"Archbishop Vincent Nichols attacks NHS over compassion"

Yes but it's entirely possible for religion to exist without it being responsible for peoples' deaths. The fact that History hasn't shown this is no reason why it shouldn't be true.

Religion has its benefits which can exist independent of its detrimental effects on humanity. In my opinion Christianity should not give people reasons to kill each other (for example) and the fact that organised religion is responsible for death suggests to me that the way in which organised religion exists today is wrong. But that doesn't mean it can't exist in a form that's beneficial for people.

I guess you can't really blame religion for the deaths. I'd say that the blame lies with the religious believers who interpret their religion in their own way, and sometimes their interpretations lead to violent acts. However I guess the various contradictions in some religions don't help at all.

As long as there is more than one mainstream religion proclaiming absolute truths, people will die.

To try and pretend that bloodshed is not intrinsic to religion is foolish. History has shown many, many times over this, to such an extent that it's impossible to view it any other way. Inter-religious wars, the murder of scientists whose work went against the church's way of thinking, the denouncement of condoms spreading AIDS, these are just a few examples.

As I have said, I have no argument with religion. People should believe whatever makes sense to them personally. But they don't need to be brainwashed at an early age into following the teachings of a corrupt organisation. That isn't religion. That's cultism.

I think Helen & I certainly would consider those sorts of things as just being professional rather than especially compassionate!

Doing core jobs in a compassionate & caring way is very doable & adds minimal time. But it's the patient/relative expectations & blurred lines of what they consider the doctors job to be at any specific moment & what we consider our job priorities that the grey comes in as to whether we're compassionate enough perhaps?


So my examples:
Preadmissions clinic
- Patient: So now I'm going to find out & have re-explained everything about why i'm having this operation & what will happen while I'm in hospital. It's really important that doctor has lots of details about everything in my life. While I'm here I also want to ask the doctor about these other health things too...
- Doctor doing preadmissions clinic: Are there anaesthetic issues at present? Is their drug chart complete?

Hospital at night cover
- Patient: Oh, I have a really itchy foot right now - why doesn't the doctor care enough to come & prescribe me my usual emollients right now?
- Patient relatives: I'd really like to rediscuss all these complex issues with the doctors looking after my relative right now, just so it's all really clear to me, I can ask lots of questions and vent.
- Nursing staff projecting their fears: Oh dear, this patient doesn't look very well at all. It says here in the notes from the Palliative Care Consultant that they're for 'palliative care and symptom control only'. They don't have any symptoms right now. But all their family are here. I should probably bleep the on-call doctor because they should do something.
- Doctor doing night cover: I'm trying to keep patients, who are for have helpful medical interventions that we can offer, alive overnight. Then hopefully tomorrow any more subtle issues can be addressed by the regular team who know them, including specialists as appropriate, when the hospital has a vaguely sensible staffing level again. Oh - there goes the crash bleep again...

It's also caused far more tragedy, broken up far more families, and killed far more people both indirectly and directly than I ever will.

So I dare say we're about even.

You can't blame religion for their deaths?

How about the crusades, funded by the Holy Roman Empire? How about areas present in practically all religious texts, which state that non-believers are evil?

Which specific tragedy are you talking about?

the crusades can be blamed upon the religious believers and not the religion itself. Holy war is not recommended in christianity and is meant as a last resort should all else fail. Jihad in Islam is not meant to provide an excuse for terrorists to kill innocent people, yet terrorist believe that Jihad justifies killing innocents even if it goes against the core beliefs in Islam. So again, religious believers who twist the interpretations of religions to provide an excuse for their mindless acts of violence are at fault, not the religion itself.

Can't really say whether there are parts in holy texts which state that non-believers are evil, however I do know that the mainstream religions promote the sanctity of life, so any act of taking human life is not condoned under mainstream religions, so it must the relgiious believers who are at fault.

It depends whether "mainstream" religion endorses murder directly or indirectly. Religion does not have to involve bloodshed, the fact that it has largely done so in the past is irrelevant to the fact that it could easily exist today without endorsing murder. Bloodshed, particularly on a large scale, is never attributable to religion alone but is the result of religion being used as an instrument of political, racial or cultural propaganda to cause violence. This is wrong and is something organised religion should avoid.

There is no clear line between whose fault it is for the religion and the religious followers. This isn't an isolated incident where relatively few people have been killed and it has been blamed on a film, for example. It's a mass scale problem, where millions upon millions of people have died.

And that's before you get onto the direct, often murderous, influence that the catholic church in particular has dealt with scientists opposing their views in the past.

Religion and violence are unescapable. You cannot have one without the other. If there are two texts which both proclaim to be the sole truth there will always be violence. And bear in mind as well that the people doing the killing, the ones you are trying to pass the blame off on instead of religion, have often been enshrined in the religion from such as early age that they have effectively been brainwashed.

For a case in point, just look at Buddhism. Theirs is the most peaceful religion, I think anyone will agree. And yet their followers are still persecuted and slaughtered because of conflicting views.

I'm not talking about any tragedy specifically, but moreover the thousands of personal tragedies it's caused. Babies brought into this world when their mothers can't look after them (and can't have abortions), depression in individuals because they believe themselves to be steeped in sin, the murder of people with different views, the blinding of people to only be able to believe one set of rules rather than be allowed to think logically. These all count as tragedies.



Those in Northern Ireland. Those in Glasgow. Families anywhere around the world where two religions are popular and conflicting.



Directly: Millions upon millions of people through holy wars.

Indirectly: The murder of people contracting HIV due to not using condoms on religious grounds. Suicide from people who feel too ashamed of themselves due to living in sin to live.



I rarely read the Daily Mail. However, I was under the impression that it would support christianity, not be against it? I also wouldn't have thought it would try and tackle an issue as controversial as christianity when there are far safer scapegoats, such as immigration or binge drinking, that it can be spreading filth about.

You need to read something more than the Bible, and appreciate the wider context surrounding religion.





My next point applies to both of you.

There is no clear line between whose fault it is for the religion and the religious followers. This isn't an isolated incident where relatively few people have been killed and it has been blamed on a film, for example. It's a mass scale problem, where millions upon millions of people have died.

And that's before you get onto the direct, often murderous, influence that the catholic church in particular has dealt with scientists opposing their views in the past.

Religion and violence are unescapable. You cannot have one without the other. If there are two texts which both proclaim to be the sole truth there will always be violence. And bear in mind as well that the people doing the killing, the ones you are trying to pass the blame off on instead of religion, have often been enshrined in the religion from such as early age that they have effectively been brainwashed.

For a case in point, just look at Buddhism. Theirs is the most peaceful religion, I think anyone will agree. And yet their followers are still persecuted and slaughtered because of conflicting views.

can people stop putting too much ad hominum into this debate and slating religion? yes it has its faults, i agree with that, (im an athiest btw) but i really think that it does a hell of a lot of good for this country. it gives people hope, purpose, and love. some of the nicest people i know are christians, and there are so many christian charities that do so much good. it provides the moral code for so many people, and inspires so much good work. i know that there is often quite alot wrong with extreamist religon, but please dont judge all of it because of some people who take things too far. also, you cannot bring the crusades into this debate, as this happened 1000s of years ago! thats worse than judging the current germans for the holocaust. dont be all dawkins-like on us :P

some of the nicest people i know are christians