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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
volchitsa wrote: » Except of course that we've established that it's not the church's money at all.
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.
volchitsa wrote: » We've allowed ourselves to be scammed for generations.
volchitsa wrote: » And mysteriously, the parish priest left a lot of money to his nephews and nieces when he died.
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.
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.
alaimacerc wrote: » Depends if the collection is done on those terms. Aren't they usually simply done on the basis of, "give us money into general funds, we'll spend it as needed on our local church needs, and assorted 'good causes'?"
alaimacerc wrote: » 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. Depends if the collection is done on those terms. Aren't they usually simply done on the basis of, "give us money into general funds, we'll spend it as needed on our local church needs, and assorted 'good causes'?"
Igotadose wrote: » Appeals court rules against Jordan. http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-referendum-challenge-dismissed-4203767-Aug2018/ Still more yet to come. Can't wait to see if she'll pay the court costs. Probably not, if this were the US they could get her to pay up
Grayson wrote: » Who is she though? she brought challenges before and lost them too.
NuMarvel wrote: » The only reason her challenges took so long the last time was because she challenged the law about referendums once her initial challenge to the children's referendum failed. She doesn't have that in her arsenal this time, which is why she's reliant on these flimsy and incoherent grounds. If she appeals to the Supreme Court, then I'd wager they won't even hear her case given how weak her argument has been so far.
Igotadose wrote: » Anyone know what kind of timeline this might take? I see in the article about delaying judgement till Friday (whatever that means, I suppose it's making it official that the appeal was rejected.) I agree the SC shouldn't hear this frivolous case, but is there a timeline? In the US, it might take months (if not longer) for the SC to get around to not granting certorari to a case, i.e., not listening to the case because it has no merits. I really don't want to see the amendment lingering around any longer than necessary, it needs to go and soon so the legislative work can happen. As for Joanna Jordan, rumor is, unsurprisingly, the evangelical anti-abortion industry in the US puts up the money.
