Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

seamus

krudler wrote: »

Did they actually say that?

Poe strikes again

sponsoredwalk

There is a serious level of heartlessness here, something I'd attribute to ignorance fueled by bias.

If any of you actually cared about what poor families have to go through & weren't willing to let ideological biases 'irrationally' (:mad:) sway you I'd say you'd be against this, instead arguing that action in the direction you all want to go in should actually be taken in a completely different manner - but no, just huzzah's... Right off the top of my head I can think of three alternatives that don't lead to attacking some of the most vulnerable in society, something all of you should be able to do without straining when bias doesn't cloud your judgement - I've argued about this in the past on here & things descended very low at more than one point while nothing I said on topic was fundamentally challenged so I guess I can do nothing more than congratulate you all in satiating the blood lust many of you couldn't justify over a year ago yet still lust for (there are words bandied about daily on this forum against a certain out-group to describe that situation...). If the other people who weren't involved back then care that much about the issue & what one opposing opinion is you could read that thread & test your argument against what I've already said, if it withstands it we could have an interesting debate

eviltwin

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There is a serious level of heartlessness here, something I'd attribute to ignorance fueled by bias.

If any of you actually cared about what poor families have to go through & weren't willing to let ideological biases 'irrationally' (:mad:) sway you I'd say you'd be against this, instead arguing that action in the direction you all want to go in should actually be taken in a completely different manner - but no, just huzzah's... Right off the top of my head I can think of three alternatives that don't lead to attacking some of the most vulnerable in society, something all of you should be able to do without straining when bias doesn't cloud your judgement - I've argued about this in the past on here & things descended very low at more than one point while nothing I said on topic was fundamentally challenged so I guess I can do nothing more than congratulate you all in satiating the blood lust many of you couldn't justify over a year ago yet still lust for (there are words bandied about daily on this forum against a certain out-group to describe that situation...). If the other people who weren't involved back then care that much about the issue & what one opposing opinion is you could read that thread & test your argument against what I've already said, if it withstands it we could have an interesting debate

What the heck? Do you realise that making the sacrement of FHC is free, the church don't charge anyone to do it and tbh I don't think the priests are going to turn away a child who turns up on the day in non traditional garb.

The money side of it comes from all the extras, the dress, hairdos, party afterwards etc. None of which is essential to the actual event.

There is never going to be a day where a poor child is refused the sacrement because he/she doesn't have an expensive outfit or is going home for a modest family celebration afterwards.

Lets be honest about this, the payment was used to fund a social outing under the guise of it being for a religious ceremony.

seamus

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There is a serious level of heartlessness here, something I'd attribute to ignorance fueled by bias.

If any of you actually cared about what poor families have to go through & weren't willing to let ideological biases 'irrationally' (:mad:) sway you I'd say you'd be against this, instead arguing that action in the direction you all want to go in should actually be taken in a completely different manner - but no, just huzzah's... Right off the top of my head I can think of three alternatives that don't lead to attacking some of the most vulnerable in society, something all of you should be able to do without straining when bias doesn't cloud your judgement - I've argued about this in the past on here & things descended very low at more than one point while nothing I said on topic was fundamentally challenged so I guess I can do nothing more than congratulate you all in satiating the blood lust many of you couldn't justify over a year ago yet still lust for (there are words bandied about daily on this forum against a certain out-group to describe that situation...). If the other people who weren't involved back then care that much about the issue & what one opposing opinion is you could read that thread & test your argument against what I've already said, if it withstands it we could have an interesting debate

Thanks for linking to your previous post, otherwise I would have been Poe'd again.

Communion is free. There is no reason why removing this payment should have any effect on the most vulnerable unless they choose to spend money they don't have on things which they don't need to buy.
Otherwise what you're saying is that vulnerable people are too stupid to spend their money wisely, therefore we should give them free money to ease their burden.

Knasher

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There is a serious level of heartlessness here, something I'd attribute to ignorance fueled by bias.

If any of you actually cared about what poor families have to go through & weren't willing to let ideological biases 'irrationally' (:mad:) sway you I'd say you'd be against this

The money to pay for the communion and confirmation allowance counted under the exceptional needs payment. The Department of Social Protection is under pressure to reduce the total cost of this payment, which is also used to pay for things like special clothing for people with serious illness and normal clothing for children. The cuts are going to fall somewhere and I'm far happier seeing the funding cut to buy once off clothes for a religious ceremony than I would be seeing it cut for people who are seriously ill. Heartless bastard that I am and all.

Dave!

It's up to the Church and schools (unfortunately; really it should be nothing to do with the schools) to abolish the culture of over-spending on these sacraments, and to lower the economic threshold for participants.

It's not the State's job to subsidise the economically disadvantaged so that they can keep up with the Joneses.

magicbastarder

i have feet in both camps on this; i'm not sorry to see it go, but it's not as cut and dried as people make out.
it's easy for well educated people (as most here are) to laugh at those who spend silly money on communions, but if you have no choice but to send your kid to a catholic NS, and don't have a good education yourself, it's not so easy to see the other options available.
if the state is not providing an genuine alternative to catholic national schools (and i appreciate progress is being made here), they're essentially mandating spend on religious rituals.

Penn

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have feet in both camps on this; i'm not sorry to see it go, but it's not as cut and dried as people make out.
it's easy for well educated people (as most here are) to laugh at those who spend silly money on communions, but if you have no choice but to send your kid to a catholic NS, and don't have a good education yourself, it's not so easy to see the other options available.
if the state is not providing an genuine alternative to catholic national schools (and i appreciate progress is being made here), they're essentially mandating spend on religious rituals.

But there is no financial requirement for making FHC, it's purely a cultural thing.

And in order to make sure children whose parents can't afford the fancy dresses etc, a lot of people here are advocating that all children should be made to get their FHC in their school uniforms.

If anything, the Church should take that stance too because surely it's the ceremony itself which is the important part, not how shiny your shoes are, and the excessive spending diminishes the importance of the ceremony.

magicbastarder

Penn wrote: »

But there is no financial requirement for making FHC, it's purely a cultural thing.

And in order to make sure children whose parents can't afford the fancy dresses etc, a lot of people here are advocating that all children should be made to get their FHC in their school uniforms.

yeah, more schools are moving to the uniform-only model.

and there is no financial requirement for making it - but when it's considered de rigeur in most national schools in the country, the argument becomes somewhat (albeit not completely) moot.

Duiske

Dave! wrote: »

It's up to the Church and schools (unfortunately; really it should be nothing to do with the schools) to abolish the culture of over-spending on these sacraments, and to lower the economic threshold for participants.

It's not the State's job to subsidise the economically disadvantaged so that they can keep up with the Joneses.

As school time is already being used in preparation for communion and confirmation, the Labour party should now make a stand and insist that in return for allowing this use of school time to continue, the church reciprocate by making it mandatory that these ceremonies be undertaken in school uniform.

Dave!

Duiske wrote: »

As school time is already being used in preparation for communion and confirmation, the Labour party should now make a stand and insist that in return for allowing this use of school time to continue, the church reciprocate by making it mandatory that these ceremonies be undertaken in school uniform.

F*ck that, I wouldn't like them doing anything to solidify the role of the school in these things. I expect the Church wouldn't take much coercion to introduce this. Labour should be agitating to remove it from school altogether though.

Duiske

Dave! wrote: »

F*ck that, I wouldn't like them doing anything to solidify the role of the school in these things. I expect the Church wouldn't take much coercion to introduce this. Labour should be agitating to remove it from school altogether though.

I was thinking that would be a step too far given the recent opinion polls and the hammering in Meath East. Would be great to see schools playing no part in these ceremonies, but I seriously doubt the Labour membership would have the stomach for the ****storm it would cause, at the moment at least.

Actually, considering what you said earlier about them being fooked anyway, maybe they should just go for it.

Gbear

Penn wrote: »

But there is no financial requirement for making FHC, it's purely a cultural thing.

And in order to make sure children whose parents can't afford the fancy dresses etc, a lot of people here are advocating that all children should be made to get their FHC in their school uniforms.

If anything, the Church should take that stance too because surely it's the ceremony itself which is the important part, not how shiny your shoes are, and the excessive spending diminishes the importance of the ceremony.

On the other hand they might not want to do that because most people don't give a ****e about the actual sacraments so by removing the pageantry they might drive the casuals away.

Hotblack Desiato

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Must say I'm surprised to see you think Christmas should be somehow treated special.

Its just another day in the year, if people want to blow money on treats for it they should cough up the money themselves just like people have to do for any other day of the week.

Really just another day? I kinda doubt it, even those who have to work on christmas day (and my dad used to have to, some years) it's not treated the same as any other day, there are rotas, short shifts, etc.

Although many public holidays are linked to religion (christianity, and for a very long time before that, paganism), many are not - yet people still regard a long weekend and an opportunity to have a nice meal with family / booze-up / mini break / whatever as something to celebrate. The only people who think atheists are or should be joyless Mr Spock types are the likes of John Waters

Hotblack Desiato

So, what are the odds that nothing will change, except that instead of looking for an exceptional needs payment for the communion, they'll be down the office a couple of weeks later saying they've no money for the ESB bill instead?

Turtwig

ninja900 wrote: »

So, what are the odds that nothing will change, except that instead of looking for an exceptional needs payment for the communion, they'll be down the office a couple of weeks later saying they've no money for the ESB bill instead?

Well that would be more down to the competency and judgement of the CWO. Presumably he or she would at least ask to see the bill first.

joseph brand

What about girls like Shantiqua or Britney?




Three years ago, at my daughter's christening (don't ask), the priest told us that he had someone phone him, to ask if he could keep the car park empty, as they needed the space for a helicopter. For jaysus sakes!

Flier

I honestly can't see the 'other' side of this argument. FHC is something predictable that can be budgeted for. Kids don't need a spray tan or a hairdo. The dress and shoes can be passed on from older sisters / cousins / neighbours / bought for less than half the price in the previous years sales. Exceptional payments should be kept for exceptional reasons. If someone can't afford to send their little princess off to FHC in a fancy enough dress, they should go ask their local parish priest for financial help to do it. Not the rest of us taxpayers, taking money out of the pot for the real hard up and deserving cases.

shruikan2553

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have feet in both camps on this; i'm not sorry to see it go, but it's not as cut and dried as people make out.
it's easy for well educated people (as most here are) to laugh at those who spend silly money on communions, but if you have no choice but to send your kid to a catholic NS, and don't have a good education yourself, it's not so easy to see the other options available.
if the state is not providing an genuine alternative to catholic national schools (and i appreciate progress is being made here), they're essentially mandating spend on religious rituals.

I dont know if this is the case for all catholic schools but for mine my parents spoke to the school and I didnt do a communion or confirmation so just because you are in a catholic school doesnt mean you have to pay and take part in these piss ups religious rituals.

The children get tons of money at these as well, why cant some of that go towards a new dress if they want one so bad? Teach them about the value of such things. It was my 18th birthday before I got anything like what Ive seen these children get.

Kidchameleon

Dades wrote: »

I don't see Christmas a religious holiday - it's a global cultural holiday. And I really do believe that people need something like that to look forward to. Not having an extra payment at Christmas with all that 'mirth and cheer about' would just make it miserable for those unable to save for a few toys for the kids, and the kids themselves.

You'll probably find that most of the kids making conformation / communion don't see it as a religious thing, its more of a culture thing.

Hotblack Desiato

a culture club is better than a culture thing

Peregrinus

The justification for these “emergency” payments for special occasions has nothing to do with a value judgment on the part of the state/the authorities about whether the particular occasion should, or should not, be celebrated.

The justification goes essentially like this; the occasion is in fact celebrated, and participating in the celebrations costs money, and inability to participate in the celebrations through lack of money is socially excluding and alienating, and if you are concerned about social exclusion and belief that state resources should be deployed to reduce it, then there’s your case for making emergency payments to assist the financially-strapped in participating.

The state has no more business telling people that they ought not to participate in religious celebrations (or celebrations with some tenuous connection to religion) than it has telling them that they ought to. In terms of assessing the impact of not being able to joint in communion/confirmation celebrations in the socially accepted way, the religious dimension of those celebrations is irrelevant, and the state should disregard it. The issues are:

(a) Are we prepared to spend public money to reduce social exclusion?

(b) Will not being able to participate in communal rite-of-passage rituals in the socially-expected fashion contribute to social exclusion and alienation?

(c) If so, can we reduce social exclusion by making payments to people to assist their participation?

(d) Could we reduce social exclusion more effectively by spending the same money in other ways?

I said earlier that I was happy about the decision to end these payments. My motivations for that are, I frankly confess, religious, and to that extent my reasons for wanting these payments to end are not ones which the state could properly take into account. But I think the same goes for at least some of the reasons why, hypothetically, an atheist or agnostic might be happy to see these payments end. The religious dimension of the particular rituals is neither a positive nor a negative factor, as far as a truly secular state is concerned; it’s an irrelevance and should be disregarded.

krankykitty

It's gas how some people are worrying about social exclusion on one day in the school calendar, yet there's less hand wringing about the potential social exclusion experienced by non catholic kids who by necessity and lack of realistic choice end up in these schools.

I'd say the church would be delighted if the kids would make Fhc in uniform, and once theres a bit of a treat involved on the day I doubt most kids care whether their outfit was 20 e in Dunnes or 300e. It's parents showboating really and why should that come from the public purse...

Peregrinus

krankykitty wrote: »

It's gas how some people are worrying about social exclusion on one day in the school calendar, yet there's less hand wringing about the potential social exclusion experienced by non catholic kids who by necessity and lack of realistic choice end up in these schools.

Well, I wouldn’t say there’s less hand-wringing about it. We’re in a process to transfer (to start with) 38 primary schools from church patronage to non-religious patronage and I think it’s safe to say that, although not a single school has been transferred yet, already more has been spend on that process than the whole amount spent on these payments last year.

(I’m not objection to the transfer of school patronage; I’m all in favour of it, and the costs will be money well spent. I just think the notion that more is done for Catholic kids through these grants than is done for non-Catholic kids is not borne out by the facts.)

krankykitty wrote: »

I'd say the church would be delighted if the kids would make Fhc in uniform, and once theres a bit of a treat involved on the day I doubt most kids care whether their outfit was 20 e in Dunnes or 300e. It's parents showboating really and why should that come from the public purse...

Absolutely. And the argument on that is, simply, that parents do showboat on these occasions, and the inability to do so results in social exclusion. And deploring that showboating does nothing to address social exclusion

You may think the argument is b*lls, and perhaps you’re right. The point is, it’s not an argument which depends in any way on the religious dimension of these rituals. I’m slightly amused by the fact that, on this particular issue, people with religious concerns and people with secularist concerns pretty much tog out on the same side - they both dislike the showboating that goes on here, even if for different reasons. It’s got to the point where people in this thread have been forced to invent religious objections to the decision so that they’ll have something to pillory and to rebut.

krudler

when I made my communion my biggest worry of the day was choosing to spend my easily earned money on either Miles Mayhem's helicopter from MASK or that He-Man-Skeletor twin pack I'd been eyeing up in the toy shop.

Rev Hellfire

Which was it ?

joseph brand

My son is making his communion this year, and he doesn't care what he's wearing. He doesn't even mention his communion.
Someone on Newstalk this morning remarked that kids want to look their best. I don't think so. It's the parents, who should act like adults and not buy into the whole 'keeping up with the Joneses'.

My wife is taking care of the whole lot, as I'm dead against it.

VinLieger

The fascinating thing about this argument i find is that the 2 sides, strictly non religous and strictly religous, who normally cant agree on anything especially when it involves government policy and religous ceremonies are mostly in agreement on this and for alot of the same reasons. Its not surprising when you think about it but it does put a smile on my face all the same

krudler

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Which was it ?

the twin pack :pac:

SebBerkovich

krudler wrote: »

the twin pack :pac:

the classic atheist choice