Average Welfare Payments for Religious Ceremonies Halved 2012

clairefontaine

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

No, it is not.
Religion doesn't have an official curriculum in primary schools, it's up to the individual school and their ethos. So Catholic schools have AliveO, Educate Together have Learn Together etc, but it's not a part of any state curriculum.

Pedant rant over and out.

Yes it is. The schools are obliged via the Constitution to teach religion. It just doesn't specify which religion. That is why you will not find a school that has NO religion whatsover. The Educate Togethers teach world religion and are seperated from the parish.

KamiKazeKitten

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Outside of the cities though I would wager a good 85% of schools are Catholic ones meaning it is part of most schools ethos.

Ethos, yes.
Curriculum, no.

They are two separate things - I'll give you an example. I know of a Catholic school with some very strict Muslim children in it.
The parents requested that the children not do Religion (which was granted), and also not to sing and dance (which wasn't allowed).

Why? Ethos and curriculum are not the same thing. If it's on the curriculum the children should be enabled to experience it. Do you see the difference?

The state should not be funding religious ceremonies imo.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes it is. The schools are obliged via the Constitution to teach religion. It just doesn't specify which religion. That is why you will not find a school that has NO religion whatsover. The Educate Togethers teach world religion and are seperated from the parish.

Reread what I said. There is no curriculum for RE. There is for English, Irish, Maths etc.
Learn Together teaches Belief systems, Moral and Spiritual, Equality and Justice, Ethics and the environment strands, just fyi, so it's not just world religions.
So no, children do not have to do the religious ceremonies.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes it is. The schools are obliged via the Constitution to teach religion. It just doesn't specify which religion. That is why you will not find a school that has NO religion whatsover. The Educate Togethers teach world religion and are seperated from the parish.

Isn't that the 5th Amendment to our Constitution???

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Isn't that the 5th Amendment to our Constitution???

I'm not really sure. I have a correspondence with the Ministry for Ed about this issue, in which I was told it was a constitutional obligation to provide religious education. He did cite the parts of it but I would have to dig out.

Edit: I found it. He cites article 44.4

c_man

"sure it's only a few million"

Jesus Christ, what planet are some peopleliving on

mariaalice

There should not be any general or specific religious or moral education in school because as far as possible education should be bias and value free.

I do think there should be awareness/consciousness raising along with cultural studies in schools because this would give children the tools to resist cultural pressures to behave in a certain way.

jmayo

wolfpawnat wrote: »

This pops up far too often, seriously overdone!

My opinion, I do not begrudge Catholics the right to have their religious ceremonies, the same way I would not begrudge Islamic, Jewish, Hindi, etc. Some families are VERY religious and though I do not believe the dresses should cost that much as they seem to be on sale in places for less than 100e, they cannot afford it, and yes, it is annoying for hard working tax payers to fork out for these things, but your religious view should not mean that others have not the right to express theirs.

And the expression of a persons religious views should not be costing the taxpayers money.

Odysseus wrote: »

I don't think the fact that I pay taxes gives me any special position in saying how they are spent.

We employ people to do that, and I have no special say in how those people do their jobs.

We allow for "emergency" or "payments at the CWOs discretion" , how that money is spent is down to the CWO not me. The discretion here belongs to the CWO not me as a tax payer.

Yes you don't have a special say in where all your taxes are spent.
But surely as a taxpayer you can demand the taxes are well spent rather than wasted, because in this stringent times the more money wasted the less there is available for necessary services and the more taxes are demanded of already hard pressed tax payers.

Saying it is nothing to do with ordinary taxpayers is a cop out and is just giving the go ahead for the powers that be and the decision makers to continue not exerting proper fiscal control.

It is about time some Irish people copped on the state, and by extension the taxpayer, is not there to provide them with a certain standard of living.
The state and the taxpayer will provide them with the basics of accommodation, sustenance, education and healthcare if they become unemployed or sick.
It is not there to ensure they can continue to live in a fashion they had been accustomed to whilst they worked or give them the ability to have a lifestyle commensurate with people who are actually working and paying taxes.

And these last points are aimed at the section of our society who see the social welfare system as a career path.

carlmango11

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm not really sure. I have a correspondence with the Ministry for Ed about this issue, in which I was told it was a constitutional obligation to provide religious education. He did cite the parts of it but I would have to dig out.

Edit: I found it. He cites article 44.4

"4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes."

I fail to see how this suggests that religious education is obligatory?

wolfpawnat

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because somewhere in history it became normal to dress kids up in expensive outfits, not sure if it was society or the church, but I have seen pictures from the 40's with kids in those clothes so I assume it was the church.

But just because it's normal doesn't mean it's necessary.

It's normal these days for kids to have mobile phones. Should the state start funding that too?

wolfpawnat

true-or-false wrote: »

But just because it's normal doesn't mean it's necessary.

It's normal these days for kids to have mobile phones. Should the state start funding that too?

Did I condone the payment for this ceremony at any time? I was merely discussing with another person regarding the cost of it. Social norms dictate a lot of situations around us and those disgusting white dresses are one of them.

UCDVet

I'm not against the idea of helping people who are less fortunate than I am. Nobody *likes* paying taxes, but I think most of us can agree that social programs are better for society, for all of us, than not having them.

The problem I (and I think most people) have is when that line between what I, as a taxpayer, has and what the people who receive the tax money can afford, blurs together.

I didn't have enough money to afford a wedding for my wife and I. We filled out paperwork in a court house. We both want to have children, but we won't until our careers are stable (so we can afford to give our children a lifestyle we think is appropriate).

When I hear that people are using government benefits to buy clothes for their children's religious/unnecessary event....it bothers me. Or when someone who can't afford the family they already have, decides to have more children. And then expect more benefits for having them.

I have food, I can afford a roof over my head; I won't object to my taxes going to feed a family or provide them with basic shelter. But it frustrates me a lot when I see/hear people doing things I can't afford to do, while they benefit from the taxes which help make sure I can't afford to do things.

I don't think it's appropriate use of government funds. However, anyone should be welcome to donate money to religious organizations or help someone buy a fancy dress. But we should have a choice. I'd choose not to, and I'd save that money to try and afford a honeymoon for my wife.

mariaalice

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm not against the idea of helping people who are less fortunate than I am. Nobody *likes* paying taxes, but I think most of us can agree that social programs are better for society, for all of us, than not having them.

The problem I (and I think most people) have is when that line between what I, as a taxpayer, has and what the people who receive the tax money can afford, blurs together.

I didn't have enough money to afford a wedding for my wife and I. We filled out paperwork in a court house. We both want to have children, but we won't until our careers are stable (so we can afford to give our children a lifestyle we think is appropriate).

When I hear that people are using government benefits to buy clothes for their children's religious/unnecessary event....it bothers me. Or when someone who can't afford the family they already have, decides to have more children. And then expect more benefits for having them.

I have food, I can afford a roof over my head; I won't object to my taxes going to feed a family or provide them with basic shelter. But it frustrates me a lot when I see/hear people doing things I can't afford to do, while they benefit from the taxes which help make sure I can't afford to do things.

I don't think it's appropriate use of government funds. However, anyone should be welcome to donate money to religious organisations or help someone buy a fancy dress. But we should have a choice. I'd choose not to, and I'd save that money to try and afford a honeymoon for my wife.

Thats a brilliant post and yes it is frustrating to sometimes see how our taxes are spent but I still trust the government to mostly do the right thing with my taxs....also remember the money is not specifically for a religious ceremony but is for extra expenses that family might have from time to time and this has now been stopped.

Boombastic

The money should be put towards playgrounds, youth centres and other resources which would actually benefit the children

Ghost Buster

mariaalice wrote: »

Thats a brilliant post and yes it is frustrating to sometimes see how our taxes are spent but I still trust the government to mostly do the right thing with my taxs....also remember the money is not specifically for a religious ceremony but is for extra expenses that family might have from time to time and this has now been stopped.

That bit there in BOLD makes me have to ask
(A) Are you living in Ireland
(B) Have you ever read a news paper or watched a programme on the telly which comes on at 6.01 and 9.00 called The News

snubbleste

Was the communion/confirmation payment abolished in Budget 2013? Only exceptions are extreme cases.

philologos

No I don't. The state should be impartial in respect to religion. That means not discriminating against others by paying for rituals.

starlings

I don't know why I keep expecting coherence and consistency from the church, but if Catholics were following their own rules they should give nice dresses to those less well off as an act of charity. Communions also come after Lent, so plenty of time to either give up treats and save up or give away good things you don't need.

Anyone who insists that a brand new expensive dress is necessary for receiving a sacrament should be turned away on the grounds that they don't grasp the meaning of it.

Grayson

starlings wrote: »

I don't know why I keep expecting coherence and consistency from the church, but if Catholics were following their own rules they should give nice dresses to those less well off as an act of charity. Communions also come after Lent, so plenty of time to either give up treats and save up or give away good things you don't need.

Anyone who insists that a brand new expensive dress is necessary for receiving a sacrament should be turned away on the grounds that they don't grasp the meaning of it.

Remember, the true meaning of christianity is to suffer. Give up crap for lent, but don't help people.

philologos

Grayson wrote: »

Remember, the true meaning of christianity is to suffer. Give up crap for lent, but don't help people.

???

Ghost Buster

Grayson wrote: »

Remember, the true meaning of christianity is to suffer. Give up crap for lent, but don't help people.

philologos wrote: »

???

For the love of (Insert pet imaginary friend here) dont answer him or we will have a deluge of bible verses and theology!!:eek:

Markcheese

Grayson wrote: »

Remember, the true meaning of christianity is to suffer. Give up crap for lent, but don't help people.

Are you mixing up Christianity and catholisism (and a few others) . This from someone who's not into magic or fairytales, (and can't spell )

mrsbyrne

You can stop being angry about this and be angry about something else instead. payments for communion/confirmation/other family occasions no longer considered an "exceptional need" so 100% refused.
Neither the RCC or any school ever ask any child to spend any money on any sacraments. Ever.

mathepac

DesperateDan wrote: »

As an atheist [Edit: AND A TAX PAYER ], I find it pretty depressing that the government hands out even half the amount (totalling €1.5 million in 2012, €120 each) to people to buy dresses for their communion. ...

"... Details published by Social Protection minister Joan Burton show that the value of the average payment made to families seeking help covering the costs of clothing for religious ceremonies stood at €120 last year. ..." Ah yes, "Read Share and Distort" any news with any religious content. Read the article you linked to very carefully. Baptisms, christenings, marriages, deaths, bar mitzvahs, annulments anyone?

starlings

mathepac wrote: »

"... Details published by Social Protection minister Joan Burton show that the value of the average payment made to families seeking help covering the costs of clothing for religious ceremonies stood at €120 last year. ..." Ah yes, "Read Share and Distort" any news with any religious content. Read the article you linked to very carefully. Baptisms, christenings, marriages, deaths, bar mitzvahs, annulments anyone?

what do the fashionable people wear to an annulment these days?

mathepac

Each others patience very thin.

Joey the lips

We are a catholic country with a catholic constitution. I work for SVP and when you see the desperation on parents who cannot afford clothes for kids communions youd understand.

Equally. For the protection of the child i would never send them in a secondhand suit unless it looks perfect.

So really i dont care weather the payment is there or not because as a carer i am not entitled to it. But for the sake of parents who are struggleing i am delighted.

philologos

I see it this way.

Is the ritual necessary to ensure the well being of the child?

If not, why is the State funding it?

I think freedom of religion works both ways. The State not curbing expressions of faith in society, or communities of individuals meeting together. But I don't think there should be direct funding for religious organisations. Perhaps for charities but not for churches themselves.

Non-profits shouldn't be taxed, but if religious organisations move into the profiteering territory questions should be asked.

You know that I'm not someone who advocates purging all forms of belief from society. I just think that this is a common sense view.

Ghost Buster

Joey the lips wrote: »

We are a catholic country with a catholic constitution. I work for SVP and when you see the desperation on parents who cannot afford clothes for kids communions youd understand.

Equally. For the protection of the child i would never send them in a secondhand suit unless it looks perfect.

So really i dont care weather the payment is there or not because as a carer i am not entitled to it. But for the sake of parents who are struggleing i am delighted.

No no no wrong no no incorrect bull no no and arse

ejmaztec

Ghost Buster wrote: »

For the love of (Insert pet imaginary friend here) dont answer him or we will have a deluge of bible verses and theology!!:eek:

Had the atheist OP not decided to start this thread in AH, we wouldn't be deluged with repetitive crap from either side.:P

Chinasea

Joey the lips wrote: »

We are a catholic country We are????I work for SVP and when you see the desperation on parents who cannot afford clothes for kids communions youd understand. I wouldn't

Equally. For the protection of the child i would never send them in a secondhand suit unless it looks perfect. Oh Please

So really i dont care weather the payment is there or not because as a carer i am not entitled to it. - irrelevant to a majority of people too. But for the sake of parents who are struggling i am delighted.

I'm horrified.:mad:

This payment is a blo#dy outrage. But hopefully I am right in thinking it has been abolished. Amazing too, that it was only a small minority of people who were tapping into and knew of its existence as most of us (thankfully for the sake of the blood pressure) new nothing about this farcical payment except the usual suspects.