Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Religion in the dock

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    It does have something to do with it in this case, obviousy, but on this particular aspect of the case I think religion is tangential. The employer's motivation for objecting to the fertility treatment is, as it happens, religious, but they are not claiming that they are entitled to take the stance they are taking because they have a religious motivation. As we've seen, if they had purely secular concerns about some aspect of an employee's private life, they could advance similar arguments. So in this regard they are not looking for special treatment as a religious employer; they are seeking to rely on principles that any employer could rely on.


  • Options
    #33
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The government is to hire 18 chaplains for Irish prisons:

    http://www.thejournal.ie/chaplains-irish-prisons-1801609-Nov2014/

    The constitutional bar on the State "endowing religion" appears not to apply here either.


  • Options
    #34
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    My guess is the payments to the chaplains employed to fill the 3.5 vacancies mentioned will be salaries/wages paid to individuals for services rendered, rather than endowments on their respective faiths?


  • Options
    #35
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Absolam wrote: »
    My guess is the payments to the chaplains employed to fill the 3.5 vacancies mentioned will be salaries/wages paid to individuals for services rendered, rather than endowments on their respective faiths?
    "Endow" means "provide money to", not anything related to an endowment policy. The Irish Constitution explicitly prevents the State from "endowing" religions, but as with other church-related issues, the church and the state seem happy to ignore this article of the constitution.
    Irish Constitution wrote:
    Article 2.2: The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
    Which, in all fairness, is pretty unambiguous.


  • Options
    #36
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    robindch wrote: »
    "Endow" means "provide money to", not anything related to an endowment policy. The Irish Constitution explicitly prevents the State from "endowing" religions, but as with other church-related issues, the church and the state seem happy to ignore this article of the constitution.Which, in all fairness, is pretty unambiguous.
    But, I didn't say it had anything to do with an endowment policy? I agree, to endow is to provide or furnish with, whether it be money, goods, property etc. I just don't see where a religion in its own self is being provided with any such thing by the State in this instance.

    If the State is paying the chaplains, it's not providing money to the religion, it's providing it to the chaplains. And it's not endowing the chaplains; there is a reciprocity here which is not generally considered part of the meaning of endowment. This is a more a straightforward payment on a transaction; cash for services.

    So it seems to me it's no more an endowment of a religion than it would be endowing any religion which has a member who works in the civil service, and who receives a wage for the job they're employed to do, surely?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Absolam wrote: »
    If the State is paying the chaplains, it's not providing money to the religion, it's providing it to the chaplains.
    The religion controls the priests, so the religion is the ultimate beneficiary of the constitutionally-prohibited endowment.


  • Options
    #38
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    robindch wrote: »
    The religion controls the priests, so the religion is the ultimate beneficiary of the constitutionally-prohibited endowment.
    How exactly does 'the religion control the priests'? Are you suggesting that by virtue of being clergy they are not responsible for their own actions?

    Even if these chaplains are subject to some fearsome CT mind control, rendering them mere puppets of their respective faiths, how are they being endowed? There's a job, they're being paid to do that job, how is that an endowment yet any other payment to a civil servant for services rendered is not?

    And even if there is some special pleading that makes this an endowment rather than a payment, it's still going from the State to the chaplains. If the chaplains are forced by their mind control to gift all of their endowments to their religions, it's not the State that's making them do it, so it's not constitutionally prohibited.


  • Options
    #39
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,060 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    They are agents of a religion promoting a religion and serving the interests of a particular religion, not the state or public policy.

    For religion, substitute 'tax-free offshore private wealth fund' if it makes it any clearer for you.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #40
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    They are agents of a religion promoting a religion and serving the interests of a particular religion, not the state or public policy. For religion, substitute 'tax-free offshore private wealth fund' if it makes it any clearer for you.
    But in this particular case they are chaplains; agents (or at least, employees) of the state, serving a function at the behest of the state, as a result of a public policy to provide chaplaincy services in prisons. No need to substitute anything at all since it's entirely straightforward employment.
    The state isn't paying them (or endowing them) to act as agents of a religion, or to promote a religion, or to serve the interests of a religion (whether the religion is a tax-free offshore private wealth fund or an Irish based net distributor of charitable assistance); it's paying them to provide pastoral and spiritual care to the entire prison community, regardless of denomination, in a holistic way.


  • Options
    #41
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,060 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Absolam wrote: »
    The state isn't paying them (or endowing them) to act as agents of a religion, or to promote a religion, or to serve the interests of a religion

    But that's what they're doing, which is why it's wrong that the state is paying them.
    it's paying them to provide pastoral and spiritual care to the entire prison community, regardless of denomination, in a holistic way.

    :rolleyes: yeah and those nuns were only trying to help those poor fallen women.

    If their tax-free offshore private wealth fund thinks this work is so important, why don't they fund it entirely themselves? After all, they're not disinterested observers they're trying to gain directly from this.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    But that's what they're doing, which is why it's wrong that the state is paying them.
    No; they're providing chaplaincy services. That's what they're doing, and what they're being paid for.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    :rolleyes: yeah and those nuns were only trying to help those poor fallen women.
    Do you think that's actually relevent to prison chaplaincy, or are you just trying to smear by association? Because even if you do, it doesn't make the argument that the State is endowing a religion?
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    If their tax-free offshore private wealth fund thinks this work is so important, why don't they fund it entirely themselves? After all, they're not disinterested observers they're trying to gain directly from this.
    So, what makes you think any tax-free offshore private wealth fund thinks this work is so important? It's the State that's looking for people to fill these positions.
    I'm not sure what tax-free offshore private wealth fund has claimed or shown that it has anything to gain either directly or indirectly from this; maybe you can elaborate?


  • Options
    #43
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,060 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Absolam wrote: »
    No; they're providing chaplaincy services. That's what they're doing, and what they're being paid for.

    And that is what is wrong. Inmates who would benefit from actual counselling can do without a state-funded middle eastern death cult guy.
    Do you think that's actually relevent to prison chaplaincy, or are you just trying to smear by association? Because even if you do, it doesn't make the argument that the State is endowing a religion?

    It is entirely relevant. It is an example of this state convincing itself that aligning itself with the tenets of a particular religion, however vicious and abusive, was justifiable. You will note that the organisations involved have refused to make restitution for this (as far as restitution in terms of money is even possible.)

    So, what makes you think any tax-free offshore private wealth fund thinks this work is so important? It's the State that's looking for people to fill these positions.
    I'm not sure what tax-free offshore private wealth fund has claimed or shown that it has anything to gain either directly or indirectly from this; maybe you can elaborate?

    The state should not be looking for people to fill, or funding, positions whose role is to promote a religion.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #44
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    And that is what is wrong. Inmates who would benefit from actual counselling can do without a state-funded middle eastern death cult guy.
    Whether the State ought to pay for chaplaincy services is an entirely different discussion from whether the State paying for chaplaincy services is an endowment of religion though. There are lots of things people might argue we ought not to provide prisoners; televisions, books, soft beds, toilets, moral guidance, a path to rehabilitation etc etc, but that's more about our responsibilities as a society, than the States constitutional obligations towards religions.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    It is entirely relevant. It is an example of this state convincing itself that aligning itself with the tenets of a particular religion, however vicious and abusive, was justifiable. You will note that the organisations involved have refused to make restitution for this (as far as restitution in terms of money is even possible.).
    And in what way is that an argument for the idea that paying prison chaplains is an endowment of religion? It seems you're saying that sneering at the motivations of nuns demonstrates a justification by the state to itself that it aligned itself with the tenets of a religion, which honestly, it doesn't. Even if it did, you're not showing how that bears on the State endowing a religion in this case?
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    The state should not be looking for people to fill, or funding, positions whose role is to promote a religion.
    Probably not. But it's looking for people to fill, and to fund, positions whose role is to provide pastoral and spiritual care to the entire prison community, regardless of denomination, in a holistic way. I don't think you're going to find proselytizing, or even evangelism, in the job description.


  • Options
    #45
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Gotta point out that, as well as forbidding the endowment of religion, the Constitution also guarantees the free practice of religion. Which means that, if the state is going to lock you up in prison, the state also has to make provision for you to practice your religion. Hence, chaplains. And this is not an Irish solution to an Irish problem; exactly the same view is taken in such bastions of the separation of church and state as France and the US. All provide publicly-paid prison chaplains; none consider this to be the "endowment of religion", or to infringe the legal and constitutional requirements for separation of church and state in their countries. If there's a western democracy which doesn't pay prison chaplains, I don't know of it.

    So, when Robin says that the state is "ignoring" the constitutional prohibition on the endowment of religion, what he actually means is that the state doesn't accept his idioscyncratically broad understanding of what amounts to "endowment" of religion. But as practically nobody in the western world accepts it either, that may not bother the state very much.


  • Options
    #46
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    So, when Robin says that the state is "ignoring" the constitutional prohibition on the endowment of religion, what he actually means is that the state doesn't accept his idioscyncratically broad understanding of what amounts to "endowment" of religion. But as practically nobody in the western world accepts it either, that may not bother the state very much.
    Are you seriously saying that it's "idiosyncratic" to point out that "endow" means "pay money to"? The objection here is having tax money go to the religions.

    Nobody is stopping the churches - don't forget, the second richest organization in the state after the state itself - from funding these chaplains themselves.


  • Options
    #47
    Hoagy
    Registered Users Posts: 707 ✭✭✭Hoagy


    robindch wrote: »
    Nobody is stopping the churches - don't forget, the second richest organization in the state after the state itself - from funding these chaplains themselves.

    The Army has chaplains also, of course, and quite well endowed they are too.

    MEMBERS OF THE CHAPLAINCY SERVICE
    RATES OF PAY Scale on 01/01/2011 Revised Scale on 01/07/2013

    Head Chaplain €61,371 €61,371

    Chaplain in Charge on entry €52,133 €52,133

    Chaplain in Charge after 10 years €51,172 €51,172

    Chaplain in Charge after 15 years €53,190 €53,190

    Substitute Chaplain in Charge €52,133 €52,133

    Church of Ireland Clergyman €15,522 €15,522


    Note that they didnt have to suffer a cut in their endowment

    They also get a housekeeper's allowance of €1681

    Source


  • Options
    #48
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    robindch wrote: »
    Nobody is stopping the churches - don't forget, the second richest organization in the state after the state itself - from funding these chaplains themselves.

    Especially given that, currently, the religious orders have so little to do, they could volunteer their time (they're already financially secure through "voluntary" tithing) to go into prisons &c. to console those imprisoned who want the consolation of fantastical nonsense.


  • Options
    #49
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    robindch wrote: »
    Are you seriously saying that it's "idiosyncratic" to point out that "endow" means "pay money to"? The objection here is having tax money go to the religions.
    Hang on, when did 'endow' become 'pay'? Provide is an entirely different word from pay.... and you haven't shown yet that the state is providing or paying any tax money to the religions. Only paying money to chaplains. You know, for the job they've employed them to do.
    robindch wrote: »
    Nobody is stopping the churches - don't forget, the second richest organization in the state after the state itself - from funding these chaplains themselves.
    Why would they? The churches aren't asking anyone to take a job as a prison chaplain, the State is.
    Hoagy wrote: »
    The Army has chaplains also, of course, and quite well endowed they are too.
    I'm sure some of them will be happy to hear you think they're well endowed (and equally happy to hear there are no plans to circumcise them) , but I suspect most will say they're modestly paid :D


  • Options
    #50
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Absolam wrote: »
    [...] you haven't shown yet that the state is providing or paying any tax money to the religions. Only paying money to chaplains. You know, for the job they've asked them to do.
    When I read that kind of comment, I recall a discussion I had with a libertarian a few years back who -- in a fairly desperate attempt to avoid disproving their entire previous argument -- suggested seriously that handing over ransom money to a violent kidnapper was a "free commercial decision" made by the payer.

    No link at all between priests and the religions.

    I've heard it all now :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #51
    Hoagy
    Registered Users Posts: 707 ✭✭✭Hoagy


    Absolam wrote: »
    The churches aren't asking anyone to take a job as a prison chaplain, the State is.

    That's the point; why is the state employing chaplains?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    robindch wrote: »
    When I read that kind of comment, I recall a discussion I had with a libertarian a few years back who -- in a fairly desperate attempt to avoid disproving their entire previous argument -- suggested seriously that handing over ransom money to a violent kidnapper was a "free commercial decision" made by the payer.
    I'm guessing you must see a link between giving money to someone who demands it with threats of violence, and paying money to someone you employ to do a job, but it's not terribly clear how it is relevant I'm afraid.....
    robindch wrote: »
    No link at all between priests and the religions.
    I've heard it all now :rolleyes:
    If you're hearing that then maybe you're getting religion.... I'm pretty sure nobody said it!
    But what I did say is there's a difference between paying a chaplain and endowing a religion...
    Hoagy wrote: »
    That's the point; why is the state employing chaplains?
    Nah, as I said earlier, that's a different point....


Advertisement