Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Wow, Jern, wow... I knew that was coming, that's the sad thing...

I don't like when tones start getting condescending so of course it was coming.

Now, instead of phenomena of groupthink would you mind telling what exactly you are in disagreement or agreement with.

sponsoredwalk

Jernal wrote: »

I don't like when tones start getting condescending

Newaglish wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you have very poor English.

Jernal wrote: »

I don't like when tones start getting condescending

Newaglish wrote: »

I can't understand what you're saying because you're trying too hard.

Jernal wrote: »

so of course it was coming.

Newaglish wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you have very poor English.

Jernal wrote: »

so of course it was coming.

Again I'm so glad I can look at the moon with a clear conscience, one that judges the fcuk out of myself constantly yet can look at a situation like this & feel confident I'm not doing something wrong, dude...

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Again I'm so glad I can look at the moon with a clear conscience, one that judges the fcuk out of myself constantly yet can look at a situation like this & feel confident I'm not doing something wrong, dude...

If you have an issue with moderation take it to pm. If you have an issue with an individual post report it.

Newy´s post isn't as bad tone wise as yours. You escalated it. So it means you get the slightly bigger metaphorical slap on the wrist.(No cards or formally warnings or anything had been handed out.) I just didn't want the thread descending into a free for all English standards rodeo.

Anyway, I just want to move this thread on. The next post about a person's quality of English may be deleted without prejudice.

So what is your issue against or for banning the communion grant?

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

As somebody who pays more tax than most...

alarm bells ring when i hear this sort of setup to a comment.

Sulla Felix

magicbastarder wrote: »

alarm bells ring when i hear this sort of setup to a comment.

Why? Surely someone who pays taxes should be concerned about how they're spent? In this case, tax payments essentially subsidize a social construct that in the opinions of most here, is actively harmful to society.
Personally I'd prefer if citizens were more actively critical of exactly how the taxes were spent.

Galvasean

magicbastarder wrote: »

alarm bells ring when i hear this sort of setup to a comment.

Paying any taxes = paying more taxes than most

magicbastarder

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Why? Surely someone who pays taxes should be concerned about how they're spent?

everyone should be concerned about how taxes are spent.
my comment was a lighthearted one, just referring to the fact that the preamble above is often the beginnings of an 'i pay my taxes so i have a greater stake in how this country is run and my opinion outweighs yours' sort of rant. thankfully not in the case above.

Brian Shanahan

Lucy8080 wrote: »

No.

The issue here is the abandonment of children in schools who have been set up for communion within those schools.

It is lazy government.

And lazy thinking on your part ,and those who thanked you,to think otherwise.

No, priests are responsible for the religious "education" (brainwashing is far more accurate here), and therefore any pushing off of that responsibility on others is their fault and wrong.

And no, being truthful is never lazy. However just trying to brush off people without engaging their points (like what you constantly and exclusively do) is incredibly lazy, disingenious, mendacious and outright evil.

Brian Shanahan

LittleBook wrote: »

"The development of curriculum for Religious Education remains the responsibility of the different church authorities".

Anything concerning religion is the responsibility of the patron of the school, not the government. If the patrons of the school want to run communion within school time, they should be responsible for the costs incurred.

And compensate the child for the loss of future earnings because of their decision to take away valuable time from their early education. Proper education early in life compounds many times over in the future earning potential of a person.

Turtwig

Jernal wrote: »

If you have an issue with moderation take it to pm. If you have an issue with an individual post report it.

Newy´s post isn't as bad tone wise as yours. You escalated it. So it means you get the slightly bigger metaphorical slap on the wrist.(No cards or formally warnings or anything had been handed out.) I just didn't want the thread descending into a free for all English standards rodeo.

Anyway, I just want to move this thread on. The next post about a person's quality of English may be deleted without prejudice.

So what is your issue against or for banning the communion grant?

Hi Sponsored,

Just rereading this now. Made a cock-up. Your post just stood out more to be because it was longer. (Forget the term for that phenomenon.) And I was more focused on reading, not skimming, at the time. Both of you should have gotten equal metaphorical slaps.

Lucy8080

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No, priests are responsible for the religious "education" (brainwashing is far more accurate here), and therefore any pushing off of that responsibility on others is their fault and wrong.

And no, being truthful is never lazy. However just trying to brush off people without engaging their points (like what you constantly and exclusively do) is incredibly lazy, disingenious, mendacious and outright evil.

A quick in and out here. I'll do my best to move this debate on to something new next time.


As far as I'm concerned the D.o.E is responsible for education in schools.

If you want to give that authority to the Vatican or Maynooth or Armagh.....or whoever...at least acknowledge what you claim.

Don't blame me for the ideas you entertain.

Being dishonest with ourselves is always lazy.I agree that being truthful is never lazy.

Have a look at your own statements.

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

Why would the government set the dresscode for private religious events?

What exactly makes this a private event?

That question may be shared amongst all those who thanked your post too...the rehearsal happens in schools (not private schools).

How is this a private event by any stretch of the imagination?

Lucy8080

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The argument that because everyone else is doing it we have to do it also might have held water a few years ago. But the reality is now with the mix of religions in our schools the idea that children who aren't doing it are socially excluded is invalid.

If you can't afford to do an optional social tradition then don't do it.

Also if the sacrament is what is so important then simply ask your local pp to preform it for you, the pomp is also optional.

96% of children in schools ( which prepare for communion) are going forward for communion.

10% are estimated to turn up for their second communion the following sunday!

Some P.P. are reporting that they have had approaches by parents that their child may be baptised just so they can take part in the event.

This is not a parish activity, something that requires commitment before and after the event.

It is school based.

Lucy8080

koth wrote: »

Any chance of actually explaining what is the relevance of the podcast? The overall theme of the podcast (only have had time to listen to 8 minutes so far) is how difficult it is to survive when your husband is made redundant. Especially with regards to the strain it puts on the marriage, hence the name of the show ("You can't live on love").

some of the points raised in the first 7 minutes:

• people suffer from depression on the dole
• poverty damages marriage
• some are so poor that bread is a luxury item
• unemployed husband creates tension in the family home
• kids not taking money for sweets to help towards food shop
• struggling to pay bills
• people don't care about the plight of the poor families
• clothes are passed down from older relatives/neighbours/friends
• not enough money for the bottled gas. Ran out cooking the dinner

Are any of these what you are alluding to? If not, could you at least indicate where in the 45 minute podcast is the section of the show that is?

Link to the podcast Lucy is referring to

The pressure on parents in the above situation has been added too now that the allowance has been removed.

The money lender is now most likely to be the go to guy to save face.

That will create more problems for people in these situations, and when the chickens come home to roost, the 112 euro allowance will look cheap by comparison.

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

No its not. My children won't be doing communion. Should I get an equivalent value grant for another social occasion if I so require, no matter what I spend the money on, be it a dress that is only worn once, clothing for the family or a celebration?

If you have been prepared (with 96% of the class) for that social occasion within state schools....then yes.

I'd hate to see you left out.

TheChizler

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The pressure on parents in the above situation has been added too now that the allowance has been removed.

The money lender is now most likely to be the go to guy to save face.

That will create more problems for people in these situations, and when the chickens come home to roost, the 112 euro allowance will look cheap by comparison.

Families occasionally are also under pressure because they have spent most of their income on alcohol/other drugs and have to go to money lenders to sustain that habit/live (hyperbole I know, I don't care ). Should the government give them money for the purposes of buying drugs/alcohol so they can fend off the moneylenders?

I know it's been pointed out many times before, but how much of a communion day is actually necessary?? Let's say for argument's sake that we live in a totalitarian catholic regime, communions for all! How much money is actually required to fulfil the requirements? Let's say the children are communionised individually and don't see one another for the day, i.e. no showing off.

Lucy8080

TheChizler wrote: »

Families occasionally are also under pressure because they have spent most of their income on alcohol/other drugs and have to go to money lenders to sustain that habit/live (hyperbole I know, I don't care ). Should the government give them money for the purposes of buying drugs/alcohol so they can fend off the moneylenders?

no.

Unless you where introduced to drugs by the state as part of the curriculum.

TheChizler

Lucy8080 wrote: »

no.

Let's take the subject matter out:

Person X is partaking in nonmandatory event/purchasing Y. They feel pressured into doing so for whatever reason but at the end of the day this is their own choice and they choose to spend a great deal of money doing so. Due to other concerns their financial situation isn't great and they resort to money lenders to fund event/item Y. Should the government be obliged to give them money specifically for Y so they no longer have to turn to moneylenders?. In general terms please.

Lucy8080

TheChizler wrote: »

Let's take the subject matter out:

Person X is partaking in nonmandatory event/purchasing Y. They feel pressured into doing so for whatever reason but at the end of the day this is their own choice and they choose to spend a great deal of money doing so. Due to other concerns their financial situation isn't great and they resort to money lenders to fund event/item Y. Should the government be obliged to give them money specifically for Y so they no longer have to turn to moneylenders?. In general terms please.

Infants are being prepared for communion within state schools.

Forget x and y.

Who has the greater responsibility?

Those who lead or those who follow?

The government/state will pick up the bill whatever the fall -out from your above scenario.

TheChizler

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Unless you where introduced to drugs by the state as part of the curriculum.

Ok, suppose part of a school curriculum teaches kids how to grow and smoke their own cannabis.

Should, at the parent's request, the state be obliged to provide an underground meth lab to the child?

Just to make the analogy of course:...



Edit: Maybe the parents are trying to show up the neighbour's R.V....

Lucy8080

TheChizler wrote: »

Ok, suppose part of a school curriculum teaches kids how to grow and smoke their own cannabis.

Should, at the parent's request, the state be obliged to provide an underground meth lab to the child?

Just to make the analogy of course:...



Edit: Maybe the parents are trying to show up the neighbour's R.V....

lol.

o.k. Im off to bed. Nite.

lazygal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

If you have been prepared (with 96% of the class) for that social occasion within state schools....then yes.

I'd hate to see you left out.

What social occasion should a child not be left out of?

Where does the figure of 96% of the class come from, to what occasions are you referring?

Children aren't stupid. When I was in school there were several children not making communion, such as refugees from Lebanon and children who's parents opted out or were of other faiths. I also just accepted that some children got loads of stuff from Santa whereas I got less, or other children went away on a foreign holiday every every year but my family didn't, or other children had very large birthday parties with all the trimmings. It didn't cause social isolation, it just showed me that everyone and every family is different. Why is that a lesson not worth learning?

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

What social occasion should a child not be left out of?

Where does the figure of 96% of the class come from, to what occasions are you referring?

Children aren't stupid. When I was in school there were several children not making communion, such as refugees from Lebanon and children who's parents opted out or were of other faiths. I also just accepted that some children got loads of stuff from Santa whereas I got less, or other children went away on a foreign holiday every every year but my family didn't, or other children had very large birthday parties with all the trimmings. It didn't cause social isolation, it just showed me that everyone and every family is different. Why is that a lesson not worth learning?

The 96% figure comes from within Catholicism.

The 10% figure that estimates the amount of children turning up for "their second communion the following weekend" comes from the same source. It is hardly propaganda.It must be a pretty sobering figure for the leaders of "Irish Catholicism".

The Government have removed the payment whilst leaving the situation to be.It is a cop out.

And if they want to leave infants in that situation, as far as I'm concerned, that is the occasion that children should not be left out of . It is a situation implicitly supported by those who are responsible for their education.

The rest of your post is about how you understand and accept the position of the minority, try including the majority too ,for balance.

Privately, we all have ups and downs.

This is not a private event.

Hotblack Desiato

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The 96% figure comes from within Catholicism.

Nope. The only relevant 96% figure I'm aware of is that 96% of primary schools in Ireland are under religious control. IIRC 94% are roman catholic.

The Government have removed the payment whilst leaving the situation to be.It is a cop out.

If by this you mean that religious indoctrination / sacramental preparation should be entirely removed from state funded schools then I'd be in full agreement

Lucy8080

The 96% figure is related to the amount of children that go forward for "first communion" within schools that prepare for "first communion". It probably balances out amongst all schools that prepare.


You may be surprised to learn that leaders of Catholicism are coming to the same conclusion ( as you) about their options towards "their" flock in regards to whether they should be communed along Classroom lines or parish lines.


I'll try and dig up some quotes for you during the week or next week-end.

Let's not punish kids/the poor....Whilst the religious/political leaders hum and haa about the situation they have placed them in.

Hotblack Desiato

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The 96% figure is related to the amount of children that go forward for "first communion" within schools that prepare for "first communion".

Citation needed. 96% is only about one kid in the average class.

Lucy8080

ninja900 wrote: »

Citation needed. 96% is only about one kid in the average class.

96% of kids go forward for communion in national schools that prepare for communion.

How did you reckon that to be one kid?

I'm off to bed.

shruikan2553

If 96% decide to go through with the communion thats their issue. Parents are perfectly within their rights to tell the school that they dont want their child participating. The vast majority may do it but there is no obligation to.

Sulla Felix

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056991928

Anecdotal evidence that there was indeed sw payments made for other communal rites of passage and there too, the payments are no longer being made.

TheChizler

Sulla Felix wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056991928

Anecdotal evidence that there was indeed sw payments made for other communal rites of passage and there too, the payments are no longer being made.

Damn you beat me to it!

If anything I'd argue the debs/grads more worthy of the payment as it's not exclusive to anybody and the state wouldn't be showing preference to any particular section of society. Still can't believe it was a valid reason for payment though.