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

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.

Frank Lee Midere

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Rubbish on three counts. Firstly the Catholic Church did teach the poor, certainly it did so before the British State chose to - mostly via the CBS. Secondly the penal laws did ban Catholic education at all levels up to 3rd level ( second statute in 1695). Thirdly there are native Scots, Irish and Welsh not 'native'. There is no need for scare quotes.

Sarky

Yay, another argument on history with a professional historian!

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

Yay, another argument on history with a professional historian!

Now all we need is oldrnwisr to weigh in for a slam dunk!

Brian Shanahan

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.

A) The majority of the population say they can speak some Irish. They can speak Irish in the same way they are catholic, i.e. not.
Even if the majority were truly catholic Ireland still passes itself off as a secular republic. If Ireland were secular, then it wouldn't be allowing a religious group to perform the guidance counselling important to the secular act of marriage (you're not married until you both sign the civil state register).

So that's your argument blown out of the water. Stop complaining when we hold the state up to the standard it says it holds.

Brian Shanahan

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Rubbish on three counts.

You, who couldn't wipe your behind but for the map tattooed to your forhead is arguing with one of the most erudite posters on the site?

Yeah, this isn't going to end well Frank.

Nodin

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Rubbish on three counts. Firstly the Catholic Church did teach the poor, certainly it did so before the British State chose to - mostly via the CBS. Secondly the penal laws did ban Catholic education at all levels up to 3rd level ( second statute in 1695). Thirdly there are native Scots, Irish and Welsh not 'native'. There is no need for scare quotes.

The act of Union was in 1800.....

Bannasidhe

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Rubbish on three counts. Firstly the Catholic Church did teach the poor, certainly it did so before the British State chose to - mostly via the CBS. Secondly the penal laws did ban Catholic education at all levels up to 3rd level ( second statute in 1695). Thirdly there are native Scots, Irish and Welsh not 'native'. There is no need for scare quotes.

Oh not this crap again.

Christian Brothers - First established in Ireland 1802 - Act of Union was 1801 = coinkydinks...No.

1831 A National School System was introduced - its main object was to ‘unite in one system children of different creeds’, however pressure from the various churches - mainly the RCC resulted in 96% of the schools coming under the management of one denomination or another - amazingly enough this is exactly the same percentage as today - by the mid- 19th century.

The Penal Laws were aimed at all person not members of the Established Church - i.e. Not Anglicans - so Methodists, Quakers, Presbyterians etc etc were discriminated against just as much as Catholics - the Penal Laws were also in place in England, Scotland and Wales so only in the fevered imaginations of Catholic nationalists can they be described as specifically either anti-Irish or Anti- Catholic.

No 3rd level for Catholics? Explain the establishment of the Queens Colleges in the 1850s so....

Define 'native' - does a (Cambro-Norman) Fitzgerald count? How about a (Galloglass) MacSweeney? Maybe a (Norse) McAuliffe? Perhaps a (Hiberno-Norman) Burke is but a (Anglo-Norman) de Burgh isn't - who exactly are these native Irish you assure me exist.

At what point in time were there only Native Irish on this island?

Did these native Irish conceive of themselves as 'Irish' living in 'Ireland' - why yes they did - but only after the (Welsh) Tudors had violently imposed the concept on them and the (Scottish) Stuarts finished off the job so by the time of the RCC supported Act of Union the (German) Hanoverians had many 'native' Irish subjects in their new United Kingdom who had been so thoroughly Anglicised they didn't even know their ancestors of a mere two hundred years earlier would have been astounded at the thought of identifying as 'Irish'.

Prior to the introduction of centralisation by the Tudors the term 'Irish' was akin to us today calling ourselves 'European' - technically, it is correct but not in a national identity sense.

There was no racially based impediment at any time whatsoever to gaining whatever educational qualifications one wished - however, for a period of time if one was not an Anglican one would need to go abroad for further education - ones ethnicity did not factor into it. One's religion did.

Bit like now - if one is not a Roman Catholic - good luck getting your 'native' Irish child into a so-called 'National' school.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

The act of Union was in 1800.....

Enacted in 1801.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Enacted in 1801.

...you're off the clock now. And don't try writing on the screen with a red pen either.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

...you're off the clock now. And don't try writing on the screen with a red pen either.

I use Green.