Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Employees in state funded schools and hospitals were... paid. I don't know why you think this is at all strange, it would be strange if they were not.

The key word there is "state funded" I think.
I'd have to research when exactly the majority of schools became state funded, and, frankly, I can't be bothered.


Suffice to say that many priests and nuns procided free education for children long before the foundation of the state - and, I would suspect in many cases, for quite some time after it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well, seizing schools won't compensate anybody, because there'll still be a need for a school.

Precisely. So, why are we even debating this?


I responded to a comment that the state should seize Catholic owned schools - which, as you say, would be pointless - and all of a sudden I supposedly think Priests and Nuns were "compelled" or "obliged" to perpetrate horrendous abuse on the vulnerable that they were meant to protect? Hell, No!. There's no excusing what was done - and I wouldn't dream of trying - but that doesn't mean all Catholic schools should be seized is the only point I was making.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hold on there.

Why do you think they're called "National Schools"? Read up on how that system came about in the 19th century and how the RCC and the Presbyterians(!) colluded to carve out state-funded schools under their control from what was supposed to be a pluralist non-sectarian system.

Many schools were actually built by the state, but on church land, and somehow or other the building ended up in church ownership.

Many more which were built fully or partially by "church" funds (i.e. money raised from the community) have since been greatly extended or entirely rebuilt at the full expense of the state, yet remain church owned.

Just a couple of years ago in Greystones a new secondary school was built by the state, on state-owned land, fully funded by the state. This school was then given to the Church of Ireland to run and use for evangelisation purposes. That's just wrong.

Now, you hold on.


There seems to be a lot of confusion about who contributed what to the schools.


There are four "National Schools" in my area.
In each case, a piece of land was donated (usually non-arable) and the people contributed whatever funds they had, and their own skills, whether labouring, building, carpentry, or whatever - to the building of the school.


In the case of my own National school, parents contributed loads of turf to heat the school in the winter, right up to around 1970, when the state contributed its first investment in the building, by installing a central heating system.


Since then, the only other contribution by the state to the "structure" was renting a prefab.


Those are facts. The remaining three schools are very similar, though one did get two classrooms built in 2015/16.


I do not believe for one second that my parish is unique in this.


I suspect that perhaps schools were built by the State in urban areas, but the rural rollout was probably much slower.
One thing I can say without a doubt is that there are schools that were built entirely by the Community, on Community land.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They were wrong to defer to the church in the manner in which they did, but they were either in thrall of the church or terrified of it.

None of that can take responsibility away from those who committed the criminal abuses in the first place.

Meanwhile the bishops and cardinals who knew all along about the whole thing and covered it up face no sanction from their church or the law, even today.

You're entirely correct in saying that they were wrong to defer to the level they did - but I don't believe for one minute that they were in any way "terrified" of the Church


If Dev wasn't afraid to command soldiers in the Easter Rising, I'm pretty sure a "dressing down" by the local priest or bishop would hardly have left him trembling in fear!


That does not in any way, excuse, or attempt to excuse the abuse by members of the Church.
That is merely recognising the honest truth - that those Nuns and Priests could not have carried out abuse on that level without some level of complicity on the part of the State, and in particular, the "Justice" system.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The people do not own them! Look at what happened when the CBs decided to sell off a school playing field without the agreement of the ERST trust which "owned" the school never mind the parents and community who you say own it!!

The church controls these schools, the people have no ownership or control over them.

Let's just say that I'd love to see any Bishop try to transfer ownership of any of those four schools. Believe me, there would be an absolute uproar.
Those schools were built because of the sacrifices of our forbears. They will not easily be wrested away, believe me.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

In a Republic - where "all the children of the Nation" were meant to be "cherished equally"

If you recall your history lessons, that republic lasted a week. The oft-quoted phrase appears nowhere in our constitution or laws.

Deleted User wrote: »

The key word there is "state funded" I think.
I'd have to research when exactly the majority of schools became state funded, and, frankly, I can't be bothered.

Suffice to say that many priests and nuns procided free education for children long before the foundation of the state - and, I would suspect in many cases, for quite some time after it.

Well certainly all primary schools were eligible for state funding and payment of salaries under the 1937 constitution.
If what we suspect is good enough for this thread, then it is almost certain that the funding arrangment under the Free State was the same, and even before the Free State came into existence.

I responded to a comment that the state should seize Catholic owned schools - which, as you say, would be pointless - and all of a sudden I supposedly think Priests and Nuns were "compelled" or "obliged" to perpetrate horrendous abuse on the vulnerable that they were meant to protect?

WTF are you on about? I mean, really?

One thing I can say without a doubt is that there are schools that were built entirely by the Community, on Community land.

Yet the community does not own them, the church grabbed ownership of them.

Those schools were built because of the sacrifices of our forbears. They will not easily be wrested away, believe me.

The church stole these schools from the communities and taxpayers who funded them.

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

The vast majority of schools are the property of the Catholic Community - not the hierarchy.

And what sort of shïtty community wouldn't want to pay redress to the victims of such heinous abuse? No community that has any right having any sort of care of children anyway. :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you recall your history lessons, that republic lasted a week. The oft-quoted phrase appears nowhere in our constitution or laws.




Well certainly all primary schools were eligible for state funding and payment of salaries under the 1937 constitution.
If what we suspect is good enough for this thread, then it is almost certain that the funding arrangment under the Free State was the same, and even before the Free State came into existence.

Yet the community does not own them, the church grabbed ownership of them.

The church stole these schools from the communities and taxpayers who funded them.

And that explains the disparity.
In rural areas, how many schools were built before 1937?
In the case of my own parish, for example, all four were.
So, in over 80 years, the State has contributed 2 classrooms to the National schools.



I have neither the time nor the desire to check when each National school in the Country was built, but if your "suspicion" that the funding arrangements were the same pre-1937, then why is that not the case in my locality?


I know Donegal has been "the forgotten County" in the eyes of many successive Governments - but it really stretchesthe imagination to suggest that the State built schools everywhere else, and somehow neglected to build them in Donegal.


It makes a lot more sense to accept that the State was extremely cash strapped after its foundation, and that building schools was something that took some time.


All of which may be interesting to students of the history of education in Ireland - and none of which changes the underlying argument - which was that the State failed in its duty of care to the victims of abuse - a viewpoint, interestingly, also held by Tim Cronin.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pope-francis-in-ireland/pope-francis-in-ireland-eyes-of-the-world-fixed-on-us-and-our-reaction-to-papal-visit-37250530.html



Campaigner for abuse survivor rights, Tom Cronin, warned that it should be remembered the State was also responsible for some of the horrific abuse and exploitation of youngsters in Ireland through the support of industrial schools

iguana wrote: »

And what sort of shïtty community wouldn't want to pay redress to the victims of such heinous abuse? No community that has any right having any sort of care of children anyway. :rolleyes:

At no point did I suggest that the victims did not deserve redress.

You know this.



This whole "seize the Catholic schools" mantra is idiotic.
If a Catholic owned school is seized, then the State has to replace it - so where's the gain for the state?


The victims deserve redress. Both the State and the Church need to pay compensation, imo.


Seizing schools is not the answer - and would result in a tremendous backlash against the Government in many Communities, believe me.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

In the case of my own National school, parents contributed loads of turf to heat the school in the winter, right up to around 1970, when the state contributed its first investment in the building, by installing a central heating system.


Since then, the only other contribution by the state to the "structure" was renting a prefab.

I guarantee you that the church does not pay the heating bill. They don't pay to keep the lights on, they don't pay the teachers, they don't pay for the supplies.

This is one of the reasons why schools should be removed from religious hands and run by a secular body.

Deleted User wrote: »

The victims deserve redress. Both the State and the Church need to pay compensation, imo.

The government has at least paid some compensation. The church; not a red cent. In fact they moved assets to avoid being forced to pay compensation.

alaimacerc

Bredabe wrote: »

Whats up with them changing legal teams midstream as it were?

I might be a cynic, but my first two guesses would be...

First legal team tells them it's a no-hoper, and they won't take "stop it, you're an embarrassment to yourself and others at this stage" for an answer. Or...

Yet another delaying tactic. "Oh noes, I'm new on the case, yer honour, we'd like an adjournment to as late a late as we can get away with."

Bredabe

alaimacerc wrote: »

I might be a cynic, but my first two guesses would be...

First legal team tells them it's a no-hoper, and they won't take "stop it, you're an embarrassment to yourself and others at this stage" for an answer. Or...

Yet another delaying tactic. "Oh noes, I'm new on the case, yer honour, we'd like an adjournment to as late a late as we can get away with."

Let's hope its the former and not the latter and that the judge making the decision hold to their statement that this is the will of the ppl and this kind of delaying tactic has to stop.

alaimacerc

Deleted User wrote: »

right up to around 1970

Really have your finger on the pulse of current events, there.

Let's just say that I'd love to see any Bishop try to transfer ownership of any of those four schools. Believe me, there would be an absolute uproar.
Those schools were built because of the sacrifices of our forbears. They will not easily be wrested away, believe me.

No surprise to hear that Donegal plans on being the last holdouts, as per.

Deleted User wrote: »

I know Donegal has been "the forgotten County" in the eyes of many successive Governments - but it really stretchesthe imagination to suggest that the State built schools everywhere else, and somehow neglected to build them in Donegal.

Your own imagination, perhaps, but there's no mathematical mystery here.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/school-building-programme-where-the-new-schools-will-go-1.3459904

Deleted User wrote: »

This whole "seize the Catholic schools" mantra is idiotic.
If a Catholic owned school is seized, then the State has to replace it - so where's the gain for the state?

An incremental step towards an education system where the church is no longer calling the shots, when more and more parents no longer wish an such arrangement, rather clearly.

The idiotic mantras here, frankly, are on the one hand, "we're broke and we can't possibly pay redress", and on the other, "our private property rights, how very dare you".

Seizing schools is not the answer - and would result in a tremendous backlash against the Government in many Communities, believe me.

There's a grand total of one government TD in your entire county (and a little bit of the next). Hyperbole much? After a certain period of near-continual "backlash", it's priced into expectations, and really just amounts to feeble twitching.

freshpopcorn

kylith wrote: »

I guarantee you that the church does not pay the heating bill. They don't pay to keep the lights on, they don't pay the teachers, they don't pay for the supplies.
This is one of the reasons why schools should be removed from religious hands and run by a secular body.

I know locally the church gives the schools a few thousands for bits and pieces.
Now just to note I fully support separating schools and churches separating in the future.

Igotadose

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I know locally the church gives the schools a few thousands for bits and pieces.
Now just to note I fully support separating schools and churches separating in the future.

Can you confirm this independently? That is, is it the Church saying they do this, or the schools? I wouldn't believe anything coming from the Church.

freshpopcorn

Igotadose wrote: »

Can you confirm this independently? That is, is it the Church saying they do this, or the schools? I wouldn't believe anything coming from the Church.

Well I've being told by teachers that the got money for things such as a new carpet off the local church and bits and pieces when they were stuck when money was low in the school.

volchitsa

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well I've being told by teachers that the got money for things such as a new carpet off the local church and bits and pieces when they were stuck when money was low in the school.

By money "from the church" does this actually mean money given by local people via the church, or funds from the Vatican given to a church and then repurposed?

(I think we know the answer).

freshpopcorn

volchitsa wrote: »

By money "from the church" does this actually mean money given by local people via the church, or funds from the Vatican given to a church and then repurposed?

(I think we know the answer).

Well making an educated guess it's from the local parish via collections/etc.
It's just one these things that will probably disappear if church and schools separate.

volchitsa

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well making an educated guess it's from the local parish via collections/etc.
It's just one these things that will probably disappear if church and schools separate.

No reason whatsoever for it to disappear if it's a collection taken up specially for that purpose. Like having a collection for any other good cause, all it takes is a decision to announce that it's going to be taken up for that purpose. Like the local GAA club having a collection for some other local cause (we had one for the local hospice for instance)

Of course the harsh reality is that it won't happen because the church has no tradition of collecting for caus other than its own. But that says more about the church than anything else.

freshpopcorn

volchitsa wrote: »

No reason whatsoever for it to disappear if it's a collection taken up specially for that purpose. Like having a collection for any other good cause, all it takes is a decision to announce that it's going to be taken up for that purpose. Like the local GAA club having a collection for some other local cause (we had one for the local hospice for instance)

Of course the harsh reality is that it won't happen because the church has no tradition of collecting for caus other than its own. But that says more about the church than anything else.

Well there is the the church gate collection for various clubs/etc.
But from what I know the money was given out of collection within the mass. This is money that the priest can use as they see fit.
I just wonder will they make donations to the school. If they remove church from school.
I don't see them making donations to GAA clubs/etc

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

I have neither the time nor the desire to check when each National school in the Country was built, but if your "suspicion" that the funding arrangements were the same pre-1937, then why is that not the case in my locality?

The discussion was about funding the salaries and running costs in schools. The church pays nothing and has not paid anything for many decades.

But, as you want to talk about building schools, why does the church have ownership of schools which it did not pay to build? Either local fundraising or taxation or a combination of the two paid to build them. They should be owned by the communities and/or the state. Instead the church grabbed ownership of them and is refusing to let go.

Campaigner for abuse survivor rights, Tom Cronin, warned that it should be remembered the State was also responsible for some of the horrific abuse and exploitation of youngsters in Ireland through the support of industrial schools

Whataboutery. Nobody is denying this, so why does it keep getting raised every time the finger is pointed at the church? Deflection.

This whole "seize the Catholic schools" mantra is idiotic.
If a Catholic owned school is seized, then the State has to replace it - so where's the gain for the state?

Getting religious indoctrination out of the classroom. Teachers spend up to 2.5 hours a week (sometimes more) teaching religion while being paid by the state.

The victims deserve redress. Both the State and the Church need to pay compensation, imo.

Guess which one has, and which one hasn't.

Seizing schools is not the answer - and would result in a tremendous backlash against the Government in many Communities, believe me.

People are increasingly sick of the catholic church and its grip on our civil society and want it to end.

Every single survey of parents shows that a majority of them want non-religious schools.

alaimacerc

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well making an educated guess it's from the local parish via collections/etc.
It's just one these things that will probably disappear if church and schools separate.

So basically, it's just re-bilking the same locals already shelling out by way of their "voluntary" contributions. On a slightly more socialised basis than that, but less so than via taxation.

And of course, considerably smaller than either.

freshpopcorn

alaimacerc wrote: »

So basically, it's just re-bilking the same locals already shelling out by way of their "voluntary" contributions. On a slightly more socialised basis than that, but less so than via taxation.

And of course, considerably smaller than either.

I was just trying to say that it does happen but some people don't relies it. I can't guarantee it happens in every area/school.
If I'm being perfectly honest from when I've gone to mass locally the people giving to the collection are gone well beyond giving to the voluntary contribution to schools.

alaimacerc

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I was just trying to say that it does happen but some people don't relies it. I can't guarantee it happens in every area/school.
If I'm being perfectly honest from when I've gone to mass locally the people giving to the collection are gone well beyond giving to the voluntary contribution to schools.

I was purely going to the statement that some churches give a couple of thousand. That's clearly much less than the total the church will be gouging by way of the "voluntary" contribution. May of course be that some individuals are giving more than the per-child VC tariff.

freshpopcorn

alaimacerc wrote: »

I was purely going to the statement that some churches give a couple of thousand. That's clearly much less than the total the church will be gouging by way of the "voluntary" contribution. May of course be that some individuals are giving more than the per-child VC tariff.

From my understanding if the school needed an item it would be discussed at the board of management meetings. Sometimes if they hadn't the money they might ask the priest whether one was on the board of management or not.
Just to note when you said volentry contribution I thought you were referring to the voluntary contribution you pay when you go to school.

volchitsa

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well there is the the church gate collection for various clubs/etc.
But from what I know the money was given out of collection within the mass. This is money that the priest can use as they see fit.
I just wonder will they make donations to the school. If they remove church from school.
I don't see them making donations to GAA clubs/etc

Education is not the same as membership of a sports club though. There's no reason not to have a collection for the local school at mass, but of course if the church has no authority over how the money is spent, they won't do it, as simple as that.

So you are right that such donations will probably stop, but only because the church chooses not to donate, because it refuses to hand over any control to any other organisation.

More importantly though, the amount of money concerned was only ever a tiny fraction of the total costs and can be covered in a various ways if needed. Including asking local people to contribute to a local fundraiser for the local school - which is where it came from anyway. The church takes the credit but doesn't provide the money at all.

freshpopcorn

volchitsa wrote: »

Education is not the same as membership of a sports club though. There's no reason not to have a collection for the local school at mass, but of course if the church has no authority over how the money is spent, they won't do it, as simple as that.

So you are right that such donations will probably stop, but only because the church chooses not to donate, because it refuses to hand over any control to any other organisation.

More importantly though, the amount of money concerned was only ever a tiny fraction of the total costs and can be covered in a various ways if needed. Including asking local people to contribute to a local fundraiser for the local school - which is where it came from anyway. The church takes the credit but doesn't provide the money at all.

As I said in my original post I want church and schools separated.
I think I was replying to somebody who said the church gives schools nothing. I was just saying I know of cases when they do.
I have several teachers in my family and they've all told me without donations from the church they'd be stuck at times and they said that before the operation happens the government will need to improve finding even further.
I of course know schools can fundraise in other ways but schools have a lot of fundraisers in the first place.

alaimacerc

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just to note when you said volentry contribution I thought you were referring to the voluntary contribution you pay when you go to school.

Yeah, that is what I meant. I bring that up because if you're shaking down the parishioners at the local church for one pot of money, and shaking them down again when they send their kids to the local school, it's in large part going to be the same people being asked to "donate" twice.

volchitsa

freshpopcorn wrote: »

As I said in my original post I want church and schools separated.
I think I was replying to somebody who said the church gives schools nothing. I was just saying I know of cases when they do.
I have several teachers in my family and they've all told me without donations from the church they'd be stuck at times and they said that before the operation happens the government will need to improve finding even further.
I of course know schools can fundraise in other ways but schools have a lot of fundraisers in the first place.

Except of course that we've established that it's not the church's money at all.

The church, which has literally uncounted billions in the Vatican and is a major landowner in Ireland and elsewhere, gives none of its money.

It merely acts as an intermediary, collecting money from local people and then "graciously" giving some of it back - when asked nicely enough. And presumably expects the schools to be grateful to it as well.

At least Lady Bountiful gives her own money.

alaimacerc

volchitsa wrote: »

Except of course that we've established that it's not the church's money at all.

TBF, the congregation are indeed giving the money to the church -- at that point, it by any normal capitalist definition does indeed become the church's money.

At least in a "was only resting in the account" way.

volchitsa

alaimacerc wrote: »

TBF, the congregation are indeed giving the money to the church -- at that point, it by any normal capitalist definition does indeed become the church's money.

At least in a "was only resting in the account" way.

We've allowed ourselves to be scammed for generations.

The church in the village my father grew up in was funded by the locals (this would be some time around WW2 in NI, a mostly catholic village that only had a tiny Catholic church up to then) but the priest laid the cornerstone (necessary to unblock the funds) and that was the end of it, no further building for a decade or more. The money had been there but nobody knows where it went.

And nobody seems to have really asked, how crazy is that? People mutter about it, even still, but in the end the church was only built when a local emigrant made good in America contributed what was missing.

And mysteriously, the parish priest left a lot of money to his nephews and nieces when he died.

alaimacerc

volchitsa wrote: »

We've allowed ourselves to be scammed for generations.

Careful, next you'll be nailing "a few points" to the local church door!

iguana

volchitsa wrote: »

And mysteriously, the parish priest left a lot of money to his nephews and nieces when he died.

That money was just resting in his account.

Christy42

alaimacerc wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Except of course that we've established that it's not the church's money at all.

TBF, the congregation are indeed giving the money to the church -- at that point, it by any normal capitalist definition does indeed become the church's money.

At least in a "was only resting in the account" way.

If you want to give money to Paul and I say I will pass it along I can hardly claim that I gave money to Paul. I only got the money on the condition that it was passed along.

volchitsa

Christy42 wrote: »

If you want to give money to Paul and I say I will pass it along I can hardly claim that I gave money to Paul. I only got the money on the condition that it was passed along.

Except if you're the Catholic Church, then people seem to actually believe that you've given your own personal money. Same as some appear to think nuns worked in hospitals and schools for no pay.