State Endows Religion - €9 million per year

robindch

No doubt having been prodded vigorously, Aodhán Riordan (Labour) last month asked his friend Ruari (Labour) to look into chaplaincy costs in schools.

http://www.labour.ie/press/2012/01/25/9m-school-chaplaincy-expenditure-must-be-reexamine/

Turns out that the Department of Education spends around 9 million euro every year funding religious services in schools around the country and it seems Labour is not very happy about this.

Minister For Education, 24th January wrote:

Chaplain posts are allocated in respect of Community and Comprehensive Schools

There are currently 152 whole time equivalent posts allocated in respect of
chaplaincy services at a cost of approximately €9m for the 2011/2012 school
year.

Labour website wrote:

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has called on the Minister for Education to re-examine the payment of €9million for a Chaplaincy Service in Community and Comprehensive Schools, after receiving confirmation today that such funding is to be made available again this year.*

"Considering the difficult decisions which were taken in the education budget this year, and in the context of possibly more difficult decisions to be made next year, the allocation of €9million per annum for the provision of a chaplaincy service must surely be re-examined.

"It is impossible to make cuts in the education service without directly impacting on schools and the day-to-day running of educational institutions. Therefore such decisions will always come down to a painful value judgement by the Minister and his departmental officials.

"In that context, and in the context of guidance counsellors across the country re-iterating their valuable contribution to school life in parliamentary meetings last week, it is now arguably justifiable to discontinue this payment in order to protect other services.

"I understand that such a discontinuation may result in the deeds of trust of all community and Comprehensive Schools being re-visited, however this work is worthwhile if a large portion of the €9million can be recovered.

"I hope to work with the Minister and his officials with a view to examining this matter in the coming months to ascertain if my proposal is a viable one", Deputy Ó Ríordáin concluded.

kylith

Hang on, let me see if I'm understanding this properly:

The church runs the school
The church insists that the school has a religious ethos and visits from a chaplain
The public purse pays for chaplains to visit the school

Why the hell can't the parish supply the fecking chaplain? It seems to me that they've managed to get a deal whereby they get all of the benefits of running a school, but without all those pesky money worries.

Galvasean

As a matter of interest, how many full time teachers' salaries would be covered by €9million per year?

Beruthiel

robindch wrote: »

Turns out that the Department of Education spends around 9 million euro every year funding religious services in schools around the country and it seems Labour is not very happy about this.

That's shocking.
Consider what that money could be used for.
More teachers, better facilities.

Galvasean

*In before someone yells, "What's the harm???" or asks "Why do atheists care about Catholic chaplains?"

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

Minister For Education, 24th January wrote:

There are currently 152 whole time equivalent posts allocated in respect of chaplaincy services at a cost of approximately €9m for the 2011/2012 school
year.

Thats ~ €60,000 per chaplain per year!

As a matter of interest, how many full time teachers' salaries would be covered by €9million per year?

Well, a current teacher's starting salary is ~ €32,000 per year, so about 280 new teachers?

kylith

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats ~ €60,000 per chaplain per year!


Well, a current teacher's starting salary is ~ €32,000 per year, so about 280 new teachers?

:eek:

I despair of this country sometimes..... I really do.... We're closing hospitals and cutting the wages of teachers, doctors, and nurses, and then we turn around and hand the RCC €9m a year so that they can indoctrinate children.

Beruthiel

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, a current teacher's starting salary is ~ €32,000 per year, so about 280 new teachers?

That's terribly upsetting considering the state of our education system in some parts.

magicbastarder

kylith wrote: »

The church runs the school
The church insists that the school has a religious ethos and visits from a chaplain
The public purse pays for chaplains to visit the school

the church runs the school, owns the land, but the taxpayer pays for all staff (teachers, admin staff, and as above, chaplains).

SebBerkovich

Next time teacher need to strike for better pay they have a pretty good place to look when it comes to finding the money for it.

Galvasean

kylith wrote: »

:eek:

I despair of this country sometimes..... I really do.... We're closing hospitals and cutting the wages of teachers, doctors, and nurses, and then we turn around and hand the RCC €9m a year so that they can indoctrinate children.

You left out closing police stations.

Rented Mule

Galvasean wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how many full time teachers' salaries would be covered by €9million per year?

How many Special Needs Assistants would that pay for ?

the culture of deference

kylith wrote: »

:eek:

I despair of this country sometimes..... I really do.... We're closing hospitals and cutting the wages of teachers, doctors, and nurses, and then we turn around and hand the RCC €9m a year so that they can indoctrinate children.

Its getting to the stage where we should just target priests, schools and churches and remove this cancer from society ourselves.

magicbastarder

you're gonna have to explain that one to help me avoid jumping to conclusions.

the culture of deference

magicbastarder wrote: »

the church runs the school, owns the land, but the taxpayer pays for all staff (teachers, admin staff, and as above, chaplains).

It is some SCAM

The clergy arrives and scams people into donating land by pretending that god will look out for them.

So it owns the land which was donated.

Then the poor mealy mouthed cnuts start asking for donations to build on the site by pretending that the rcc are poor simple people, but that god will look out for those who donated a little bit more than others.

So now it owns the land which was donated, and the building built by donations.

Now it has a location to brainwash ignorant peasants, and once they reach critical mass they have the power to ostracise those who disagree with them.

In 2013 the rcc own more than 500,000 buildings, and millions of acres of land, the richest collection of stolen art and antiquities in the world.

magicbastarder

the culture of deference wrote: »

Its getting to the stage where we should just target priests, schools and churches and remove this cancer from society ourselves.

the culture of deference, yesterday.

the culture of deference

Is it a crime to burn down a church if no one is injured

magicbastarder

yes.

the culture of deference

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes.

Why? what about if there was a dexter senario,

you know paedo priest in there cling filmed to the altar, burned alive to protect young children

SebBerkovich

the culture of deference wrote: »

Is it a crime to burn down a church if no one is injured

Pretty sure property damage isn't covered by "But those guys are being Dicks" clause.

kylith

Galvasean wrote: »

You left out closing police stations.

Ara, I can't remember everything!

the culture of deference wrote: »

Its getting to the stage where we should just target priests, schools and churches and remove this cancer from society ourselves.

I wouldn't bother. Scammers will scam, that's what they do and I can't blame them for doing it if they get away with it. I'm more for burning the government. Who's with me?

Cabaal

I'm curious

link says:

For WRITTEN answer on Tuesday, 24th January, 2012.
Reference Number: 3376/12
Freagra
Minister Ruairí Quinn

Chaplain posts are allocated in respect of Community and Comprehensive Schools

There are currently 152 whole time equivalent posts allocated in respect of
chaplaincy services at a cost of approximately €9m for the 2011/2012 school
year.

What about 2013, are they still paying this silly money now?

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

What about 2013, are they still paying this silly money now?

I believe it's been allocated for this year already.

Brian Shanahan

magicbastarder wrote: »

the church runs the school, owns the land, but the taxpayer pays for all staff (teachers, admin staff, and as above, chaplains).

You forgot the fact that but for the state paying for buildings and equipment that there would be at best only church-supported hedge schools.

And you also forget the fact that it wasn't the church's money that bought the land, but donations from the general populace funneled through the parish priests and bishops so the church could lay claim to the title deeds.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You forgot the fact that but for the state paying for buildings and equipment that there would be at best only church-supported hedge schools.

And you also forget the fact that it wasn't the church's money that bought the land, but donations from the general populace funneled through the parish priests and bishops so the church could lay claim to the title deeds.

Um. By the same argument it isn't the state's money that pays for buildings, equipment and salaries, but only funds extracted under threat of force from the general populace and funnelled through the Department of Education so that government ministers could seek to interfere in the running of schools.

There's not a lot of milage in this line of argument, I think.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. By the same argument it isn't the state's money that pays for buildings, equipment and salaries, but only funds extracted under threat of force from the general populace and funnelled through the Department of Education so that government ministers could seek to interfere in the running of schools.

There's not a lot of milage in this line of argument, I think.

Perhaps, difference is at least the people vote in the TD's and ministers.If you don't like the decisions you can choose not to vote them in again.

Nobody elects the priests and the bishops sure as hell are not chosen by the man on the street,

As such the differences are pretty big.

On the subject of land and priests looking for land for stuff, many many years ago a cousin of mine owned land around the town I live in.

People wanted some of his land for building a football pitch and he had set a price for it, the people that wanted the land didn't want to pay it though so they got the local priest onto him.,

Priest said if he gave the land to them at a much much lower price they'd name the pitch after him, his response "well its life this father, you can buy the land for the price I've set and then you can name it whatever you want".

They bought the land for the price he set in the end

magicbastarder

Cabaal wrote: »

Nobody elects the priests and the bishops sure as hell are not chosen by the man on the street,

likewise, no-one forced the congregation to donate the money.

UDP

Rented Mule wrote: »

How many Special Needs Assistants would that pay for ?

Maybe about 250-430 depending on pay scale.

Cabaal

magicbastarder wrote: »

likewise, no-one forced the congregation to donate the money.

You don't understand how old catholic Ireland worked do you?

Fear forced them for decades, you don't ignore the local priest

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't understand how old catholic Ireland worked do you?

Fear forced them for decades, you don't ignore the local priest

+1.

Its hard to pretend it doesn't bother you when the local parish priest reads out a list of who donated what at Sunday mass for the whole town to hear, or to tell a priest where to go when he calls to the house looking for donations because word gets around and he could well put the word out about your business in the local area that could do a lot of damage, or refuse a much needed job reference for your children.

Brian Shanahan

magicbastarder wrote: »

likewise, no-one forced the congregation to donate the money.

So tithing isn't (or wasn't in the past depending on denomination) mandatory?

And here was I thinking that a threat of kicking you out if you didn't do something made that thing mandatory.

lazygal wrote: »

+1.

Its hard to pretend it doesn't bother you when the local parish priest reads out a list of who donated what at Sunday mass for the whole town to hear, or to tell a priest where to go when he calls to the house looking for donations because word gets around and he could well put the word out about your business in the local area that could do a lot of damage, or refuse a much needed job reference for your children.

They're doing that in my local parish today. Back around Christmas 2011 a box containing envelopes was sent around to every house in the parish, one for each week in 2012 (52 envelopes), for raising funds for renovations to the church and the rebuilding of the roof.

Each envelope was clearly marked with a number and the name of the householder (in my case X & Y Shanahan, as my parents own the house jointly). It was a clear attempt to shame everybody (no matter if they were not Catholic) into giving weekly to the fund, and to tabulate how much each family gave for future reference. Needless to say we used our envelopes for shopping lists, and notes from telephone calls.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Perhaps, difference is at least the people vote in the TD's and ministers.If you don't like the decisions you can choose not to vote them in again.

Nobody elects the priests and the bishops sure as hell are not chosen by the man on the street,

As such the differences are pretty big.

You can vote for the other crowd as often as you like, but you’re still going to have to pay your taxes.

Slice it however you like, the methods the state has at its disposal to get taxes out of you are considerably more coercive than anything ever available to the church. Nobody has donations to the church building fund deducted at source from their salary under compulsion of law. Nobody who fails to pay parish dues goes to prison, or has the bailiffs come round to seize their goods. (A point which is, if anything, illustrated, by the story you tell.) In fact, many people do not give to the Catholic church, and as everyone can see no sanction at all befalls them.

In other words, Brian’s argument that church money isn’t really church money is silly, if for no other reason that it undermines any claim that the state’s contribution to the education system should buy it any say in how it should be run. If I donate my money to the church, it’s church money. If you argue that I didn’t really donate it, because I didn’t have free choice, because I’m a brainwashed, priest-ridden individual (and this is neatly established in the traditional circular fashion by pointing out that I gave money to the church) well, I had even less choice about paying my taxes, so if Brian is going to be consistent he’ll have to accept that state money isn’t really state money. Which is why Brian should not advance this line of argument; it’s self-defeating.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So tithing isn't (or wasn't in the past depending on denomination) mandatory?

No, it wasn't.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And here was I thinking that a threat of kicking you out if you didn't do something made that thing mandatory.

Aren't you fortunate, so, that you have us to fight your ignorance for you?

Brian Shanahan

Peregrinus wrote: »

In other words, Brian’s argument that church money isn’t really church money is silly, if for no other reason that it undermines any claim that the state’s contribution to the education system should buy it any say in how it should be run. If I donate my money to the church, it’s church money.

My argument is not silly, as well you know.

There is a qualitative difference between money given to the state and money given to the church. We give money to the state in return for goods and services we receive from the state (IMO too much given for too little received, but that's a different topic). We manifestly do not give to the church in return for goods and services received. Those of us who give to the church, give in order that the wants of the church are met, regardless of whether they are for the common good.

The differnce is between money given to a servant (the state) and money given to a master (the church). The servant is there to fulfill our needs, the master is there to fulfill his own.

krudler

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't understand how old catholic Ireland worked do you?

Fear forced them for decades, you don't ignore the local priest

Still happens in rural areas, years ago we used to go to a place in Clare for our summer holidays and the local priest used to go around getting free dinners off people, sure you couldnt have the neighbours thinking you wouldnt feed the poor priesht on his rounds.

Brian Shanahan

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it wasn't.;)

Yes it was. Stop lying.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

My argument is not silly, as well you know.

There is a qualitative difference between money given to the state and money given to the church. We give money to the state in return for goods and services we receive from the state (IMO too much given for too little received, but that's a different topic). We manifestly do not give to the church in return for goods and services received. Those of us who give to the church, give in order that the wants of the church are met, regardless of whether they are for the common good.

The differnce is between money given to a servant (the state) and money given to a master (the church). The servant is there to fulfill our needs, the master is there to fulfill his own.

Your argument is silly.

We don't give money to the state in return for goods and services; we give money to businesses for that. We give money to the state because we're legally obliged to, and will go to prison if we don't. We are, of course, free to give more money over and above what is legally required, but few of us do this.

As for giving money to the church, if I give money to the church it is the church's money; that's what "give" means. The fact that my reasons for giving money do not appeal to you does not diminish this truth in any degree.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes it was. Stop lying.

Pull your head in, Brian. I'm enoying this argument, and if you use language like that we risk having it cut short.

Even if it were true that failure to pay church donations led to exclusion from church membership - and I challenge you to name one person who was excluded from church membership for failure to pay donations - this would still be nothing like as severe the sanctions that attend non-payment of taxes.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your argument is silly.

We don't give money to the state in return for goods and services; we give money to businesses for that. We give money to the state because we're legally obliged to, and will go to prison if we don't. We are, of course, free to give more money over and above what is legally required, but few of us do this.

As for giving money to the church, if I give money to the church it is the church's money; that's what "give" means. The fact that my reasons for giving money do not appeal to you does not diminish this truth in any degree.

Errr, actually you are wrong.

It costs money to run a country, provide roads, healthcare, education, parks, police, fire stations, administration within the government etc etc etc etc

All these things cost money to run and you do get a return on them as you get to use them, so in essence you pay tax for services and facilities.

Unless you think the likes of street cleaning, maintaining.building parks etc etc etc costs the government nothing?

The reason why people go to jail for not paying tax is its completely unfair to have a system where people live in a country but don't contribute towards it....yet they use a level of the services that everyone else's money funds.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pull your head in, Brian. I'm enoying this argument, and if you use language like that we risk having it cut short.

Even if it were true that failure to pay church donations led to exclusion from church membership - and I challenge you to name one person who was excluded from church membership for failure to pay donations - this would still be nothing like as severe the sanctions that attend non-payment of taxes.

So eternity in hell is nothing as severe as a month in prison? :P

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

So eternity in hell is nothing as severe as a month in prison? :P

Well, I'll make the same challenge to you as I did to Brian; if you can find someone who donated to the church because the church told him that if he didn't he's face an eternity in hell, now would be a really good time to name him.

Peregrinus

But can I suggest we're getting a bit off topic? Brian's argument is pretty silly, but there are much more serious arguments against state funding for school chaplains. Would we not occupy our time a bit better by examining them?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Aren't you fortunate, so, that you have us to fight your ignorance for you?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes it was. Stop lying.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

But can I suggest we're getting a bit off topic? Brian's argument is pretty silly, but there are much more serious arguments against state funding for school chaplains. Would we not occupy our time a bit better by examining them?

For shame, Peregrinus. That is such a cheap parting shot. A dismissal not unlike something you'd see in the creationism threads.

Brian Shanahan

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pull your head in, Brian.

So you like lying (saying tithing wasn't compulsory is as transparent a lie as anything David Irvine published)? In that case I like putting you on my ignore list, because you have nothing worthwhile to say.

Newaglish

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'll make the same challenge to you as I did to Brian; if you can find someone who donated to the church because the church told him that if he didn't he's face an eternity in hell, now would be a really good time to name him.

Why do you think people donated to the church? They used to read out a list of people who had (and hadn't) donated and the amounts of those donations. You're saying that this didn't have an impact?

UDP

Newaglish wrote: »

Why do you think people donated to the church? They used to read out a list of people who had (and hadn't) donated and the amounts of those donations. You're saying that this didn't have an impact?

What happens in my sisters local parish is the priest calls out at mass the names of all those who did donate with the implication that people would notice if you didn't. At least it is not as bad nowadays in that those that give a f'uck are holy joes/marys who no longer have as much power in the area any more. In the past you would have been shamed and somewhat shunned.

C'unts.

Morag

Often the role of Chaplin in the school is a part time position and it is taken on by one of the teachers. Had a few run ins with the on in my kids school.

lazygal

Morag wrote: »

Often the role of Chaplin in the school is a part time position and it is taken on by one of the teachers. Had a few run ins with the on in my kids school.

Curious as to what the role involves, and the nature of the run ins.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So tithing isn't (or wasn't in the past depending on denomination) mandatory?

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it wasn't.

Technically Yes, It was. But to the COI as the Established church rather than to the RCC - but I don't see where Brian said it was going to the RCC just that it was mandatory - which is correct.

The Tithe War (Irish: Cogadh na nDeachúna) was a campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience, punctuated by sporadic violent episodes, in Ireland between 1830 and 1836 in reaction to the enforcement of tithes on subsistence farmers and others for the upkeep of the established state church – the Church of Ireland. Tithes were payable in cash or kind and payment was compulsory, irrespective of an individual's religious adherence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe_War

List of defaulters was kept

The Tithe Defaulters lists (held by the National Archives under Official Papers Miscellaneous Assorted series) detail people involved in the infamous Tithe War of 1831-1838. From 1831 onwards, many people refused to pay the tithe and so began the Tithe War, which was fiercest in Leinster and Munster. The names of people who refused to pay their tithe were recorded by the Church of Ireland clergy.

http://www.nationalarchives.ie/genealogy1/genealogy-records/tithe-applotment-books-and-the-primary-griffith-valuation/

Mardy Bum

lazygal wrote: »

Curious as to what the role involves, and the nature of the run ins.

Pastoral care role.