Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

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.

alaimacerc

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'?"

gctest50

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'?"

Like supporting Columbia etc ?

Christy42

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'?"

They frequently announce what an extra collection is for. I guess some of the initial collection could go to schools, I haven't exactly tracked the money but I figure if they are going to announce unusual stuff (generally for retired priests or something similar) they would like announce this

Igotadose

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

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

Who is she though? she brought challenges before and lost them too.

ohnonotgmail

Grayson wrote: »

Who is she though? she brought challenges before and lost them too.

She is a nobody with no money. Hence she is the perfect stooge to take a challenge like this.

NuMarvel

Grayson wrote: »

Who is she though? she brought challenges before and lost them too.

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

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.

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.

NuMarvel

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.

The stay until Friday is to allow her a chance to lodge an appeal before the referendum result can be officially declared. I imagine the Supreme Court will be quick enough in making a decision, depending on the nature of her arguments. They reverted within a few weeks on the final challenge to the marriage equality referendum, so I'd say this would be the same unless she miraculously happens to produce a cogent argument.

While her appeals are frustrating changes to the constitution, they're not making much difference to changes to the actual law. New laws still need to be debated by the Dáil and Seand, which don't return until 18 September anyway. She has, at best, delayed new laws by a few weeks, and in the meantime, civil servants can still work away on drafting the new legislation while her challenges are being heard and decided on.

Hotblack Desiato

She'll need a challenge on a point of law to go to the SC though, won't she? Hard to see how she'll manage that, especially as she tried challenging the referendum law before and got nowhere.

alaimacerc

Igotadose wrote: »

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.

But conversely, when the electoral clock is running, you can also get a full hearing in a matter of days. Witness Bush v. Gore.

volchitsa

alaimacerc wrote: »

But conversely, when the electoral clock is running, you can also get a full hearing in a matter of days. Witness Bush v. Gore.

Ah, a dispute between two white males, and their political parties. That's urgent.
In Roe v Wade, otoh, "Roe" had long since given birth before the judgment allowing her an abortion came through.

Try_harder

Supreme Court dismissed her leave to appeal. The legislation can be enacted now

Try_harder

Watch Mattie Ronan and Co frustrate its passage through the Oireachtas

Hotblack Desiato

IIRC you need ten objectors to delay a vote being called and if the No-side TDs in FF etc have any sense they'll stfu and abstain / not turn up and just let the legislation go through with as little fuss as possible, they've embarrassed themselves enough over this issue already and don't want the electorate to be reminded how out of touch with them they are.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

IIRC you need ten objectors to delay a vote being called and if the No-side TDs in FF etc have any sense they'll stfu and abstain / not turn up and just let the legislation go through with as little fuss as possible, they've embarrassed themselves enough over this issue already and don't want the electorate to be reminded how out of touch with them they are.

The bould Mattie is on the record as saying “I have no intention of obstructing this Bill but I have every intention of placing amendments” so presumably he won't be seeking to delay the vote.

Try_harder

Placing spurious amendments is obstructing it, they never admit to filibustering and obstructing but thats what they do

PopePalpatine

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

IIRC you need ten objectors to delay a vote being called and if the No-side TDs in FF etc have any sense they'll stfu and abstain / not turn up and just let the legislation go through with as little fuss as possible, they've embarrassed themselves enough over this issue already and don't want the electorate to be reminded how out of touch with them they are.

That's one hell of an "if".

Dial Hard

Speaking of anti-repeal idiots going on the record with big claims, did John Waters ever move to Spain in the end?

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I was delighted to read that her case was dismissed but also that "...The court also said there was no reason why costs should not be awarded against Ms Jordan."

Igotadose

If by some amazing luck she pays her court costs, Revenue should look hard at her taxes to see where the money comes from.

Loafing Oaf

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That's one hell of an "if".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/many-anti-repeal-tds-now-set-to-back-abortion-legislation-1.3510570?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fmany-anti-repeal-tds-now-set-to-back-abortion-legislation-1.3510570

According to this article, many TDs who were against repeal intend to vote for the legislation, or at worst abstain. Very few clearly saying they will vote against. I think as HD says there is a recognition that there is no political benefit to be obstructing this legislation. I reckon the only people standing against will be 'true believers' like Carol Nolan...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Glad to hear that the appeals have all been dismissed. I think what happened is that the individuals who appealed (and the people behind them) expected the result to be much closer. Like many of us really. And had the appeals prepared and ready to go. And then ill-advisedly decided to press on, even when the result was quite emphatic. The appeals taken all would have made much more sense if the result had been much closer. But instead, they all looked foolish.

LuckyLloyd

Imagine having the gall to go to try and personally frustrate the clear will of the electorate (clearer than the will with which the 8th was introduced in 1983) as a whole?

Igotadose

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Imagine having the gall to go to try and personally frustrate the clear will of the electorate (clearer than the will with which the 8th was introduced in 1983) as a whole?

The giant angry sky fairy told her to. Not the first time. Wait till the removing the 'woman's place in the home' referendum passes, she'll be back again.

Or when the awful preamble goes. Yup, she'll be clicking them beads and getting some crap lawyers to gin up sure-to-fail appeals.

At least, until Revenue gets after her and shuts down her funding. This'd be easy in the US, but here, who knows.

Hotblack Desiato

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The appeals taken all would have made much more sense if the result had been much closer. But instead, they all looked foolish.

The appeals were foolish anyway.

So what if some people were on the register who shouldn't have been, and some were taken off it who shouldn't have been. This is inevitable in any vote and you can't prove which way these people voted (or would have voted) so no benefit can be shown to have occurred to one side or the other.

The idea that members of the government cannot campaign in favour of an amendment is laughably stupid.

The courts should apply an Isaac Wunder order to her to stop her wasting the courts' time with more ridiculous appeals in future. And yes I hope the revenue go after her and apply tax on the funding she's been getting.

Loafing Oaf

Deleted User wrote: »

"homemaker" Joanna Jordan is going to bring a petition challenging the High Court ruling that the rest of the country can outvote her.

Why is there no journalist in the country wants to profile this constant agitator, neither her nor Charles Byrne?

Where do they get their money? Private citizens, homemakers and music teachers, for instance, rarely have high court cash just knocking around.

Where is the Irish Times piece on the people suing the voters of Ireland at great expense?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/just-because-people-voted-for-it-doesnt-make-it-right-man-who-attempted-legal-challenge-against-referendum-result-37289132.html
Mr. Byrne sets out his own stall in this interview, although he doesn't say who, if anyone is funding him. Younger and more politically savvy than I was expecting. Also, not much overt God-bothering in the interview, although it's pretty clear where he's coming from...

Igotadose

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/just-because-people-voted-for-it-doesnt-make-it-right-man-who-attempted-legal-challenge-against-referendum-result-37289132.html
Mr. Byrne sets out his own stall in this interview, although he doesn't say who, if anyone is funding him. Younger and more politically savvy than I was expecting. Also, not much overt God-bothering in the interview, although it's pretty clear where he's coming from...

I won't get back the 3 minutes I just spent reading that article. Wasn't he the one whose entire real property was a piano? I do agree with one thing he said: fire all the bishops. I wouldn't rehire any, however, which I don't think is where he was going with it.

As for anti-women's rights (aka right-to-life) getting stronger with legalized abortion, well, I don't wager but I wouldn't take any odds on that. Ireland's sent its message. The RCC's in retreat and falling apart worldwide, we're just another place it's tentacles have been shorn. More to come, too. Good riddance.

Igotadose

Some muppet named John Bruton's already launched a whine-salvo against the proposed legislation. https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0908/992511-abortion-legislation-dail/

(Yeah, former Taoiseach and all that. Former's the operative word. STFU. Conscientious objection: keep women oppressed.)

Hotblack Desiato

Bruton can go fcuk himself to be honest.

We knew what the draft legislation said, and in that light we voted to repeal by two to one. That's TWO TO FCUKING ONE, JOHN.

Just shut up and go back to counting your pension.

The arrogance of him, that he thinks his opinion is worth more than that of two-thirds of voters. How bloody dare he.