"An insult to the nations religious heritage" Lets see it's 2007AD, so The Kirks' been about for just under 2000 years - unless Jesus was born aged 35.
What was around for the MILLENIA before St Andrew squelched his way over the border to spread the good word? Surely the Pagans have the stronger claim to our "religious heritage" as they have been around a lot longer.

Patients are being visited at their own request, it's not like a couple of suits with raincoats over their arm are turning up at your bedside at 0800 on sunday and trying to convert the unbelievers. So its a minority religion, so was christianity once. Or is this the real problem The Kirk has with this move?????

But will NHS staff, and others, be allowed to wear crucifixes or burqas?

Moira Kerr, a Kirk elder said "There's no doubt the devil is at work in this."
One senior member of the Church of the Scotland claimed it proved "the devil had been busy" in Tayside"

Coo-eee! It's 2007! What has "the Devil" got to do with this?

Why shouldn't folk have visits from teachers of whatever faith or belief they profess?

#1

"The kirk's been around for just under 2000 years"

Wrong. The Kirk's been around since 1560.

Each to their own. It's past time Christians realised they cannot impose their superstitions on those who do not want them.

Mind you if it was a Wiccan ... I'd rather die unshriven!

Their "faith" is even more artificial than Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jainist, Buddhist and Jew put together!

#3 "the devil had been busy" in Tayside"

I think this is true, after all there was a fairly recent visit from an ex prime minister.

Stop the christians spreading fear among the masses. Bible thumping has cauced many people to become depressed through christian imposed guilt nagging away at the back of the brain.

The move has angered church-goers?
I wonder if this Moira Kerr was so quick to speak out against Muslims and other minorities.

As long as the visit is discreet and does not involve interaction with other patients, I see no harm in "pagans" having a healing visit from practicioners of their own "faith".

Since when are Scottish hospitals exclusively Christian? THey contain patients of all religious persuasions and if the patient wants the ministrations of a person of their own faith, what is the harm.

The shrill objectors to these "pagan" visits could be a wee bit open-minded and accepting but perhaps this is too much to hope for.

Chan e an diabhol.

Feuch gu bheil do theallach fhéin sguaibte, ma's tog thu luath do choimhearsnaich. Cha do bhris deagh urram ceann duine riamh, agus is mór-am-beud a bhi uair 's am bith as aonais. Cha mhair a' bhreug (Crìosdachd) ach seal.

Cuimhnich air na daoine bhon tànaig thu, agus lean gu dlùth ri cliù do shinnsre.

Biodh Crom ‘ga moladh!

Finally, a bunch of smart comments from the lot of you. You all make (common) sense to me. And, thanks for the laugh, #6. Good one!

I've often wondered why "Christians" get so upset when they discover that they don't have the monopoly on human thought that they historically sought via government imposition. Many of them are even unhappy with the fact that it is not their *specific* sect, or at least general perspective, within "Christianity" that gets the nod from a state (e.g., "the Kirk o Scotland" is one specific sect of a broader general perspective within "Christianity," namely, "Presbyterians," just as the American "Southern Baptist Convention" is one specific sect of a wider perspective, namely, "Calvinistic Missionary Baptists," etc).

Could it be that they want such a monopoly (and are consequently dismayed, leading to no little greetin an girnin, when they are not allowed to have their desired monopoly), because they realise the futility of competing with faith systems that are more self-referentially coherent, less sadomasochistic, more tolerant, less anal retentive, etc? Oh, I realise I'm giving some of the other alternatives more credit than they are due, but seriously, why did it take state-imposed conversion by the sword in so many places (not all, granted, but those also need to be looked at more critically than many historians were historically willing to do), if "Christianity" is really so much "better" than any other given Religion or Sacred Tradition?

"Christian" Apologetics is a joke; I would rather engage in dialogue with a Pagan Platonist or Aristotelian any day than an indoctrinated pseudo-inellectual regurgitating the propaganda of guilt trips, scare tactics, and proof-texting that passes for "apologetics" in "Christianity."

I am very envious of the Pagan Community in Scotland. I hope there comes a time when we can be successful as you guys are being out in the open. We are out in the open here but you would never hear of having a pagan chaplain in the hospital. I only hope that one day Christians can look past the Hollywood hype and except us as we are.

Some of the comments of the Kirk members remind me of our own Christian fundamentalists.

Spreading hatred of any religion is far more dangerous and far more evil than allowing people to believe what they want and practice what they want and that does include the humanists and the atheists. Directing people to what to hate or fear is a way of gaining power over them.

I am amazed at any religious person who would claim that any person of another religion is evil simply for their beliefs. Regardless of what belief you have there will be good and evil people who share your beliefs. This has nothing to do with your belief system but everything to do with the nature of people.

The Kirk is still living in the dark ages. It is about time that they actually looked at what Pagans beleived and not what they think that we beleive. Modern Pagans are here to stay whether they like it or not, we do not or ever had a devil in our religion. Every Pagan that I know has love for their fellow man, funny that! is that not what Christ advocated and yet certain of his followers are hell bent in trying to discredit other religious practises in favour of their own. I must apologise to all the forward thinking Christians who do not think this way.
If a person who is sick needs some comfort from his chaplain regardless of what religion this should be available, in fact it should be their right.
Another point that I wish to mention is that Pagans do not evangelise, so the problem of them interacting with any other patient would not arise. People come to paganism of their own free will.
I am glad that Tayside have been so forward thinking and I hope that other councils will follow suit. People should have the choice to their belief.
Brightest Blessings
Sprite

The devil has been at work in the Strathclyde area for a very long time, or did our christian friends forget about sectarianism.

I for one will be pleased not to face harrassment from any christian representative. If the pagan clergy and others have to stick to formal requests then it would be nice for the Christian clergy to keep to formal requests aswell.
A friend of mine had to endure a pompus Christian clergy visit whilst helping her daughter recover from cancer...that most certainly did not help with the chemotherapy that day.

Thanks to the Scottish Pagan Federation for all their hard work and to the NHS for at last recognising Scotlands religious heritage.

Sounds entirely sensible, though it is a bit shocking that this wasn't done sometime last century. Hopefully the Christian bigots quoted are representative of neither their religion's churches nor adherents. And one hopes that other religious denominations have the same restrictions on evangelising in hospitals.

On the whole a well balanced collection of comments.
As for the article, I thought the tongue-in-cheek reference to flaming torches in the wards was well worth a giggle.

It is about time Pagans had the right to be attended by their own. For too long people have had the idea its all to do with the Devil (A christian creation). Well done Scotland - Blessed Be

An interesting discussion, marred by puerile and offensive comments (from Fartina Spacesuit and Gizzabreak, respectively - shame on your both). Having said that, perhaps such comments are not all that surprising alongside an article that gives a platform to the religious intolerance of Moira Kerr and some anonymous ‘senior member of the Church of Scotland’.

Just as a general point, this NHS Tayside ‘initiative’ is actually not as groundbreaking as the SOS and Scotsman’s reports suggest. As Rev Chris Levisson points out in the article, the NHS in Scotland is an inclusive service that has a duty to meet the spiritual and pastoral care needs of all patients equally, regardless of religion or faith. This focus on one particular faith group is an unhelpful diversion from the excellent progress that has been made in recent years.

Can they do animal sacrifices to appease their gods?

Can we still burn witches?

I'm a chaplain in another trust and I agree with what's happened in Tayside.

I hope my trust follows suit so we can really say we are providing person centered care to people of all faiths and non.

The old faiths are due the respect we've given others. The area I live and work in have more people who practise the old ways than we have muslim, judaism and eastern faiths yet they don't get recognition by staff.