor remember Egypt any more.

28 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will deliver thee into the hand of them whom thou hatest, into the hand of them from whom thy mind is alienated:

29 And they shall deal with thee hatefully, and shall take away all thy labour, and shall leave thee naked and bare: and the nakedness of thy whoredoms shall be discovered, both thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.

30 I will do these things unto thee, because thou hast gone a whoring after the heathen, and because thou art polluted with their idols.

31 Thou hast walked in the way of thy sister; therefore will I give her cup into thine hand.

32 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou shalt drink of thy sister's cup deep and large: thou shalt be laughed to scorn and had in derision; it containeth much.

33 Thou shalt be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, with the cup of astonishment and desolation, with the cup of thy sister Samaria.

34 Thou shalt even drink it and suck it out, and thou shalt break the sherds thereof, and pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

35 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast forgotten me, and cast me behind thy back, therefore bear thou also thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.

36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations;

37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.

38 Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths.

39 For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house.

40 And furthermore, that ye have sent for men to come from far, unto whom a messenger was sent; and, lo, they came: for whom thou didst wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes, and deckedst thyself with ornaments,

41 And satest upon a stately bed, and a table prepared before it, whereupon thou hast set mine incense and mine oil.

42 And a voice of a multitude being at ease was with her: and with the men of the common sort were brought Sabeans from the wilderness, which put bracelets upon their hands, and beautiful crowns upon their heads.

43 Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now commit whoredoms with her, and she with them?

44 Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women.

45 And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands.

46 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled.

47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.

48 Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.

49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.

True, this chapter is allegorical - but really, is this fit for family reading time?

it's a good point and being of the 'Evolution fits almost perfectly into Creation' school of thought I don't understand the problem with a leggy fish. Do the inhabitants of rural Georgia run after cars with 'shit happens' bumper stickers on? Guessing not. And the fact that the perpetrators didn't confront your mate and say, "we're not happy about the fish on your car; if you could remove it that would be good" before destroying his properly behind his back would seem to indicate that the problem runs a little deeper.

I've encountered similar behaviour elsewhere, and with other paraphenalia... (such as Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers).

Some people seem to think it is okay to extend their religious convictions through whichever means they deem necessary... property damage doesn't seem to be frowned upon.

I wonder if they stick them in hospital rooms where children are staying? After all, much of the bible is little more than porn without the pictures to go along with it. I mean really, would you let your young child read Ezekiel 23?

snip


Not to mention the whole song of Solomon

I wonder if they stick them in hospital rooms where children are staying? After all, much of the bible is little more than porn without the pictures to go along with it. I mean really, would you let your young child read Ezekiel 23?
True, this chapter is allegorical - but really, is this fit for family reading time?

Perhaps Ezekiel is allegorical... but the Song of Solomon is pretty much straight porn... but it's okay... because it's poetic, and poetic porn is allowed.

Perhaps Ezekiel is allegorical... but the Song of Solomon is pretty much straight porn... but it's okay... because it's poetic, and poetic porn is allowed.

Apparently porn as allegory is allowed as well.

Not to mention the whole song of Solomon

Once again, he beats me to it....

Once again, he beats me to it....
I’m quick like a bunny :)

Why don't they just make copies of all major holy texts available?

"The Poetry of Playboy".. coming to a Evangelical near you..


Why don't they just make copies of all major holy texts available?
would it be acceptable for the Qu'ran to be placed in hospitals, in terms of cleanliness?

Why don't they just make copies of all major holy texts available?
I would be fine with that (unless they were placed in the room before hand … because of the sterilization issue)

Why don't they just make copies of all major holy texts available?
Because it isn't the hospital doing the placement. It is a charitible organization. Im sure that if some other, muslim/jewish/wiccan/hindu/whathave you charity were to provide copies of their holy texts then the hospital would allow them in the rooms.

Because it isn't the hospital doing the placement. It is a charitible organization. Im sure that if some other, muslim/jewish/wiccan/hindu/whathave you charity were to provide copies of their holy texts then the hospital would allow them in the rooms.
All good and fine but I personaly dont want that possible source of infection in my room ... let me choose it if I want to read it otherwise I dont accept the increased risk

What are your opinions. Personally I think its stupid. If there had been a consoritum of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and various other non Christian faiths complaining about this then I might give it some credeance. But its not, its just politically correct people sticking their noses in where its not needed and isnt wanted

Imporant note: Please only comment on the actuall instance at hand, I do not want this degenerating into a flame war about the rights and wrongs of Bibles in hospitals.
Yeah I heard about this. Honestly it's really stupid. Patients should be allowed to read their Bibles. I don't see how it offends anyone.

Yeah I heard about this. Honestly it's really stupid. Patients should be allowed to read their Bibles. I don't see how it offends anyone.
And where are they disallowing people to read their bibles?

Yeah I heard about this. Honestly it's really stupid. Patients should be allowed to read their Bibles. I don't see how it offends anyone.
That's not even the smokescreen issue. The issue is that books left in patients rooms can carry infections. The smokesreen "Oh we're so oppressed" christian white noise is that they are not allowing the Gideons to put bibles in all the rooms because it might offend someone.

No one, NO ONE-not even the white noise generators, are saying that you can't read or bring your own bible. BUT-it's what the white noise generator is hoping you'll take away from this. But the info is right here in the thread for you.

Look, you posted a Guardian article (which in its first paragraph described the Times as a tabloid :rolleyes: ),


I don't know how long it has been since you have been in Britain, but the Times is a tabloid. It stopped being a broadsheet a while ago, with many angry letter to the editor from readers saying that they would now by the Telegraph.

Grave you are missing the point. While the hospital is also considering investigating the posibility that the Bibles are helping the spread of MRSA, the original complaint was made that some may consider it relgiously offensive. The idea that the Bibles spread MRSA is not one which at present has any creedence (as there hasnt been a case that suggested that handling a Bible was the cause).

Neo, have you ever talked to a doctor (socially I mean). The next time you meet one, ask them if the administration knows shit about medicine.

Admittedly, I've only talked to ones from one hostpital, but they were scathing about the admin :)

All good and fine but I personaly dont want that possible source of infection in my room ... let me choose it if I want to read it otherwise I dont accept the increased risk
Then I guess if you ever are unfortunate enough to require hospitilization, you had best check into some hermetically sealed clean room because otherwise, you are at risk for infection.

The risk from a book, left in a drawer by your bedside is infinitesimally small.

Then I guess if you ever are unfortunate enough to require hospitilization, you had best check into some hermetically sealed clean room because otherwise, you are at risk for infection.

The risk from a book, left in a drawer by your bedside is infinitesimally small.
I worked in a recovery care unit in housekeeping for a few years ... guess what the only object in the room that was not completely sterilized was?

While you cant get 100 percent I don't want someones opinion being a possible health risk to me

How do you calculate infinitesimally? specially when it is MY health? I personally don't want to take the extra health risk no matter how small it is just so someone else can feel like they are doing something by leaving me an object that I wont ever read in my room.

I worked in a recovery care unit in housekeeping for a few years ... guess what the only object in the room that was not completely sterilized was?

While you cant get 100 percent I don't want someones opinion being a possible health risk to me

How do you calculate infinitesimally? specially when it is MY health? I personally don't want to take the extra health risk no matter how small it is just so someone else can feel like they are doing something by leaving me an object that I wont ever read in my room.
Don't feel so special, they aren't doing it for you, they are doing it for everyone.

You wouldn't ever touch it... therefor you would not come in contact with anything that may or may not be on it. Infinitesimally small... in your case 0.

Can you even point to one case, of all the people that do read the bibles in their rooms, touch them, come in contact with the book, just one case of an infection ever being caused by a bible in a recovery room?

Don't feel so special, they aren't doing it for you, they are doing it for everyone.

You wouldn't ever touch it... therefor you would not come in contact with anything that may or may not be on it. Infinitesimally small... in your case 0.

Can you even point to one case, of all the people that do read the bibles in their rooms, touch them, come in contact with the book, just one case of an infection ever being caused by a bible in a recovery room?
Incorrect basic cleaning procedure ... an un sterilized object in a clean room invalidates the clean room ... not only is the book a potential source but so is all the surfaces it touches


And yes I can scabies (as I pointed out earlier in this thread)
Transfer into the sub-acute ward in 01 brought with them scabies (if you are familiar with it it is EXTREMLY contagious) they found evidence not only on the bible but ALL surfaces in the facility inside of a week (because the hospital had not paid attention before the transfer)
We ended up not only throwing out all bibles on campus but we had to freeze (literally) every personal effect in the faculty ... from close to toothbrushes to greeting cards

Don't feel so special, they aren't doing it for you, they are doing it for everyone.

You wouldn't ever touch it... therefor you would not come in contact with anything that may or may not be on it. Infinitesimally small... in your case 0.

Can you even point to one case, of all the people that do read the bibles in their rooms, touch them, come in contact with the book, just one case of an infection ever being caused by a bible in a recovery room?

Flawed assumption, my friend.

I don't want to read the bible... so I won't read it. But I do want to place my personal effects near my bed... can you see a conflict on this horizon?

Bibles, if supplied, should be kept off of the ward, until requested, to at least minimise risk. I'm still not happy about the idea of paper products being held somewhere in a hospital for distribution to sick people, with all the risks that must LOGICALLY bring.

Perhaps if they could get really cheap 'one-shot' disposable bibles?

Then I guess if you ever are unfortunate enough to require hospitilization, you had best check into some hermetically sealed clean room because otherwise, you are at risk for infection.

The risk from a book, left in a drawer by your bedside is infinitesimally small.

There is always 'risk'.

The secret is, to reduce those risks as much as possible.

There is always 'risk'.

The secret is, to reduce those risks as much as possible.
Exactly it is a risk … even if it is a small one … I just want the choice to accept or reject that risk

I don't know how long it has been since you have been in Britain, but the Times is a tabloid. It stopped being a broadsheet a while ago, with many angry letter to the editor from readers saying that they would now by the Telegraph.


This March, for a month. But that is beside the point. You are equivocating. Just because the Times no-longer publishes in broadsheet format (they phased that out at the end of last year) doesn't mean they have adopted the journalism standards of the Daily Star.

The fact is, the Times is still a high quality newspaper, and has a lot less skeletons in its journalism closet than the Guardian or the BBC.

The Times claimed to have contacted the Hospital trust's spokeswoman regarding this issue, and she is reported to have initially confirmed that one of the issues being discussed was offending patients on other religions. Given the timing of the articles, I imagine the hospital trust was indeed engaging in PC assfukery, and then decided to backpedal when confronted with an intial barrage of negative publicity. It wouldn't surprise me.

I don't think just posting a later published sources from semi-official organs of the labour government results in a case closed. The original motivation of the hospital trust in this matter is still unclear.

It's not like the Sun raised this aspect of the instant matter.

Because it isn't the hospital doing the placement. It is a charitible organization. Im sure that if some other, muslim/jewish/wiccan/hindu/whathave you charity were to provide copies of their holy texts then the hospital would allow them in the rooms.

So - instead of bedside lockers with one (disease-risk) book, you would encourage a multiple approach?

How about not leaving ANY books in the ward, and only providing those that are requested?

Exactly it is a risk … even if it is a small one … I just want the choice to accept or reject that risk

And, this brings us to the secondary concern (which Neo has inflated to being the ONLY concern).

If I DO choose to accept some small risk, should I not, at least, get to choose WHICH risk?

The assumption that you can just START OUT with some justification for wedging (possibly contaminated) material of ONE religion into close proximity with sick people... well, it seems flawed to me.

And, this brings us to the secondary concern (which Neo has inflated to being the ONLY concern).

If I DO choose to accept some small risk, should I not, at least, get to choose WHICH risk?

The assumption that you can just START OUT with some justification for wedging (possibly contaminated) material of ONE religion into close proximity with sick people... well, it seems flawed to me.
Exactly … especially when I am paying for that room (or my insurance is whichever)

I mean working in a medical facility we sterilize EVERYTHING including the springs on the bed frame! But somehow that book gets passed from person to person

And, this brings us to the secondary concern (which Neo has inflated to being the ONLY concern).


Grave lets be clear. The idea of Bibles transmitting MRSA is not why this issue arose. Read the title article and you would see that there is "an investigation" into the possiblity that the Bibles are transmitting MRSA but the complaint was risen by people who thought that the Bibles being there would be religiously offensive. Now since no one of a non Christian religion has complained I see no reason for crys of religous offence.

20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh [read "penis"] of asses, and whose issue [read "semen"] the issue of horses.

True, this chapter is allegorical - but really, is this fit for family reading time?

I know you quoted the rest of it, but you bolded this verse.

Quick Quiz: How many of you know a child who would see 'flesh' and think 'penis'? Anyone? How about one who would see 'issue' and think 'semen'?

Well, /I've/ never met one. Unless the Gideons include footnotes now?

(I'll admit, though, that the chapter invites interesting questions... 'Mummy, what's a whoredom?')

Mildly off topic... are hospital bibles the blue ones?

Oh, and to whoever made the lamp analogy - was it a deliberate association with the oil lamp the Gideons use as their symbol?

Grave lets be clear. The idea of Bibles transmitting MRSA is not why this issue arose. Read the title article and you would see that there is "an investigation" into the possiblity that the Bibles are transmitting MRSA but the complaint was risen by people who thought that the Bibles being there would be religiously offensive. Now since no one of a non Christian religion has complained I see no reason for crys of religous offence.

According to the ONE article you posted... and, I notice, you have posted no further articles, nor debated whether the original article was accurate or fair.

The ARTICLE was spawned due to religious issues.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the Leicester Health Service chose not to re-supply at that time, for THAT reason.

Having lived in Leicester for a decade, and seen how it is an example of cultures generally getting along, it seems unlikely that LHS decided to start a big religious crusade.

So - if finger pointing is going to be done, I'm afraid that the (entirely partisan) Gideons are a more likely suspect.

Exactly … especially when I am paying for that room (or my insurance is whichever)

I mean working in a medical facility we sterilize EVERYTHING including the springs on the bed frame! But somehow that book gets passed from person to person

There is the solution, I think... I absolutely agree with you, it is ridiculous to pass a book from hand to hand, in a supposedly sterile environment.

So - if Gideons are allowed to continue pushing their propoganda, I have a fix:

They should deliver PLASTIC-WRAPPED Bibles... factory-sealed. And, any orphaned bible, left unwrapped in a drawer, should be burned once the patient leaves.

Of course - this still means that the Bible CAN harbour germs WHILE it is being 'used', but the sterile wrap ensures a much lower risk.

There is the solution, I think... I absolutely agree with you, it is ridiculous to pass a book from hand to hand, in a supposedly sterile environment.

So - if Gideons are allowed to continue pushing their propoganda, I have a fix:

They should deliver PLASTIC-WRAPPED Bibles... factory-sealed. And, any orphaned bible, left unwrapped in a drawer, should be burned once the patient leaves.

Of course - this still means that the Bible CAN harbour germs WHILE it is being 'used', but the sterile wrap ensures a much lower risk.
Yeah I think that would be a much better solution

I mean it always seemed silly … us worrying about disinfecting bed frame springs and Coat hangers for god sake but leave this book sitting there from person to person
(now we got to get a book publisher to leaved sealed copies of some good fiction work there instead of the bible … to me a more interesting read (though personally I consider both “fictional” but you know what I mean))

Grave lets be clear. The idea of Bibles transmitting MRSA is not why this issue arose. Read the title article and you would see that there is "an investigation" into the possiblity that the Bibles are transmitting MRSA but the complaint was risen by people who thought that the Bibles being there would be religiously offensive. Now since no one of a non Christian religion has complained I see no reason for crys of religous offence.

Bullshit.

As has been shown, the "title article" is a false spin but on the issue by the over-reaction of the Gideons.

The issue did not start with a concern about the Bibles being religiously offensive. The issue started with the chaplain's office temporarily halting the restocking of the Bibles until the MRSA issue was discussed. The issue of offense also became a subject of discussion. There is no doubt the issue of offense was one concern, but it was not the main one.

AND the issue has been resolved. Bibles will be provided and people can take then home. They won't be passed from patient to patient, so they won't spread infection.

You persist in "debating" a strawman -- a "PC threat" that never existed.

Hospitals defend MRSA Bible move (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/4605827.stm)
Row as hospital Bibles linked to bug (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1499112,00.html)
Media infected by rogue Bible ban story bug (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05064bug.shtml)
God awful row over hospital bibles link to MRSA bug (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10699)
Do bibles spread the superbug MRSA? (http://i-newswire.com/pr23857.html)
Praise the Lord, and Pass the Antiseptic (http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=1147&topicid=79)
Bibles 'may spread superbug' (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/03/hospital.bibles/)
Embarrassing hospital row resolved - everyone takes bibles home with them (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10719)
ChristianityToday - Leicester Hospital Controversy Resolved as Patients told to Keep Bibles (http://www.christiantoday.com/news/society/leicester.hospital.controversy.resolved.as.patients.told.to.keep.bibles/297.htm) (baised article, but confirms the issue is over and the Bibles are still being provided)


(FYI, the first three citations are the ones I provided before, but NC ignored. Just noting that before anyone claims I was trying to be deceptive.)

Bullshit.

As has been shown, the "title article" is a false spin but on the issue by the over-reaction of the Gideons.

The issue did not start with a concern about the Bibles being religiously offensive. The issue started with the chaplain's office temporarily halting the restocking of the Bibles until the MRSA issue was discussed. The issue of offense also became a subject of discussion. There is no doubt the issue of offense was one concern, but it was not the main one.

AND the issue has been resolved. Bibles will be provided and people can take then home. They won't be passed from patient to patient, so they won't spread infection.

You persist in "debating" a strawman -- a "PC threat" that never existed.

Hospitals defend MRSA Bible move (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/4605827.stm)
Row as hospital Bibles linked to bug (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1499112,00.html)
Media infected by rogue Bible ban story bug (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05064bug.shtml)
God awful row over hospital bibles link to MRSA bug (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10699)
Do bibles spread the superbug MRSA? (http://i-newswire.com/pr23857.html)
Praise the Lord, and Pass the Antiseptic (http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=1147&topicid=79)
Bibles 'may spread superbug' (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/03/hospital.bibles/)
Embarrassing hospital row resolved - everyone takes bibles home with them (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10719)
ChristianityToday - Leicester Hospital Controversy Resolved as Patients told to Keep Bibles (http://www.christiantoday.com/news/society/leicester.hospital.controversy.resolved.as.patients.told.to.keep.bibles/297.htm) (baised article, but confirms the issue is over and the Bibles are still being provided)


(FYI, the first three citations are the ones I provided before, but NC ignored. Just noting that before anyone claims I was trying to be deceptive.)
Good decision on their part … (hopefully they have a plan to throw out the old bibles if a person chooses not to take it home with them)

honestly, this really un-tethers my goat


I see they even call mental homes "community care" homes now....

its like Madness gone Politically correct

Good decision on their part … (hopefully they have a plan to throw out the old bibles if a person chooses not to take it home with them)

I agree. And, I consider it a good sign that, with the exception of a the occasional 'extreme' element - the real decision fairly closely matches the consensus arrived at in our debate.

Bullshit.

As has been shown, the "title article" is a false spin but on the issue by the over-reaction of the Gideons.

The issue did not start with a concern about the Bibles being religiously offensive. The issue started with the chaplain's office temporarily halting the restocking of the Bibles until the MRSA issue was discussed. The issue of offense also became a subject of discussion. There is no doubt the issue of offense was one concern, but it was not the main one.

AND the issue has been resolved. Bibles will be provided and people can take then home. They won't be passed from patient to patient, so they won't spread infection.

You persist in "debating" a strawman -- a "PC threat" that never existed.

Hospitals defend MRSA Bible move (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/4605827.stm)
Row as hospital Bibles linked to bug (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1499112,00.html)
Media infected by rogue Bible ban story bug (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05064bug.shtml)
God awful row over hospital bibles link to MRSA bug (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10699)
Do bibles spread the superbug MRSA? (http://i-newswire.com/pr23857.html)
Praise the Lord, and Pass the Antiseptic (http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=1147&topicid=79)
Bibles 'may spread superbug' (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/03/hospital.bibles/)
Embarrassing hospital row resolved - everyone takes bibles home with them (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=10719)
ChristianityToday - Leicester Hospital Controversy Resolved as Patients told to Keep Bibles (http://www.christiantoday.com/news/society/leicester.hospital.controversy.resolved.as.patients.told.to.keep.bibles/297.htm) (baised article, but confirms the issue is over and the Bibles are still being provided)


(FYI, the first three citations are the ones I provided before, but NC ignored. Just noting that before anyone claims I was trying to be deceptive.)

Unfortunately, Neo is pretty much immune to the effects of 'evidence'... and not afraid to construct arguments to fight, where none exist.

In fact, if I wished to be allegorical, I'd say he took over from the Wizard, after he vacated the Emerald City...

honestly, this really un-tethers my goat


I see they even call mental homes "community care" homes now....

its like Madness gone Politically correct
Someone has not read the whole thread including the end where it is indeed found out that it was INFECTION RISK that made them pause distribution (which is now uncaused) with the proviso that each patient gets their own bible not to be passed on to new patients