Religion Needed to be a Good Nurse?

Nurses Spirituality

Updated:   Published

We just covered a spiritituality/religion lesson in our BSN course and the instructor (religious) came out and said good nurses had spirituality and would be there for whatever spiritual needs the PT had. I understand the benefits of PTs being able to express their own spiritituality, but not being spiritual myself, I always assumed this could happen without me losing my own identity/belief system by praying with the PT. There are professionals in this area afterall and it's not as if nursing doesn't have enough on its plate already.

So the question is, does the nursing career, with all it's specialized education and skills, also view good nurses to be spiritual/religious or is this instructor taking some liberties with the topic?

ZASHAGALKA said:
(Jefferson mentioned the phrase 'separation of church and state' in his private writings, but not his public ones. Grant made mention of keeping the church and state separate. But neither made an attempt to incorporate that into the fabric of our laws. That concept (to incorporate Sep of C/S into our laws, mainly by judicial legislation) took hold in the post progressive movement of the 1940's and 1950's.)

Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli? I have a link if you like. Jefferson made it perfectly clear that the US is not based on the Christian religion. He couldn't have been more clear.

Besides, many of the founding fathers weren't even Christian!

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
HvnSntRN said:
Before I became a nurse, I left a very rule-oriented, high-control religious group (Jehovah's Witnesses) and no longer follow any religious path (other than helping other ex-JWs exit the group).

I sent you a PM. I realize this is neither the time nor the place but I would love to learn more about this topic. The topic of helping people leave a given religion (assuming of course, that they want to). Are you open to doing a little teaching such as in a PM or something?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
Bipley said:
Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli? I have a link if you like. Jefferson made it perfectly clear that the US is not based on the Christian religion. He couldn't have been more clear.

Besides, many of the founding fathers weren't even Christian!

I believe that I mentioned somewhere in the post you quoted that many of our founding fathers considered themselves to be agnostic but nevertheless understood the importance of religion in society.

And I'm well aware that Jefferson didn't consider America to be Christian nation - but that doesn't affect the point I was making at all.

The point I was making is that in order to have Sep of C/S, there is an implication that the gov't is empowered to enforce such a separation. No such power exists. In fact the whole point of the first amendment is to specifically point out that no such power is vested in the Federal gov't.

If you read Hamilton in the Federalists papers (some of which I quoted earlier in this thread), He felt that there was no way the gov't could address religion one way or another - to forward or restrict it.

So, for the gov't to say, for example, that you can't hang the ten commandments in a classroom - is an unconstitutional overreach of power. Even if it's a court ruling instead of the law. The limitations of powers were indeed aimed at the legislature. But the courts are part of the gov't and to the extent that they are usurping the power of the legislature, they are bound by the limitations placed upon the legislature.

Simply put, the concept of Sep of C/S grants the gov't powers the Constitution specifically denied the gov't. To the extent those powers move to the gov't, they are denied to the people.

It comes down to this: once you give the gov't the power to restrict religion (or any other basic right), that gov't becomes, in that instance, a gov't ruled by the opinions of men instead of a gov't of laws. That's fine so long as the men making the decisions agree with you. But a gov't of men is subject to political change. What happens when those men in power turn against you? Indeed, this is the core issue of the Supreme Cabal today regarding Justices and Roe v. Wade. An ideological Court was a wonderful idea to Liberals in the 50's-60's, but those same liberals are decrying the potential ideology shift on the Court today.

And to assert that the gov't can restrict religion also implies that it can enforce religion. So how will you feel about the control of religion being in the hands of gov't in 50 yrs when the political landscape changes and you are now required to profess the name of Jesus in order to participate in any gov't services? Giving the gov't the right to restrict Christian beliefs inplies that it also has the rights to restrict an athiest's beliefs, depending upon who is in power.

This is precisely why our founding fathers focused on forming a Gov't of Laws. And it is why sep of c/s is so dangerous. Hamilton believe that we should be a greater majority to ourselves. A gov't ruled by men divides that greater majority and makes us a divided country. It turns us into a simple democracy. And our founding fathers thought a democracy was a horrible form of gov't. That's why we aren't a democracy. We are, in fact, a representative Republic.

~faith,

Timothy.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×

not a balanced statement. how can i take your sentiment seriously when you claim that religious people are "...probably the most cruel people walking the face of the earth"? you opinion about someone not being religious strikes me as very infantile. from merriam-webster online we discover the following definitions for religious:

i think there is a misunderstanding here. i didn't read the original poster as saying all religious people are cruel but instead the group s/he has been exposed to.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care, Pediatrics, Geriatrics.
Bipley said:
As an atheist I should probably be insulted by this statement, but I'm not. Amazingly, it does NOT take religion to encompass basic loving, caring, or moral values that we hold ourselves accountable for. That is essentially saying that without religion one is not capable of morality or love. Isn't that also saying that without religion we'd be out there eating babies too?

And that, is just silly.

There are many different things that make an individual a good nurse, and for many, religion plays a huge part...just the same as experiences...my experiences impact me differently than yours do you...same as spirituality. I think that for true heart felt believers, that spiritual influence within their thinking adds to their nursing ability. However, if one is an atheist, that doesn't mean they are lacking something.

eating babies?:rotfl: What are YOU talking about?!:uhoh3:

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
ZASHAGALKA said:
So, for the gov't to say, for example, that you can't hang the ten commandments in a classroom - is an unconstitutional overreach of power. Even if it's a court ruling instead of the law. The limitations of powers were indeed aimed at the legislature. But the courts are part of the gov't and to the extent that they are usurping the power of the legislature, they are bound by the limitations placed upon the legislature.

That's an interesting take of what is written. Can't say I agree with you but it is an interesting take nonetheless.

I think it only behooves the Christians to keep gov't and religion wiiiiiide apart. The reason is that at the rate Christianity is on the decline and other beliefs (atheism and Paganism) is on the rise, I believe it is by the year 2042 that Christianity will no longer be the majority religion in the US.

IOW, if those of faith want to push their religion into schools and gov't, they should really rethink this one. In 2042 maybe there will be religion in schools and gov't buildings, but it is quite unlikely it will be the Christian brand of religion. I don't know, maybe our future generations will be worshiping Ra the sun God in a public school.

Personally, I don't care which Gods there are by 2042, I don't want any of them in public buildings.

But, back to my issue. I really think we need to take a good long look at this issue regarding our own profession. Why do we seem to resort to an "us vs. them" attitude when it comes to religion? Why do some assume I can't have morality unless I share their God? In the real world why do I feel very uncomfortable telling my Christian coworkers that I am a full blown, hard core, happy, peppy, perky, atheist? Why does it cause problems in the work place when others know of our atheism? If you don't think it happens, I assure you it does. On a professional level with the hospital it is totally a non issue for two reasons. We don't tell so they don't know, and even if they did know I have to give our nuns a WORLD of credit, they would never permit religion or lack of religion to become an issue in a professional environment. If they care that I am an atheist, I doubt I would ever know. They want to know that I'm busting my back side to make sure my patients are well cared for and happy little campers. Aren't they on the right track? I think so.

So that makes me wonder why we end up with an us vs. them mentality in personal relationships within the work place. Meaning, while the nuns don't care what God I worship, if any, my Christian coworkers would care very much. When they make horrific comments regarding the "secular section of the world" while not realizing they are directing their comments my way... what does this say about us as a profession? That we don't work and play well with others?

I just think we should either be free to tell of our beliefs or lack of belief to our coworkers without the judgmental attitudes that come with it or, we should ALL practice the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And I mean ALL of us.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
asoldierswife05 said:
eating babies?:rotfl: What are YOU talking about?!:uhoh3:

Oh, that's kind of an atheist joke. When someone refers to being a baby eater that means that some of the fundamentalist Christians believe if we don't share their God then we must have the morality of a baby eater. It's a short cut to explaining how a small, closed minded, group of people view us. Not Christians as a whole, but a small minority of them.

Not sure what religion you are or are not (I haven't been paying attention to who believes what) but you might be very shocked at the attitudes some have about atheists. There really are people out there that believe all morality comes from their God and if we don't have their God in our lives, we surely can't have morality. And if an atheist does have morality, they are the exception to the rule.

This is why I never ever tell a Christian at my place of employment of my lack of belief.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care, Pediatrics, Geriatrics.
Bipley said:
Oh, that's kind of an atheist joke. When someone refers to being a baby eater that means that some of the fundamentalist Christians believe if we don't share their God then we must have the morality of a baby eater. It's a short cut to explaining how a small, closed minded, group of people view us. Not Christians as a whole, but a small minority of them.

Not sure what religion you are or are not (I haven't been paying attention to who believes what) but you might be very shocked at the attitudes some have about atheists. There really are people out there that believe all morality comes from their God and if we don't have their God in our lives, we surely can't have morality. And if an atheist does have morality, they are the exception to the rule.

This is why I never ever tell a Christian at my place of employment of my lack of belief.

I am sorry that this has been your experience. I am a Christian, but I respect non-believers no more or no less than any other religion. It is part of my religious teachings that has made me so tolerant of others and non-judgemental. There are many Christians out there that try to force their opinions and pass judgement...these, IMO, are hippocrits(sp?) I would rather work with a group of atheists that are caring healthcare providers than one Christian who claims to live by the Word of God, but cuts corners, talks about others, and gives unsafe pt care. (((HUG)))

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Bipley said:
This is why I never ever tell a Christian at my place of employment of my lack of belief.

I had to laugh a little. I'm not secretive about my religious beliefs at all, but a bunch of us from work went out for dinner the other night and several were taking the Lord's name in vain. I was teasing them and said "Come on now, I'm the only non-Christian here and the only one not commiting such blasphemy?" (totally kidding). They laughed and then one of them looked at me completely shocked and said "You're not Christian?". I never even realized we hadn't discussed that before:chuckle Fortunately I work with some cool girls and none of them care or think less of me.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
asoldierswife05 said:
I am sorry that this has been your experience. I am a Christian, but I respect non-believers no more or no less than any other religion. It is part of my religious teachings that has made me so tolerant of others and non-judgemental. There are many Christians out there that try to force their opinions and pass judgement...these, IMO, are hippocrits(sp?) I would rather work with a group of atheists that are caring healthcare providers than one Christian who claims to live by the Word of God, but cuts corners, talks about others, and gives unsafe pt care. (((HUG)))

I guess atheism gives "Dark Humor" a whole new meaning, eh? LOL!!! Sorry, couldn't resist.

I mainly post on an atheism board. I think you might be surprised to see what types of Christians we get in there attempting to convert us. Do they really think for one minute we want to behave like them? Yikes!

I used to keep a mental list of this stuff but I let it go years ago. But quickly, I've been told/called:

~amoral,

~Godless heathen (I'm not Pagan, I can't be a heathen),

~heartless,

~cruel,

~unable to care about others,

~evil,

~spawn of satan (a personal favorite),

~uncaring,

~demon like,

~devil worshiper,

~devil's helper,

~I've been told I must surely have the mark of the beast on my hands and it was actually insisted upon that I show my hands so they could see the mark, (looking again... nope, still not there) ?

~I've been told I am evil for accepting US currency in my paycheck because it's God's money (in God we trust),

~I've been told I cannot possibly be an American as only God fearing people can be Americans,

~No atheists in foxholes (plenty of atheist vets would disagree),

~I've been told I'm too nice so I can't possibly be an atheist, atheists are mean,

~I've been instructed to move out of the country and go somewhere that accepts atheists because the US isn't accepting of us,

~I've been accused of having demons in my soul that give my coworker headaches (that's a professional example),

~I've been told I shouldn't make as much money as a Christian because Christians donate such a significant amount of money to their church. I'm keeping MY church's share thus, I should have a decrease in pay,

....

The list goes on.

It used to bother me but now I consider the source. People are people and that's how the world works.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in 5 yrs OR, ASU Pre-Op 2 yr. ER.

Religion is personal thing. It is up to the individual as to whether they need it or not to be a good nurse.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

In regards to sep of c/s:

Once you give the gov't the power to limit religion, you give it the power, at its discretion, to limit all religions to the exclusion of the religion of its choice.

Today, the gov't's preferred religion is humanism. But what about tomorrow?

In any case, that is quite Unconstitutional.

~faith,

Timothy.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment