State spending €3million on communion rituals

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im off to bed...

but ill leave tonite with this..

a city guy in england got a 3 mill bonus this week..how many families would that cover for one years communion payment at 200 euro?

whats that got to do with ireland?

this week irish and italian bonds were being bought up again.

how do you think thats gonna work out?

irish taxpayers money is still subject to gambling on the markets. when the city wants to dump....u will pick up the cost...they will keep the profits.

in the meantime the guys at the bottom are venting their anger at the guys at the very bottom.

turn around...and start looking at who and what has u in this mess.

That's all irrelevant. Either we balance our budget or we continue to borrow, we cannot continue to borrow at the rate we are now, even if we could find willing lenders. That has everything to do with our taxes and our spending, nothing to do with the banks.

If you want generosity of spirit, hold a charity collection. Doesn't your church do two of them at each mass?

Paying tax is not a voluntary act. If I refused to pay tax (fat chance, on PAYE) I can go to jail. So forgive me if I become less than pleased when I see money forcibly taken used for fripperies and vote-buying. There are many fripperies upon which taxation is wasted, true, but this is the one under discussion here and the argument 'but money is wasted on x and y' doesn't excuse the wasting of money on 'z'.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

How little an understanding we have of mental health if people consider
this to be an issue of nothing but "luxuries" & "fripperies". I think it's
pathetic to target this issue in such a mindnumbingly stupid & heartless
way as taking money from poorer people, because that's the best
possible thing you can hope to achieve in as ridiculous a quest as this is.

How dare you belittle the GENUINE mental health issues that some people have by suggesting that members of ONE RELIGION in this country not getting money for what is essentially a day out (which could still happen without, or with only a small fraction of money)

If you're saying actual, genuine poverty is a factor in mental health issues (which I can agree with), can you not see where our tax money would be better spent? On mental health services, for instance???? If, as you suggest someone has a mental health issue due to not being able to afford a communion dress, surely supplying them with the cash for this issue won't solve their issues, the issue will just arise again the next time they can't afford a luxury.

Many posters have pointed out that you can buy dresses for little money). What about the mental health of Jewish children who's parent's can't afford to do Bar Mitzvah, for example? Funny how you never hear any hand wringing about that :rolleyes:

I find it completely ironic that this commercialism and keeping up with the Joneses is so far removed from actual Christianity/Catholicism that it's a joke.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why give parents any back to school allowances either when we could be
saving lives with that money? Which do you value, lives or books? :rolleyes:
.

COME ON! Really? You equate the back to school allowance, for books and other educational requirements for ALL children, irrelevant of class or creed, to be the same as the State paying for frilly dresses and a day out for some members of society, yet conveniently forgetting about the religious and cultural traditions of other members of the community? Or the fact that the money is being spent on something totally unnecessary, and that the need for could be completely removed if just the church/schools got the finger out and made kids have communion in those robe things!

Lucy8080 wrote: »

...families who actually need this payment?

No one needs this payment. No one. Not one single person in the whole country.

MrP

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Except for the fact that we're talking about poorer families displaying
their poverty for everybody to see & creating fcuking hell in the minds
of parents & children alike, assuming they haven't spent grocery money
on this fcuking stuff to keep up appearances, but what does that matter?
Shure no, this is irrelevant because there are like three posters in this
thread who turned out fine in the end :rolleyes:

This may make me sound callous, but I have little sympathy for someone who would do without food for the sake of keeping up appearances.

The best piece of advice I was ever given is that sometimes you have to swallow your pride so that your family can swallow bread. There is no shame in saying 'I can't afford it', and anyone who would think less of you for having it is beneath contempt.

kylith wrote: »

This may make me sound callous, but I have little sympathy for someone who would do without food for the sake of keeping up appearances.

You're right, it does.... Equally, fcuk those mothers who were whoring
themselves out.

kylith wrote: »

The best piece of advice I was ever given is that sometimes you have to swallow your pride so that your family can swallow bread. There is no shame in saying 'I can't afford it', and anyone who would think less of you for having it is beneath contempt.

Equally, those parents can take your advice & send their children to
school in potato sacks to save money on buying/washing children's clothes
- anyone who thinks less of them or their children is beneath contempt.
In fact, to all those idiot parents who didn't spend 7 years putting away a
penny a day for the communion need only put their child in a potato sack
for the amount of weeks it takes to buy 150 worth of electricity &
washing-powder etc... and anybody judging them for their ingenuity is
beneath contempt for they have swallowed their pride & declaratively
stated, for all to see, that "I can't afford it".
In fact, here's a bold idea - why don't we let those children do light
janitorial work as well, this would help lessen the amount of time they
deserve to spend in a potato sack.

krankykitty wrote: »

How dare you belittle the GENUINE mental health issues that some people have by suggesting that members of ONE RELIGION in this country not getting money for what is essentially a day out (which could still happen without, or with only a small fraction of money)

More evidence of:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Notice how everybody just
implicitly assumes religion has anything to do with this issue. I know it'll
be tough, but if you think it through for 5 seconds beyond the neon
flashing lights shone by the word "communion" you'll notice how religion
has nothing to do with this, it's a fcuking social question we're dealing
with. If logic has anything to do with this question we can only claim
religion has anything to do with this issue if the state was funding
communion rituals for all participants involved. Whether you like it or not
that is a fact, which generalizes the question to one in which we question
all possible social issues and the funding of such, which itself implies some
shockingly obvious questions that are immediately obvious to anyone
not trying to use the coincidental relationship religion has with this issue
as a means to take from poorer sectors of society. These questions can
hardly be honestly addressed judging by the 7 pages of posts thus far
unless people bother to go beyond the surface. But that doesn't matter,
if religion is in any way, shape or form associated with something it's
implicitly bad (hence why it's posted in here).

krankykitty wrote: »

If, as you suggest someone has a mental health issue due to not being able to afford a communion dress, surely supplying them with the cash for this issue won't solve their issues, the issue will just arise again the next time they can't afford a luxury.

I'm absolutely sure it does arise next time they can't afford a "luxury",
but I never claimed this was going to be a solution to all mental health
problems so I have no idea why you'd presume that's my argument.

krankykitty wrote: »

Many posters have pointed out that you can buy dresses for little money). What about the mental health of Jewish children who's parent's can't afford to do Bar Mitzvah, for example? Funny how you never hear any hand wringing about that :rolleyes:

Honestly this can be answered by referring to the very definition of
democracy. If you have some problem with that, take it up with the
concept of democracy.

krankykitty wrote: »

I find it completely ironic that this commercialism and keeping up with the Joneses is so far removed from actual Christianity/Catholicism that it's a joke.

One minute it's a religious issue,, the next it's just keeping up with the
Joneses, both scenario's completely ignore the fact that people want
this.

krankykitty wrote: »

COME ON! Really? You equate the back to school allowance, for books and other educational requirements for ALL children, irrelevant of class or creed, to be the same as the State paying for frilly dresses and a day out for some members of society, yet conveniently forgetting about the religious and cultural traditions of other members of the community? Or the fact that the money is being spent on something totally unnecessary, and that the need for could be completely removed if just the church/schools got the finger out and made kids have communion in those robe things!

No, that's not what I did at all, go back and read what I wrote &
what I was responding to...

krankykitty wrote: »

If you're saying actual, genuine poverty is a factor in mental health issues (which I can agree with), can you not see where our tax money would be better spent? On mental health services, for instance????

Again, this is answered by the response you misunderstood. In fact
it's explained in the next response just to save time...

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Oh, come on SW - books for education and dresses for communion don't even compare, and you know it. That's a blatantly false analogy.

For the record, the money would be better spent on books for schools too, or even an increase in the dole.

There's nothing wrong with the analogy if you read in the context of
what I was responding to, & in fact I should of gone further. If someone
is going to pull up arguments about how money can be spent better
elsewhere you can easily apply that argument to other areas where
money could be better spent. There isn't a single thing wrong with that.
However it highlights the absurdity of the argument (hence why I did it).
But you completely ignore what I said & instead virtually repeat the
argument I responded to. So now I think you need to answer that claim
too, what do you think is more valuable? Books for children or saving
lives? Notice how what I'm saying has nothing to do with dresses for
communions, it's just focusing on the logic of the argument. This
pathetic argument can be used to take money away from anything
if people are happy with surface arguments like this.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

And if this is not a religious thing, but a social one (as you claim), can I have 200 quid to go down the pub tonight? I promise I'll enjoy it.

I'm fully in favour of that, in fact all you need to do is to convince
society that they should do that for you & I'm sure it'll be done.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Do you deny that a perfect communion dress can be got new or once-worn for €25?

Why would I?

I'd just like to say how little the latest posts (and others of course) care
about the concept of democracy. Whether I like it or not, money is given
to what I consider to be a total waste of money every single day - why?
That's such a simple question I see not one poster even considered. All
you have to do is switch off the confirmation bias & read the latest posts
critically to find out what that is...
In fact I'll just say it - people want it... I don't want to give any money
to fishermen in the east to slaughter fish but - shock - people want it
& that's one of those horrendous parts of being in a democracy, trying
to, in some form, provide things for people they want because *they
feel* they need them (regardless of the declarative statements of fact
we're privy to in this thread). You may not like that, but again that is
your own hatred of the concept of democracy, not the fault of those
enemies from within known as children wanting a nice communion day.
They are just luxuries, and as such we must never give luxuries to
anybody. In fact just think how much money we could devote to
mental health services if we deducted the price of that luxury known
as toilet paper from the social welfare :eek::eek:

MagicMarker wrote: »

SW, I have to ask, what the fuck are you talking about? What has mental health issues or school books got to do with this?

Mental health issues:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

we're talking about poorer families displaying their poverty for everybody to see & creating fcuking hell in the minds of parents & children alike,
assuming they haven't spent grocery money on this fcuking stuff to keep
up appearances,

No doubt you're aware of concepts like social status. No doubt you're
aware of how important that is to as social a species as humans. No
doubt you are aware of how this relates to those mothers whoring
themselves out to fund this day. I mean do you really just have no
clue what I'm talking about?

As for school books, I think you need to actually read the context of
where I mention school books (though I think you knew that).

MagicMarker wrote: »

Should we give money to people so they can buy an xbox because they want it? Because buying them an xbox is just as utterly retarded as buying them a dress.

As fascinating as your [subjective] opinion of your own strawman is,
if people were to request this be done I'm sure it would be done
(democracy 101).

MagicMarker wrote: »

Right, so we should give people money for communion day so the child doesn't develop mental health issues? Got it.

It's unsurprising that you completely ignore my point. I'm not bothering
with any more arguments if you're going to completely dishonestly
ignore everything I say & respond with something this petty... How
does your argument at all address my point about mothers whoring
themselves out? How at all does your response even bother addressing
the point I made about parents spending grocery money on this? Not a
care in the world for these issues, what do you care about the thoughts
of parents who have declared to all in their social radius that they are
in fact too poor to buy a simple dress or go out for a meal etc... What
do you care about those people who fcuking care about what others
think of them, who care to make sure others don't see their financial
state & cast pity on them, or judge them etc... who up until this fcuking
communion had been doing fine in that regard only to be forced into a
situation where they have to announce they are poor to their society,
have to tell their child they can't have a day like everyone else etc...
I know it doesn't fit your worldview but this is how people think, people
not like us ubermensch I know but that doesn't discount the fact that
this is reality. Of course though none of this matters because three
people on your side of the argument turned out fine :rolleyes:

MagicMarker wrote: »

Also, no matter where I look I see people showing outrage that such an allowance even exists, shouldn't the the allowance be cut altogether? You know, democracy 101?

Two things with this:

1) Are you really asking me whether the allowance should be cut
altogether because your subjective experience tells you that everybody
is against this? Seriously??

2) Of course you can call for this allowance to be cut, in fact I don't
think I've said you couldn't. However trying to hide behind arguments
that don't stand up to scrutiny is charlatanism at it's finest. It just so
happens the logic espoused in this thread thus far is so ridiculous &
pettily subjective that it's scary how almost nobody cares to point this
out. I find it fcuking horrendous that such bad logic could be so easily
accepted as a means to take money away from people in such a
realistic situation. Half the posts attack the irrelevant religious aspects,
others attack the parents, others use their own biases to argue the
parents shouldn't be so greedy & stupid, yet every post blithely ignores
the fact that people, in a democracy, want this & that it does something
good for people who are forced to enter into some ridiculous social
event forced upon them (remember this isn't a choice).
If you want to practice democracy 101 in fighting to take money away
from poor people just be honest about it & don't try to claim some logic
is on your side & most of all don't try to ignore the awful consequences
of your arguments. You are just going to bash poor people, that's it.

MagicMarker wrote: »

1. So we should spend 3 million in handouts per year because a few women are so concerned by what others think of them that they'd have sex for money? No, sorry, don't think so.

Wait a minute, is that my argument? Really??

MagicMarker wrote: »

2. Taking food off your child's table to put them in a dress for a communion? We should give people handouts because they have their priorities arseways? Sorry, if a parent would rather their child starve so they can look pretty then that's something for child protection services to address.

I very much doubt a parent going through that much pain for their
child would not feed their own kids, I'm pretty sure you can see that
there are other ways than not feeding their kid that grocery money
can be taken away.

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are problems to be addressed here but throwing money at parents isn't going to fix them.

Apparently it does in this case, which is why people had it put in place
in the first place.

MagicMarker wrote: »

1. They aren't my subjective experiences, there's very clear outrage everywhere I look about this allowance. Of course there are some who agree with it, but most people seem to be against it. Just have a read of every thread on boards about it, google it, it's pretty clear what people think about this allowance.

Yes I've read the arguments but as I've said most are predicated on
ridiculous assumptions about religion & stupidity by way of projection
of your own personal values onto others, other claims about us not
being able to afford it are rich considering we have it budgeted.

MagicMarker wrote: »

2. Bad logic is giving people an ''exceptional needs payment'' for a day out that has optional dress, and is known about 7 years in advance. There is nothing exceptional about it, and it's a slap in the face to the people who really do need the money.

Do we really need to go into how flawed this 7 year argument of
yours is? I am just shocked such heartlessness is taken seriously.
Also, parents being forced into something culturally that they can't
economically afford seems to me to be the very definition of an
exceptional need, since they otherwise wouldn't have to deal with this
nonsense if they had a choice in the matter.

MagicMarker wrote: »

How are parents being forced to do anything?

Communion? Optional.

200 euro dress? Optional.

Yep, sorry, not seeing anyone being forced here.

Okay...

sephir0th wrote: »

A lot of kids like to go out to cinema, play sports, etc. all of which cost money. Do you think we should have welfare payouts for every situation in which the child's 'social status' may be impacted?

We do, do you know what child benefit & similar related schemes are for?

MrPudding wrote: »

I know it has been asked before, but why do your posts come out in this odd format? It is really irritating in a long post.

MrP

I've seen other people do it too. I think it's because they reach the end of a
line in the text box and think they have to hit 'return' like on a typewriter,
not realising that it will be formatted automatically.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im not moving from my position...but the more this thread evolves...i see that posters are coming towards my position.

Just who the hell is coming around to your nonsensical position?

Dades wrote: »

We're talking about a specific payment here for a specific event. You trying to shift the focus from what the payment is actually related to is a bit disingenuous.

This thread is about what the payment is for more than who it is for.

And we continue to entirely miss the point:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Notice how everybody just
implicitly assumes religion has anything to do with this issue. I know it'll
be tough, but if you think it through for 5 seconds beyond the neon
flashing lights shone by the word "communion" you'll notice how religion
has nothing to do with this, it's a fcuking social question we're dealing
with. If logic has anything to do with this question we can only claim
religion has anything to do with this issue if the state was funding
communion rituals for all participants involved. Whether you like it or not
that is a fact, which generalizes the question to one in which we question
all possible social issues and the funding of such, which itself implies some
shockingly obvious questions that are immediately obvious to anyone
not trying to use the coincidental relationship religion has with this issue
as a means to take from poorer sectors of society. These questions can
hardly be honestly addressed judging by the 7 pages of posts thus far
unless people bother to go beyond the surface. But that doesn't matter,
if religion is in any way, shape or form associated with something it's
implicitly bad (hence why it's posted in here).

The payment is for a religious event coincidentally, it's just a product of
our history that this is the case. It could easily be any other situation,
and in fact is sometimes (in the case of school books, uniforms), we
are basically talking about support for parents in dealing with things
forced onto them, like this religious event. It may very well be just
nonsense to me & you but it's still a fact of reality, whether we want
to brazenly deny it or not, that this is forced on parents & this money
is being offered to help them considering history has us landed in this
certain circumstance. This obvious fact explains why money isn't just
thrown at parents for christenings & confirmations etc... It's just a
historical accident.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Does the child have no shoes? Then yes, state coffers should be available to ensure the child has footwear...that's surely not a matter of exceptional needs funds being spent frivolously?

But shoes are just a "luxury" :rolleyes: Similarly I think your logic means we
should be deducting the social welfare payments drastically because
all those 'professionals' are indulging in luxurious items like toilet paper.
I mean honestly, no shoes? Do you not see how your own argument
can easily be used against you to nullify it? You might consider shoes to
be an acceptable level at which we should throw money at people but I
mean other people don't think we should even be providing children with
shoes & god help you if a libertarian comes to power. At this level of
argument we're both right, jesus even the guy who wants to have sex
with those shoes is right... There's a reason such subjective opinions
shouldn't be offered in such a serious matter as this.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's patently obvious that a fund for exceptional needs should be spent on - exceptional needs - like shoeless children. What I object to is it being squandered, like on a knees up and unnecessary day out for a single religion in a multi-cultural society, all of whom are contributing to said coffers.

Going on about an unnecessary day is rich considering it's basically
mandatory for nearly every parent as things currently stand &
unbelievably childish attempts to just ignore this fact betray nothing
but a confirmation bias so riled up to make truth an irrelevancy. You
really want to take your problem up with the history books, I mean it's
not the parents fault that this communion nonsense has been
institutionalized & lay Catholics feel they're forced into it. I don't know
how people can ignore such obvious facts & continue on as if everybody
is an atheist viewing this as an optional thing, it really amounts to nothing
other than denial of history because your own worldview blinds you so
much you can't even begin to view the world from another's viewpoint.

And furthermore, this exceptional needs denial - I mean you can only
deny this is an exceptional needs issue if you view this as all being
optional (which just has to be fueled by a denial of reality fueled by
your own worldview, I just can't see how such nonsense could manifest
itself otherwise). Hopefully we can actually analyze the denial of this
being mandatory first which should make it clear why even the
government classes this as an exceptional needs payment. But in any
case even the spokesperson for St. Vincent De Paul, obviously biased because
of the religion I'm sure :rolleyes:, can tell you another reason why this is viewed as
an exceptional needs payment.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If parents cannot afford to clothe and dress their child then keeping up with the joneses in brand spanking new shiney patent shoes and new gown should be so far down their list of priorities that attempting to use funds for that should be disallowed on the grounds the parents clearly have no fathomable idea of how to prioritise.

Yes, and those mothers whoring themselves off deserve to be shot for
doing what they've done. I mean if you were emperor of Ireland and
could force your beliefs onto people then yes, you'd be right but - if
we're willing to enter the world of reality - your priorities just aren't
other people's priorities. Also your own argument can easily just be
used against you in that I can just as adamantly argue that your
priorities are the ones that are off & we can just go in circles...
Another verification of the fact that subjective opinions have no place
in as serious a discussion as this...

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm all for the state helping out people GENUINELY in need of that help, I work with many people who are on the bread-line - I don't agree with funding an upgrade in apparel for voluntary religious ceremonies any more than I think a fund for exceptional needs should replace an impoverished snooker players cue or an impoverished drivers car.

Again, claiming this is voluntary is unbelievable... Furthermore strawmen
about snooker players? Really? It's no wonder you'd pull up such a
ridiculous analogy if you're calling this a voluntary situation for parents.
I find it so shocking we're talking about taking money away from parents
in reality, this isn't hypothetical, and it's based on such illogical
preconceptions.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet without the personal vested interest in either that throwing money at religious ceremonies seems to drum up, such claims wouldn't be getting any support or claims that the howible atheists are just picking on the poor.

I'd love for you to mention where my vested interests lie on this matter
or how I'm claiming the howible atheists are stealing christmas.

Galvasean wrote: »

Just who the hell is coming around to your nonsensical position?

oh that's right, no one!!!!!!!!

When all else fails, just continue with the insults & downright refuse to
even bother to illuminate us on why such a position is nonsensical.
Thanks for the positive contribution. I wouldn't consider this comment
an insult if you'd bothered to even hint at why the opinion (s)he holds
is nonsensical, but I mean maybe it's just too obvious & undeserving of
a logical argument for mere mortals like me...

Would confirmation be applicable for this payment or is it just communion?

Children getting money from relations etc., where did that tradition come from - my cousin made hers in the UK and she didn't get a penny (that was a good few years ago)