Accords budget cut by goverment....why are they being given money??

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/accord-redundancies-1232890-Dec2013/

Catholic marriage service ACCORD to cut staff
ACCORD says the amount of money it has had no choice but to cut staff after the amount of State funding it receives was cut.

CATHOLIC MARRIAGE AGENCY ACCORD says it has had to make staff redundant due to a major reduction in the amount of money it receives from the Government.

Disgusted to hear yet another Catholic organization is receiving money from the government,

Is their a list of the Catholic organizations that are receiving money?

Dave!

Catholic specifically, or religions in general?

Orion

For me Catholic specifically but I'd have no problem expanding that to people who restrict their work only to people who comply with their religious edicts. Accord is a perfect example where staff have been instructed to deny counselling to same sex couples. If they are state funded then they must act equitably but they don't. I'd like to see all state funding pulled from them for this alone. And that's apart from it being illegal - the exemption in the Equal Status Act only applies to schools and hospitals.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

Disgusted to hear yet another Catholic organization is receiving money from the government,

There is a wider question here, I heard recently that the majority of 'charitable' income in the country is actually provided by the taxpayer.

Charity is by definition voluntary, if organisation X is inefficient, excessively enriching its executives, promoting bigotry, or anything else objectionable I can choose to not support it (ignoring, for now, the huge issues about lack of transparency and regulation :rolleyes: ). In theory I can satisfy myself as to the bona fides of a charity before deciding to donate.

This disappears when the state is reaching into my pocket to involuntarily make a donation 'for me' using my money :mad:

If a charitable purpose is regarded as vital to society and warranting a large amount of taxpayer funding, e.g. services to the disabled, it should be provided by a state body. It is demeaning to people to have to rely on charity for what they should be getting by right.


Getting back to this case - even given the messed-up way we do things in Ireland that straddle the supposed boundary between church and state, providing funding to an actively discriminatory body is entirely wrong.

Phoebas

Cabaal wrote: »

Is their a list of the Catholic organizations that are receiving money?

Most hospitals and schools.

magicbastarder

ninja900 wrote: »

If a charitable purpose is regarded as vital to society and warranting a large amount of taxpayer funding, e.g. services to the disabled, it should be provided by a state body. It is demeaning to people to have to rely on charity for what they should be getting by right.

this is the way the irish government has been operating for decades though - let an NGO take care of something which should be provided for by a staturory body. which is why they were getting so much funding; i know someone who was working for an NGO which was providing services which should have been delivered by the health service, and if my memory is any good, their grant was reduced from €400k to €50k in the space of a couple of years.

December2012

For most people they are the only kind of marriage counselling that they can afford.

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

Is their a list of the Catholic organizations that are receiving money?

Every single catholic organisation with representation in the country (well maybe not Iona, though I'd be suprised if the govt. weren't shovelling money down their gullets).

December2012 wrote: »

For most people they are the only kind of marriage counselling that they can afford.

Being told how to run a family by a man and woman neither of whom are supposed to have a romantic relationship is the kind of marriage advice that nobody can afford.

December2012

The counselling is not given by priests.

Brian Shanahan

December2012 wrote: »

The counselling is not given by priests.

What, you think a catholic church run organisation is going to let its people do and say things which go against priestly edict? Even if no priest were involved the instructions and what the "counsellors" say and do will be solely at the dictates of unmarried men who don't know squat about love.

And quite a few of my friends who have been married or are soon to be so have been "counselled" by either priests or nuns through the "good offices" of accord.

Nodin

December2012 wrote: »

The counselling is not given by priests.

But does it reflect church doctrine?

Obliq

I've been to accord for marriage counselling (way back in a totally different life, thankfully) and as December 2012 rightly says, it was the only affordable service that was available (in Limerick) at the time. The counselor we saw was a fully accredited psychologist who was highly skilled at her job and didn't mention god once. In fact, I can remember telling them I was an atheist when I phoned to request an appointment, and was told it wasn't a problem.

This is an interesting development though. Heard about it on newstalk last week sometime and apparently the majority of psychologists and counselors who are actually providing the service are now clashing with the catholic organisation they work for:

"The former director of a Catholic marriage advice charity has claimed that the reason for her dismissal was that she wished to extend counselling services to gay, divorced and unmarried couples."

http://eile.ie/2013/10/16/catholic-charity-director-allegedly-fired-for-pro-gay-views/

"The national executive of Accord, the Catholic Church's marriage counselling agency, overruled a motion which would have required it to offer couples sexual counseling to divorced, gay and unmarried people, which would be against Catholic teaching. .....

The issue has emerged as part of a lawsuit taken by former Accord director Ms Ruth Barror, who is claiming she was dismissed unfairly by the organisation.

Counsel for Ms Barror, Sile O'Kelly, told the Employment Appeals Tribunal on Thursday that the motion was the real reason for her dismissal.

Counsel for Accord have denied this claim. "

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3220

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

But does it reflect church doctrine?

Yes, it does now. See above ^^ :mad:

Nodin

...there is then the issue of fairness. If the state funds a catholic marriage advisory service (that strictly espouses catholic doctrine) it should (for reasons of fairness and equality) provide funding for those of other religions - Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox and Buddhists. And secularists.

Obliq

Yeah, it's the same ol', same ol' thing. State perfectly happy to have service provided for it by RCC, as it is off the hook providing affordable service itself. State will find way to procrastinate about RCC discriminating against people (as that is the RCC 'ethos' and within their rights) while carefully and cleverly sidestepping the real issue which is that the state is NOT providing this essential service to everyone equally.

This fired director Ruth Barror who is bringing the case hasn't a prayer :rolleyes:, but it will highlight the problem.

Hotblack Desiato

Obliq wrote: »

This fired director Ruth Barror who is bringing the case hasn't a prayer :rolleyes:, but it will highlight the problem.

That very much remains to be seen, Accord don't (afaik)* have the exceptions in the so-called Equal Status Act that schools, etc. do.


* Actually Orion did mention this in post no.3.

Obliq

ninja900 wrote: »

That very much remains to be seen, Accord don't (afaik)* have the exceptions in the so-called Equal Status Act that schools, etc. do.


* Actually Orion did mention this in post no.3.

Yes, will be interesting alright. Either way, she did a good thing by tabling that motion.


And sorry Orion! Didn't spot you *mentioning* Accord's ban on counselling for gay marriages already!

*actually detailing. Sorry again. Jaysus, can I not read even 4 or 5 lines without losing concentration. Grr. Christmas.

lazybones32

The majority of the Irish population identify themselves as Catholic and people here get uber-offended when the State subsidises a service for Catholic citizens. The State is not promoting the RCC but is helping fund Catholic social services: are the same cries of discrimination shouted for Govt. support of other social services run by interest-groups?
Accord offers marriage counselling from a Catholic perspective; why should they be forced to offer advice that is contrary to their ethos? Are the same standards expected of every organisation or are there different rules and standards for the different agencies providing the same service?

Sheldons Brain

lazybones32 wrote: »

The majority of the Irish population identify themselves as Catholic and people here get uber-offended when the State subsidises a service for Catholic citizens. The State is not promoting the RCC but is helping fund Catholic social services: are the same cries of discrimination shouted for Govt. support of other social services run by interest-groups?

Exactly. The 84% of taxpayers who are Catholic and married wish to support their marriages. If you wish to support your marriage then you go to people who believe in marriage, not those who advise whatever you're having yourself. Other people don't get married etc and they can also be supported by government. The government supports all sort of minorities all the time.

Nodin

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Exactly. The 84% of taxpayers who are Catholic and married wish to support their marriages. Other people don't get married etc and they can also be supported by government. The government supports all sort of minorities all the time.

.....theres funded advice services for all the various minorities?

Sheldons Brain

.....theres funded advice services for all the various minorities?

I'm pretty sure that any minority that sets up a useful service can have funding according to the number of people involved.

Why not set up a marriage counselling service for people opposed to everything?

the_syco

lazybones32 wrote: »

Accord offers marriage counselling from a Catholic perspective; why should they be forced to offer advice that is contrary to their ethos? Are the same standards expected of every organisation or are there different rules and standards for the different agencies providing the same service?

Accord is funded by the state.
Accord is the company that the state uses to provide marriage counselling.

The state does not, IIRC, provide any other marriage counselling other than Accord.

Thus, if Accord can deny marriage counselling to people selectively, why are they getting money from the State?

the_syco

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Why not set up a marriage counselling service for people opposed to everything?

I'm pretty certain the RCC opposes pretty much everything.

donegal11

Nodin wrote: »

.....theres funded advice services for all the various minorities?

Set one up and look for funding and then complain, the government didn't set up accord but believe it has a value so funds it.

Sheldons Brain

the_syco wrote: »

I'm pretty certain the RCC opposes pretty much everything.

It is pretty keen on marriage, which is the purpose of the exercise.

Turtwig

donegal11 wrote: »

Set one up and look for funding and then complain, the government didn't set up accord but believe it has a value so funds it.

If an organisation is to receive funding from the state the minimum expectation its citizens should have is that that organisations treats everyone equally. Now, maybe the law allows for the unequal treatment. If it does though then it's silly. People of every religion, race and culture need to be regarded as equals. When you have the state actively funding an organisation that practices otherwise how are you supposed to justify those mixed messages on equality?
Accord may have a value but not to the state. If people want it they should fund it themselves. Not expect the state to fund it and then have it actively discriminate various groups of the population.

lazybones32

the_syco wrote: »

Accord is funded by the state.
Accord is the company that the state uses to provide marriage counselling.

The state does not, IIRC, provide any other marriage counselling other than Accord.

Thus, if Accord can deny marriage counselling to people selectively, why are they getting money from the State?

They are providing Catholic marital support for Catholic citizens. I haven't yet needed counselling but I'm sure they don't identify themselves as a multi-denominational/atheist/secularist marriage-counselling service. If they did, and then refused help, it would be discrimination. No, they identified their mission statement from the beginning...


Do you ask your dentist to diagnose your foot pain?

the_syco

lazybones32 wrote: »

Do you ask your dentist to diagnose your foot pain?

To use your analogy; Does Accord teach maths?

Sheldons Brain

If an organisation is to receive funding from the state the minimum expectation its citizens should have is that that organisations treats everyone equally.

So no women's organisations, travellers organisations, organisations for old people? All of these deal with sub groups of society.

In any case what discrimination has occurred? Divorced, gay and unmarried people are not married and should not be the business of a marriage counselling service. As in the example above this is analogous to asking publicly funded dentists treat your feet. Accord has no more business dealing with such people as teaching maths.

Turtwig

lazybones32 wrote: »

They are providing Catholic marital support for Catholic citizens. I haven't yet needed counselling but I'm sure they don't identify themselves as a multi-denominational/atheist/secularist marriage-counselling service. If they did, and then refused help, it would be discrimination. No, they identified their mission statement from the beginning...


Do you ask your dentist to diagnose your foot pain?

By this logic if the state was funding the KKK who'd idenitfied their mission statement from the beginning that'd be ok. Except it wouldn't because the state should not as a principle be funding any organisation that is actively discriminating a group of the population.

lazybones32

the_syco wrote: »

To use your analogy; Does Accord teach maths?

Yes.

And?...or was that it?

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

The majority of the Irish population identify themselves as Catholic

And/or their mammies identify them for them. Or they think that baptism or upbringing in a religion, even if subsequently discarded, requires that they tick that box. Or they reject most RCC teachings but can't quite bring themselves to throw off the label. Or they were really pissed off at the last pope and are vainly hoping for real change while nothing of the sort will be delivered.

and people here get uber-offended when the State subsidises a service for Catholic citizens.

Bzzt. FAIL. The state should not favour a religion. The Constitution forbids it.

The State is not promoting the RCC but is helping fund Catholic social services: are the same cries of discrimination shouted for Govt. support of other social services run by interest-groups?

You'll actually find that it is promoting (a.k.a. forcing) religion on every school day in 96% of primary schools.

Accord offers marriage counselling from a Catholic perspective; why should they be forced to offer advice that is contrary to their ethos?

They're not. They can choose to not accept any taxpayer funding, and be free to do whatever bigoted sh1t they want, as is their right

Are the same standards expected of every organisation or are there different rules and standards for the different agencies providing the same service?

It certainly does seem so, but not in the way you think.

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

They are providing Catholic marital support for Catholic citizens.

That is precisely the problem.

They have a bloody cheek taking money from taxpayers given that they are religious bigots.

lazybones32

Jernal wrote: »

By this logic if the state was funding the KKK who'd idenitfied their mission statement from the beginning that'd be ok. Except it wouldn't because the state should not as a principle be funding any organisation that is actively discriminating a group of the population.

Where do I begin to differentiate between the KKK and a Catholic Marriage Counselling Service?...

While I think on that, may I congratulate you on being a fine example of a moderator; not easily confused by "this logic" <sarcasm, if you couldn't tell>

lazybones32

ninja900 wrote: »

And/or their mammies identify them for them. Or they think that baptism or upbringing in a religion, even if subsequently discarded, requires that they tick that box. Or they reject most RCC teachings but can't quite bring themselves to throw off the label. Or they were really pissed off at the last pope and are vainly hoping for real change while nothing of the sort will be delivered.




Bzzt. FAIL. The state should not favour a religion. The Constitution forbids it.




You'll actually find that it is promoting (a.k.a. forcing) religion on every school day in 96% of primary schools.




They're not. They can choose to not accept any taxpayer funding, and be free to do whatever bigoted sh1t they want, as is their right

Where to begin with you?
1: Not here to discuss "mammies" Rights to raise children.
2: Not here to discuss whether people are nominal Catholic or not
3: Here to discuss Accord receiving funding (majority population who freely IDENTIFY THEMSELVES as Catholic - read repeatedly until message is understood)
4: State had a duty to its' citizens which it (sometimes) complies with, regardless of religion.
5: RCC established more schools in Ireland because the Royal Govt. didn't want to educate Irish Natives (unless they were willing to be 'civilised'). Don't take my word for it though, consult any History book that is worth the paper it's written on

lazybones32

ninja900 wrote: »

That is precisely the problem.

They have a bloody cheek taking money from taxpayers given that they are religious bigots.

Cite case history of Bigotry, please?

Turtwig

lazybones32 wrote: »

Where do I begin to differentiate between the KKK and a Catholic Marriage Counselling Service?...

While I think on that, may I congratulate you on being a fine example of a moderator; not easily confused by "this logic" <sarcasm, if you couldn't tell>

You stated that because they clearly stated their mission they could refuse to help various groups. I'm just asking you to explain that reasoning. If the KKK clearly state their mission and refuse to offer supports to black people should they be allowed state funding? If not why not?
Then, why shouldn't this reasoning apply to a Catholic Marriage Counselling Service that refuses its services to some people on doctrinal grounds?

catallus

ninja900 wrote: »

That is precisely the problem.

They have a bloody cheek taking money from taxpayers given that they are religious bigots.

Would it be all ok if they were irreligious bigots?

lazybones32

Jernal wrote: »

You stated that because they clearly stated their mission they could refuse to help various groups. I'm just asking you to explain that reasoning. If the KKK clearly state their mission and refuse to offer supports to black people should they be allowed state funding? If not why not?
Then, why shouldn't this reasoning apply to a Catholic Marriage Counselling Service that refuses its services to some people on doctrinal grounds?

Did I actually say "they could refuse to help groups"? Or is that just you trying to twist my words and now we're discussing the reasoning behind the KKK...
No, Accord is primarily for people who are Catholic and have a Catholic Marriage and want to live a Catholic Marriage. Is it reasonable to send Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists to a Catholic Agency and demand the Agency to provide help and support for something which is not in keeping with the mission statement and ethos of the organisation?

How exactly is Accord discriminating against people?
Who went to them for help and was denied?
Have you evidence of Citizens being denied service or is this a hypothetical scenario that you're using to try and discredit me somehow?

AerynSun

ninja900 wrote: »

That is precisely the problem.

They have a bloody cheek taking money from taxpayers given that they are religious bigots.

Are ALL taxpayers definitely NOT Catholic? :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

i'd assumed accord were just a crowd runnign those pre-marriage courses.

my brother and SIL went on one of those, with an organisation called NAOMI - the national association for the ovulation method of ireland. it was a two day course; the first day was apparently interesting in that it went into all the legal stuff like wills, and the second day involved talk about things like mucus and getting pregnant.

Gordon

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

In any case what discrimination has occurred? Divorced, gay and unmarried people are not married

Divorced and gay people can be married.

If marriage is meant to only be for the religious people, then surely the priests should be doing the marriage counselling? They are, after all, the people that created the marriage, and blessed it, and have a direct line to their god so they can get their god to fix the marriage right? Actually, a better thought, why don't people just have a good old pray instead?

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

Where to begin with you?
1: Not here to discuss "mammies" Rights to raise children.

The 84% statistic is nonsense. And even if it were accurate it is no justification for what the RCC have been and are being let away with in this country.

2: Not here to discuss whether people are nominal Catholic or not

As above

3: Here to discuss Accord receiving funding (majority population who freely IDENTIFY THEMSELVES as Catholic - read repeatedly until message is understood)

Well, here we are at the nub of the problem, a taxpayer funded service which is only available to certain taxpyers who claim to be members of a particular religion.

4: State had a duty to its' citizens which it (sometimes) complies with, regardless of religion.

Exactly. And they are failing in this instance - people in relationships the RCC does not agree with are discriminated against.

5: RCC established more schools in Ireland because the Royal Govt. didn't want to educate Irish Natives (unless they were willing to be 'civilised'). Don't take my word for it though, consult any History book that is worth the paper it's written on

Consult the history book yourself, look up 'National Schools' and the Stanley letter and get back to me.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Cite case history of Bigotry, please?

Read post no.3.

AerynSun wrote: »

Are ALL taxpayers definitely NOT Catholic? :rolleyes:

The religion of a taxpayer doesn't affect what they have to pay, but it does affect which services paid for by that taxation they can avail of. How is that fair?

Cabaal

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Exactly. The 84% of taxpayers who are Catholic and married wish to support their marriages. If you wish to support your marriage then you go to people who believe in marriage, not those who advise whatever you're having yourself. Other people don't get married etc and they can also be supported by government. The government supports all sort of minorities all the time.

Its exactly that sort of narrow minded thinking that could have results in catholic ethos hospitals refusing treatment to gay people....if they thought they could get away with it

After all 84% of tax payers are catholic and being gay is wrong and up until early 90's it was basically against the law
:rolleyes:

AerynSun

ninja900 wrote: »

The religion of a taxpayer doesn't affect what they have to pay, but it does affect which services paid for by that taxation they can avail of. How is that fair?

I think the point I was making was that your previous post made it sound like all taxpayers were being robbed if any money was going to a Catholic service, and that's obviously not true: the Catholic taxpayers would probably be quite happy with the arrangement.

As for the taxpayers who can't (or rightfully won't!) avail of that particular service (for whatever reason/s), the question is: does the government fund other similar service/s that they could avail of, that better cater to their situation and need?

I think it's unreasonable to expect services to be without some kind of ethos. At best they might claim they are completely impartial or apolitical, but in reality EVERYONE holds a worldview, and their beliefs influence the way they do their job and provide the service they're providing. The challenge is to make sure that all of the various approaches are funded fairly, so that a taxpayer could reasonably find a service that would meet their needs.

lazybones32

ninja900 wrote: »

The 84% statistic is nonsense. And even if it were accurate it is no justification for what the RCC have been and are being let away with in this country.



As above



Well, here we are at the nub of the problem, a taxpayer funded service which is only available to certain taxpyers who claim to be members of a particular religion.



Exactly. And they are failing in this instance - people in relationships the RCC does not agree with are discriminated against.



Consult the history book yourself, look up 'National Schools' and the Stanley letter and get back to me.




Read post no.3.



The religion of a taxpayer doesn't affect what they have to pay, but it does affect which services paid for by that taxation they can avail of. How is that fair?

A service that can be applied to 4 out of every 5 citizens is still discrimination? Do we demand the LGBT publicly-funded organisations to provide heterosexual solutions , so as not to discriminate? Where's the faux outrage now? Do hetero's go to LGBT centres and demand services?
Accord provides support from a Catholic perspective and now a few people are upset because they stand by those principles. If you are not Catholic and have no regard for that perspective, why should one seek help from people who emphasise that angle? (Again, why visit a dentist for foot pain..)

lazygal

lazybones32 wrote: »

A service that can be applied to 4 out of every 5 citizens is still discrimination? Do we demand the LGBT publicly-funded organisations to provide heterosexual solutions , so as not to discriminate? Where's the faux outrage now? Do hetero's go to LGBT centres and demand services?
Accord provides support from a Catholic perspective and now a few people are upset because they stand by those principles. If you are not Catholic and have no regard for that perspective, why should one seek help from people who emphasise that angle? (Again, why visit a dentist for foot pain..)

I couldn't care less what a catholic advice service does, as long as its legal and it doesn't get my money via the tax system, its state money being used to discriminate that's the issue.

robindch

lazybones32 wrote: »

Accord provides support from a Catholic perspective [...]

There is the small matter of the Irish Constitution whose Section 44.2.2 declares that "The State guarantees not to endow any religion".

...though the Courts have interpreted, with some degree of flexibility, the word "endow" as something other than "endow".

Bannasidhe

lazybones32 wrote: »

.
5: RCC established more schools in Ireland because the Royal Govt. didn't want to educate Irish Natives (unless they were willing to be 'civilised'). Don't take my word for it though, consult any History book that is worth the paper it's written on

I assume you are referring to those 'history' books that have since been removed from the school curriculum on the grounds that they were inaccurate (or lies to be blunt about it).

The 'Royal Govt.' as you call it - do you mean Westminster or Dublin pre Act of Union? Either way the 'Royals' haven't had any power since the 18th century so I wonder what your agenda is there.

If you read a history book worth the paper it is written on - or *gasp* the actual documents from the time - you would learn that the RCC made a deal with Westminster as the RCC objected to the existing State funded schools as they lacked a 'Catholic ethos' so in return for complete support for the Act of Union Westminster agreed that private Catholic schools could be founded. Seems the RCC was concerned with educating those who could pay - the poor, not so much.

No one had any issues with educating the 'native' Irish as you call them, no more than they objected to educating the 'native' Scottish or the 'native' Welsh and to claim they did shows you need to stop reading Catholic Nationalist B.S. pseudo-history and start reading actual history.

Nodin

donegal11 wrote: »

Set one up and look for funding and then complain, the government didn't set up accord but believe it has a value so funds it.

...and if it doesn't fund one for all the other faiths and the secularists, its being discriminatory.

Sarky

lazybones32 wrote: »

A service that can be applied to 4 out of every 5 citizens is still discrimination?

Yes, very much so. Discriminating against 1 in 5 is a pretty damn big deal. Why doesn't that number disgust you? It really should.