Religion Needed to be a Good Nurse?

[Kabin]

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?

[Jo Dirt]

Bipley said:

As amazing as it is, atheists... those with no religion, no God, no religious rules, we are quite able to maintain a modicum of morality. I know I know... weird - yet true.

Personally I would be more concerned about those that feel the ONLY reason they maintain morality and NOT kill people is because they will suffer an eternity of punishment if they do. Sometimes we don't want to harm others just because it's wrong.

This has been the way I've felt for a long time. Like prisoners who suddenly turn to God after a murderous rampage when they are locked away from being able to kill anymore.

Too bad God didn't decide to reach out to them before they did what they did.

No possessions AND NO RELIGION, TOO.

[Hopalong]

As amazing as it is, atheists... those with no religion, no God, no religious rules, we are quite able to maintain a modicum of morality. I know I know... weird - yet true.

Personally I would be more concerned about those that feel the ONLY reason they maintain morality and NOT kill people is because they will suffer an eternity of punishment if they do. Sometimes we don't want to harm others just because it's wrong.

Let us not forget, morality and laws of the land existed long before religion did. In order for a society to survive people must work together and refrain from harming each other. This is basic instinct, not religion that is responsible for this.

Look, if you happen to need religion to prevent yourself from behaving badly, then all the power to you! Go to church, do whatever it is that you do. But please don't assume that it takes religion for all of us to be nice people in society or in the work place.

I understand what you are saying, honestly I do. I don't agree with it in the least but I understand your point. But what I don't think you are considering is that both theists and atheists alike could be insulted by your comments. While I realize that isn't your intent, I think you might want to look at the bigger picture of your posts.

What you are saying is either:

Theists (those with a God) only behave themselves and refrain from harming others because they will be punished if they don't (not giving a of credit to theists here, are you?) ...

Or,

Atheists (those without a God) are unable to prevent themselves from harming others because they have no God, no morality, and they should be feared. (not a lot of credit there either)

Either way, aren't you insulting a whole lot of people here? Again, I fully realize this isn't your intent, but it is the end result.

" To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence."

Mark Twain

You must be very successful.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

As amazing as it is, atheists... those with no religion, no God, no religious rules, we are quite able to maintain a modicum of morality. I know I know... weird - yet true.

Personally I would be more concerned about those that feel the ONLY reason they maintain morality and NOT kill people is because they will suffer an eternity of punishment if they do. Sometimes we don't want to harm others just because it's wrong.

Let us not forget, morality and laws of the land existed long before religion did. In order for a society to survive people must work together and refrain from harming each other. This is basic instinct, not religion that is responsible for this.

Look, if you happen to need religion to prevent yourself from behaving badly, then all the power to you! Go to church, do whatever it is that you do. But please don't assume that it takes religion for all of us to be nice people in society or in the work place.

I understand what you are saying, honestly I do. I don't agree with it in the least but I understand your point. But what I don't think you are considering is that both theists and atheists alike could be insulted by your comments. While I realize that isn't your intent, I think you might want to look at the bigger picture of your posts.

What you are saying is either:

Theists (those with a God) only behave themselves and refrain from harming others because they will be punished if they don't (not giving a of credit to theists here, are you?) ...

Or,

Atheists (those without a God) are unable to prevent themselves from harming others because they have no God, no morality, and they should be feared. (not a lot of credit there either)

Either way, aren't you insulting a whole lot of people here? Again, I fully realize this isn't your intent, but it is the end result.

(Sorry so long:)

I can't imagine that it would be an insult to theists. I want to have this conversation without delving into the Bible to prove my points. But, in regards to Christians at least, and the concept of being offended by religion being a tool to enforce morality, the first part of Rom 13 discusses why it's necessary to obey the laws. There are 2 reasons: 1. fear of punishment, 2. conscience sake.

I would argue that the reason why religion is indeed so universal is that it enforces a moral code. If you look at most religions, 90% of religion is about morality and 10% is about worshipping God. Don’t lie, Don’t steal, Don’t murder, Honor your parents, Don’t commit adultery, Don’t covet. What do these things have to do with ‘eternity’? They have to do with the here and now.

Religion is indeed, in many ways, a civil code of ethics. And I would disagree with you that the laws of the land came first. In many cases, it is religion itself that provided the first moral codes that allowed for peaceful co-existence. You could argue that it also causes lots of conflict, but even that serves a purpose. The conflicts caused by religion serve to reinforce a societal connected-ness AT THE EXPENSE of other societies.

And this is the essence of Hamilton’s argument in the Federalist papers: that in order for the Constitution to be successful, we had to create the means to make us a greater society to ourselves. He didn’t propose religion be the answer, but a gov’t of laws and not man.

I would argue that the reason why you have the nurturing to be a moral person without religion is because of the phenomenal success of our Constitution. The US Constitution is a wonderful philosophy, creating a greater majority (creating Americans) without religion being its principle glue. Our society has been successful at nurturing ethics no matter the underlying religious beliefs. There is a reason why this is such a successful society!

But throughout history, it has been religion that is the glue that bands groups together and gives them their identity – at the expense of other groups. When survival is a function of the conservation of precious resources, the ability to distinguish your group from others is essential.

To the extent that you believe that following a moral code is ‘instinctual’, you buy into the argument of humanism: that we are capable of being our own deities. And that is theistic in its viewpoint, after a fashion.

You might argue that we have grown, with tools like the Constitution, to the point that we are capable of being moral without a theistic code, but I don’t believe that it is a credible argument that humans innately hold that code. Because in the end, morality isn’t a matter of nature, but nurture.

So I could argue that the government has a vested interest in promoting religion: because it’s promotion serves a vital interest – augmenting the morality that reduces crime and incivility.

I’m not arguing that the gov’t promote religion: just that it stop trying to quash it. Why? Because it augments morality and reduces crime and incivility. A wise gov’t must at least understand this concept enough not to get in the way. And I believe that our founding fathers realized this.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Timothy, good post above.

A relgious moral code is o.k. But we have to remember that it's not the Constitution of the United States, as you pointed out.

America is a bit of odd ball. There isn't much historical precident for such a mish mash of cultures and religions. While looking back at the history of the world is beneficial, there isn't much precident, but for our own success the last 250 years.

The government's vested interest in one religion is dangerous to someone like me because I'm excluded.

Having the government step out of religion I don't think will be the downfall of this nation........as long as "freedom of religion" remains intact. This means individuals are free to worship and teach their moral values to their families and religious communities and practice those and thrive.

I think some people are using fear based tactics when they cry "the government is trying to squash religion in America". "You're freedom of religion is being trampled on." I don't buy it.

[Turd.Ferguson]

This has been the way I've felt for a long time. Like prisoners who suddenly turn to God after a murderous rampage when they are locked away from being able to kill anymore.

Too bad God didn't decide to reach out to them before they did what they did....

As a Christian, it is our belief that God is always reaching out to us, but we turn away from Him. Often it is only when we are in dire straits that we reach toward God.

However, we should all remember that religion is man-made. It was religious beliefs that drove the terrorists on September 11th. The killers believed they would receive a wonderful afterlife for killing us infidels.

It is up to each person to find the truth for him/herself. I try to follow the principles of the Holy Bible. Someone else follows the Koran.

Who's right? We'll find out in the end.

[Bipley]

" To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence."

Mark Twain

You must be very successful.

Perhaps you would explain in a little detail why you feel I am ignorant and confident.

[Bipley]

I can't imagine that it would be an insult to theists.

Right... just the atheists so it's okay.

Look, since slams are starting to fly the thread will be closed and I'm not going to participate in a slam fest anyway.

However, this thread did a good job of one issue, it points out the issues we deal with in a work situation. THIS, is what happens.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

.

Look, since slams are starting to fly the thread will be closed and I'm not going to participate in a slam fest anyway.

I don't think there's a slamfest going on. Unless I missed something.

What may shut this thread down is we've gone from nursing to separation of church and state which is non-nursing.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Right... just the atheists so it's okay.

Look, since slams are starting to fly the thread will be closed and I'm not going to participate in a slam fest anyway.

However, this thread did a good job of one issue, it points out the issues we deal with in a work situation. THIS, is what happens.

You misunderstand me altogether. I'm not slamming you. I can see how my point of view could, to use your word, 'insult' you - but you also said that it could insult theists - and all I did was disagree with that part because most theists, in my understanding, believe that religion as a reinforcement of moral/civil values is one of the principle reasons to practice. I disagreed with part of your argument; I didn't castigate you.

I love deep arguments. If you notice, I have not tried to convert you, either. I may be trying to point out why religion serves a public interest, but I haven't tried to point out why it serves YOUR interests.

If anything I've complimented you, me - and our nation - in one fell swoop. I argued that one of the reasons we have a society where you can be an atheist (or in my case, a theist) and a full fledged member of our society is because the Constitution created Americans. We are a nation of laws that, at least as far as it concerns our interactions with each other, are more important than our respective viewpoints. Otherwise, what else do we have in common? You are my brother/sister (as the case may be) - not because you go to church with me, the most common means of identity in the past - but because we are both Americans (or indirectly, Western cultured - there's your crossroad of nursing and Western Civ, Tweety). Amazing, if you ask me.

And Tweety, I think this discussion is at the heart of the thread. Do you need religion to be a nurse? The discussion of why/if religion is important in the first place underlies all opinions on the main thread topic.

And let me add that the reason why you don't need to be religious to be a good nurse is precisely because we have a common point of reference not based upon religion. And this is also why we are all educated in cultural differences we might encounter: so we can broaden that horizon to include all that come into our care.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Bipley and all else:

If you're interested, I'm currently reading a great book sort of on topic: "Spook" by Mary Roach (she wrote "Stiff" if you're familiar with that book.) She's a wonderful writer and the book is about the efforts to find proof of an afterlife.

(It's not a religious book - it won't convert you - but it sure is an interesting look into the lengths some in society have gone to in order to 'prove' an afterlife.)

~faith,

Timothy.

[fergus51]

Am I the only person who doesn't think religion is all about absolute moral codes? Have you ever read the Bible from a completely fresh point of view? There are the commandments, the no killing, the no coveting, etc. There are also parts where God commands mass murder or kills thousands himself (Amalektites anyone?). That doesn't seem like really good moral teaching for today's society. Our moral codes have developed in some cases because of religion and in other cases in spite of it. We don't stone sodomites or nurses like me who work on the Sabbath because modern society has developped a more civilised view of things outside of one book.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Am I the only person who doesn't think religion is all about absolute moral codes? Have you ever read the Bible from a completely fresh point of view? There are the commandments, the no killing, the no coveting, etc. There are also parts where God commands mass murder or kills thousands himself (Amalektites anyone?). That doesn't seem like really good moral teaching for today's society. Our moral codes have developed in some cases because of religion and in other cases in spite of it. We don't stone sodomites or nurses like me who work on the Sabbath because modern society has developped a more civilised view of things outside of one book.

I sort of think this is what we have been discussing in the last 2 pages of this thread. . .so no, you aren't the only one.

LOL.

~faith,

Timothy.