Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

Options
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Yeah just let them eat cake & they'll be fine, didn't do me any harm shure...

    Is this the withering rebuttal you threatened when the thread was created originally?

    conan-i-am-disappoint1.jpg


  • Options
    #93
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    The word "huzzah" is a triumphalistic expression.

    I said "the poor" dress up for dignity , not "parents", who may have the means to show off.

    The allowance was established to recognise the needs of the "poor" in a 95% catholic country.

    I believe the figures for Catholicism have dropped to 84%.

    The allowance has dropped 100%.
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but about the dressing up for dignity; isn't pride a deadly sin? So are jealousy and greed, as I recall. Three of the seven Deadly Sins run counter to this allowance being given at all, what with it stemming from pride, jealousy of those richer, and the greed for more money to feed their pride.


  • Options
    #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I wonder how many children actually remember their First Communion day, say 10 years later? It is a religious ceremony that is undertaken by the parents of their own volition. Like a wedding or other such ceremony, it is up to the participants to decide how to celebrate it. Most just keep within their budget. Since the Celtic Tiger era, many reason why spend €10, when you can borrow €100 to do the same job!


  • Options
    #95
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    The word "huzzah" is a triumphalistic expression.

    I said "the poor" dress up for dignity , not "parents", who may have the means to show off.

    The allowance was established to recognise the needs of the "poor" in a 95% catholic country.

    I believe the figures for Catholicism have dropped to 84%.

    The allowance has dropped 100%.
    Please, with the likes of the M&S and Debenhams offering reasonably priced, perfectly pretty little dresses, there's no need to be spending E600 odd on a dress. Or God forbid that someone should wear a second dress?

    I also vehemently disagress with the idea that dignity can be conflated with the exhibitionism and unadulterated wastefulness on display around the country at this time of year. There's nothing "dignified" about a E600 quasi-bridal gown on an eight year old.


  • Options
    #96
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Yeah just let them eat cake & they'll be fine, didn't do me any harm shure...

    You realise that I actually am one of those 'them' right? :confused: In fact I'm worse off as we aren't receiving 3 of the benefits we're entitled to and are paying medical expenses.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Society needs to ensure that people who are struggling financially have nutritious food, adequate clothing, warm houses and access to medical treatment. Ridiculous miniature wedding dresses for 8 year old girls to wear to religious ceremonies are not one of life's necessities I am afraid.

    Perhaps the RCC should take responsibility for the pressure Catholic people feel to compete in these absurd rituals and allow families to be exempt from the box of envelopes during the years their children are supposed to participate in them. It has nothing to do with the State.


  • Options
    #98
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    If I wanted to become a 'devil' worshiper I wonder could I expect the taxpayer to assist me with the finances needed to engage in devil worshipping rituals?

    It sounds completely ridiculous, but I don't see how it is anymore absurd than grants from the state for the ceremonies of any other form of supernatural worship.


  • Options
    #99
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    As for the "tax payers"... i'd be wary of that argument! Tax is drawn from all sections of society.
    Well, the church is (a) tax-exempt and (b) probably the richest organization in the country.

    So why wouldn't they step in and help pay for the costs of their members carrying out the religious duties that the church demands? Or maybe other well-to-do church members might like to contribute to a church-administered fund to pay for the limousines, the only-worn-once dresses, the fancy pants and the meal in wherever? Rather than relying on central funds that are probably better spent on schools, hospitals, roads and so on.

    It would be the christian thing to do, wouldn't it?


  • Options
    #100
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    robindch wrote: »
    It would be the christian thing to do, wouldn't it?


    As my wise old grandad always said, there's a lot of Catholics in Ireland but very few Christians.


  • Options
    #101
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I think Lucy8080 is having trouble discerning 'needs' from 'wants'.
    Someone posted links to Adverts.ie last year where people were selling pre-owned Communion dresses for €15. I'd say that will be an emerging market now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    lazygal wrote: »
    As my wise old grandad always said, there's a lot of Catholics in Ireland but very few Christians.

    You need to stick your wise old grandad in the quotes thread.


  • Options
    #103
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I think Lucy8080 is having trouble discerning 'needs' from 'wants'.
    Someone posted links to Adverts.ie last year where people were selling pre-owned Communion dresses for €15. I'd say that will be an emerging market now.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73134907&postcount=42

    :)


  • Options
    #104
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    I'm pretty sure the RCC has absolutely no problem with this:

    IMG2_5943.gif

    It's what jebus would have wanted.

    Worrying about what the neighbours and other parents might think, thus getting loans from loan sharks, stinks of naivety and ignorance. They should all make their communion and confirmation in their uniforms, although I would rather they didn't make it at all.


  • Options
    #105
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,282 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    And the pink limo in the background too, because why the f*ck wouldn't you need a pink limo!


  • Options
    #106
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Jesus f*ck, what the hell is that?


  • Options
    #107
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    ^ Honey O'Boo-Boo? :pac:


  • Options
    #108
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    I'm really proud of the fact I'm completely against all of you on this issue, I mean the depths to which some of you have no shame in sinking to is something else, anybody who has prided themselves on reading nonsense like lesswrong etc... on this forum should have a field day with the arguments put forth in, say, the last 20 posts (alone, modulo maybe 3 irrelevant ones). Come on guys, I really thought some of you were better than this :(


  • Options
    #109
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Please feel free to stop calling us callous scumbags and actually address the points raised, rather than merely threatening to do so :confused:


  • Options
    #110
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    I had just been reading the Doctor Who thread where posters were discussing how they hoped they wouldn't be spoiled about the season finale and forgot I'd opened a new tab. I genuinely thought sponsoredwalk was pissed off he couldn't post spoilers from the leaked episode.


  • Options
    #111
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Every Doctor was actually Tyler Durden.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    I'm really proud of the fact I'm completely against all of you on this issue, I mean the depths to which some of you have no shame in sinking to is something else, anybody who has prided themselves on reading nonsense like lesswrong etc... on this forum should have a field day with the arguments put forth in, say, the last 20 posts (alone, modulo maybe 3 irrelevant ones). Come on guys, I really thought some of you were better than this :(

    I doubt you could be against everyone. You of all people should know by now that nothing is ever that black and white.
    I take it you think some of the posts here have been too judgemental and lacking in empathy? Or something else? Either way, please elaborate on your post.

    Also, please post in the irreligious thread it gets lonely in there at times. :(


  • Options
    #113
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    thx for replies,

    I'll try and address them individually at the weekend. early start here.

    But,after a quick scan,i'm kinda baffled by the notion that 112 eruros can buy a 600 euro dress and a limo, that the voice of the taxpayer is inherent in this thread, and that some people who have struggled with poverty are the template for all the poor,( could some be even worse off), and as such feel they have the right to dictate how they should manage their means, or lack.

    It's great that communion dresses can be bought for as little as 15 euro.

    That leaves 97 euro!

    Knock yourselves out spending the rest.


    I'm listening.

    Hopefully , some coherency between the figures bandied about here ( and the religious belief invested in them) and reality, will emerge. I'm doubtful, but hopeful.


  • Options
    #114
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    Please, with the likes of the M&S and Debenhams offering reasonably priced, perfectly pretty little dresses, there's no need to be spending E600 odd on a dress. Or God forbid that someone should wear a second dress?

    I also vehemently disagress with the idea that dignity can be conflated with the exhibitionism and unadulterated wastefulness on display around the country at this time of year. There's nothing "dignified" about a E600 quasi-bridal gown on an eight year old.
    no, there's not. but there's plenty of things people want which have no need, and there's a bit of a YFG element in a lot of (not just referring to this thread) of the thinking that the poor should simply just make do with the very basics.

    most of the people posting in this thread would have had a better education and prospects than a lot of people who would have been availing of the communion allowance; i've heard stories told by a colleague who did work for the SVP and some of the stories about the sheer lack of knowledge or sense of capability a lot of the people they deal with was eye opening.

    it's very easy to sneer at someone who spends more money than they have on a communion dress, but it's not so easy for that person to fight what they might perceive as a societal norm.

    the ideal solution to this is removing the state sponsored first communion, and then the subsidy.


  • Options
    #115
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    thx for replies,

    I'll try and address them individually at the weekend. early start here.

    But,after a quick scan,i'm kinda baffled by the notion that 112 eruros can buy a 600 euro dress and a limo, that the voice of the taxpayer is inherent in this thread, and that some people who have struggled with poverty are the template for all the poor,( could some be even worse off), and as such feel they have the right to dictate how they should manage their means, or lack.

    It's great that communion dresses can be bought for as little as 15 euro.

    That leaves 97 euro!

    Knock yourselves out spending the rest.


    I'm listening.

    Hopefully , some coherency between the figures bandied about here ( and the religious belief invested in them) and reality, will emerge. I'm doubtful, but hopeful.


    I still don't understand why the State was or should continue to pick up the tab for a religious ceremony the parents have chosen to partake in. Why should parents get a grant because their children are eating a magic wafer for the first time?


    What about children who don't do communions, should they be given an equivalent amount for a birthday celebration or a naming ceremony?


  • Options
    #116
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    lazygal wrote: »
    I still don't understand why the State was or should continue to pick up the tab for a religious ceremony the parents have chosen to partake in.
    because the religious ceremony is essentially endorsed by the state, in that over 90% of schools treat it as a default activity as part of the school year.

    this is not like subsidising mother's day.


  • Options
    #117
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    because the religious ceremony is essentially endorsed by the state, in that over 90% of schools treat it as a default activity as part of the school year.

    this is not like subsidising mother's day.

    It's still a choice. There is no legal obligation on any family to partake in it.


  • Options
    #118
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    no, but it's an opt out rather than an opt in. and no parent likes singling out their child like that from their peer group. if the government are concerned about the financial impact of it on poor families, they should completely remove school participation.


  • Options
    #119
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    no, but it's an opt out rather than an opt in. and no parent likes singling out their child like that from their peer group. if the government are concerned about the financial impact of it on poor families, they should completely remove school participation.

    It's not the job of the government to make sure kids don't feel left out. We don't give grants for other event specific clothing to make sure children aren't left behind. Even as a small child I knew that there were people in my class who had the best of the best and those who didn't. I was somewhere in the middle and the lack of the more extravagant things others got wasn't really something that bothered me, I think children know that not everyone is the same from a pretty young age.


  • Options
    #120
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    lazygal wrote: »
    It's not the job of the government to make sure kids don't feel left out.
    actually, yes it is, or it damn well should should be; in the sense that the government should *not* be funding a school system which isolates non-christian children from the majority of their peers, and places an extra burden on parents.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    But,after a quick scan,i'm kinda baffled by the notion that 112 eruros can buy a 600 euro dress and a limo, t

    I'm baffled as to why people think they're entitled to a red cent from the public purse toward a religious ceremony which they elect to have.


Advertisement