It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Labour subsidises Catholic Church's pedo fund!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Not sure this was in the manifesto

education.independent.co.uk...

Wasn't aware Labour was a fundamentalist christian party, before the election but it appears there no shame / secret in admitting it now!

Why the Catholic Church needs / deserves our state support is beyond me. Surely the World be a better place with no single-faith / ghetto schools? If churches can't afford to support their schools why should we pay for religious education?

Can anyone think of an excuse for this outrageous expense? I can't

R




posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I think you're having to work really hard to include a ridiculous (not to say offensive) "pedo fund" comment here.

If you actually read the article you quote you'll see -

The decision will benefit 350 Roman Catholic schools, 130 Anglican and 23 run by other Christian groups. Five Jewish schools, two Muslim and one Sikh school would also benefit.


Seeing as how the people that constitute these groups all pay their taxes why shouldn't they have some of the investment going to schools?



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Deliberately so.
Why we should fund any faith school is beyond me.

But the Catholic Church said they 'can't afford it'. As the richest church in the world why not?

2 reasons:

1 they won't sell off their assets to raise funds

2 they've had to take out massive indemnity cover against their long, long history of pedo behaviour

So we are bank-rolling them and on an opportunity cost basis we're bank-rolling their pedo cover fund.

The fact that this goes through (quietly), our education secretary is a member of some wierd RC cult and the measure provides 70% benefits to RC schools are not, IMO, unrelated



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
Deliberately so.
Why we should fund any faith school is beyond me.


- Because the people that comprise that faith are tax-payers just like everyone else, if they're a legal organisation conforming to the state's laws, requirements and regulations why not?


But the Catholic Church said they 'can't afford it'. As the richest church in the world why not?

2 reasons:

1 they won't sell off their assets to raise funds

2 they've had to take out massive indemnity cover against their long, long history of pedo behaviour


- Just because you can't see it doesn't make it so.
What established religious denomination has ever had a sale to fund anything?
Those are religious artifacts bought or donated by their congregation over the ages, why should they sell them?

As for the scandels they have had I suggest this is left to the courts and fact instead of inuendo and those who are simply out to exploit the issue.


So we are bank-rolling them and on an opportunity cost basis we're bank-rolling their pedo cover fund.


- Cor, talk about stretching it.
"Opportunity cost"?



The fact that this goes through (quietly)


- Hardly. It has been in several UK newspapers for a start........you found out about it, right?
Hardly what you'd call being kept quiet, hmm?


our education secretary is a member of some wierd RC cult


- I'll accept it might look like that.....but only if you know nothing about them, really.
There's a ton of information available about Opus Dei, they're hardly weird or a cult.

You are also ignoring the fact that the SoS hardly runs the show herself at the Dept of Education and Skills and nor does that Dept operate in a bubble.

Gordon Brown the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer (ie the man who controls the purse strings) is the son of a Church of Scotland Presbyterian Minister (ie as protestant as they come) must have been aware of and ok'd the expenditure.

......or is he part of this sectarian shadowy weird Catholic pervert cult plot too?



and the measure provides 70% benefits to RC schools are not, IMO, unrelated


- .....and if there were more C of E schools than RC it'd benefit them more, sorry but this is just pure number play and shows nothing of consequence.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
As far as I'm aware I live in a secular society where people are free to practice whatever religion they want, at home or in church.
Church attendance in UK is 10% of the population - on a good Sunday!
I wasn't aware we were paying to subsidise people's religious indoctrination programmes.

The fact the Government announced the day after the election looks to me like an attempt to keep it quiet.

If these churches 'can't afford it' then it's simple the schools lose their religious status and become state schools - all the churches in question have significant funds but choose not to support these 'important' schools but spend their money on 'other things'.

Whichever way you look at this it stinks.

AFAIK it wasn't a (disclosed) manifesto issue so yes I see it as a move that wasn't voted for, was snuck through and just happens to provide the bulk of funding to a church among who's members are 'Butch' Kelly & Bliar.

If it's so important these pupils can study religion at the weekend - just as UK Chinese children do!

Not in my name!!



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Well, we're all entitled to our view.

I see no big deal why tax-payers, who happen to be RC, C of E or whatever, get a little state support from time to time.
They pay their taxes too.

When one considers the other, enormous, support the established C of E gets your contention that this gov is passing measures mainly benefiting RC's is plainly wrong.

(.....and If the gov was trying to "keep this quiet" I'd suggest that having the story go out to be published in several of our national newspapers was hardly a good tactic.)

Gordon Brown (son of the - protestant - manse) holds the overall purse strings.

(BTW Tony Blair goes to an RC church because his wife is RC and he supports the ecumenical view-point which is extremely common in the 'high C of E', hardly a huge conspiracy.)

Thankfully the UK left such ridiculous sectarian suspicious nonsense behind long long ago.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join