Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

Dave!

Grants for First Communion and Confirmation costs are to be discontinued, the Department of Social Protection has confirmed.

Up until now families in need were able to apply for funds for clothing costs.

Last year the department reduced the grant from €242 to €112.

Now it has confirmed that the allowance has been scrapped entirely this year.

Instead families in need can apply for an emergency needs payments but these cannot be used to cover religious ceremonies.

More than €3.4m was paid in Communion and Confirmation costs in 2011 and €1.5m was paid out last year.

A review of the guidelines on exceptional needs payments was carried out for the department by a working group made up of former Community Welfare Service staff.

We'll have to hope this government keeps the secularisation stuff going over the next few years, cos the Labour party are getting fooked out in the next election!

Amirani

Great news.

eviltwin

Let's hope the likes of St V de P follow suit.

Animord

At last.

I can cope with so many things about religion in a calm and collected manner but for some reason this one is the straw that breaks my personal camel's back. The one that causes me to scream and shout and totally lose control.

hyperborean

Dave! wrote: »

We'll have to hope this government keeps the secularisation stuff going over the next few years, cos the Labour party are getting fooked out in the next election!

Once the labour party are gone it will be back to the old church groveling, FG backbenchers are entrenched in the church and have been fighting every secular change put in front of them.

Rev Hellfire

About time, hopefully other payments like the Christmas bonus will also follow suit.

eviltwin wrote: »

Let's hope the likes of St V de P follow suit.

Since they're not a state body, I don't see the problem in them wasting their money on this if they want to.

Oddly enough I suspect the church is probably in favour of this, they have been vocal in the past of this wear your wealth display.

Though nothing wrong in wearing your wealth mind you, assuming it's your own wealth you're wearing and not everyone elses.

Beruthiel

Delighted to hear that.

krudler

Ahh heyor, me little Rihanna needs to shyn like a diamund on her big day and Tyson needs new nikes for his, how am I sposed to afford a limo now?! bloody goverment givn all the money to dose forriners


Really though, good, let them make it in the school uniforms.

Penn

Attack on religion - No, fancy dresses etc are not part of the religious ceremony. It's a cultural thing, not a religious thing.
Children will feel left out if others are wearing fancy dresses - Only if they're made to feel left out. Best course of action to have all children make them in their school clothes.
Attack on the poor - Reduces financial burden on all parents if children make it in their uniforms. Don't need a fancy party either, that's a cultural thing, not a requirement
Economic sense - That's the reason, despite what the religious will likely claim. It makes economic sense to take away these unnecessary payments.

magicbastarder

krudler wrote: »

Ahh heyor, me little Rihanna needs to shyn like a diamund on her big day and Tyson needs new nikes for his, how am I sposed to afford a limo now?! bloody goverment givn all the money to dose forriners

let's not try to make A&A sound like after hours?

Dades

hyperborean wrote: »

Once the labour party are gone it will be back to the old church groveling, FG backbenchers are entrenched in the church and have been fighting every secular change put in front of them.

That might depend if Angela gives them a choice between cutting Communion allowances or TD allowances.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

About time, hopefully other payments like the Christmas bonus will also follow suit.

I've no problem with a Christmas allowance. It's a freakin' expensive time of year if you have kids. And people need something to look forward to.

Peregrinus

Penn wrote: »

. . . Economic sense - That's the reason, despite what the religious will likely claim. It makes economic sense to take away these unnecessary payments.

Money handed out in means-based transfer payments is almost immediately spent again, and in full, and so acts as a stimulus to the economy. That's why dole payments, for example, stimulate the economy more effectively than tax cuts.

I'm all in favour of ending grants for communion dresses, but it will make most economic sense if the amount saved is put back into other transfer payments to the financially-strapped.

Penn

Peregrinus wrote: »

Money handed out in means-based transfer payments is almost immediately spent again, and in full, and so acts as a stimulus to the economy. That's why dole payments, for example, stimulate the economy more effectively than tax cuts.

I'm all in favour of ending grants for communion dresses, but it will make most economic sense if the amount saved is put back into other transfer payments to the financially-strapped.

The communion/confirmation allowance doesn't have that large of an effect because it's only during a certain period of the year and money is spent in certain shops.

I agree, using the money to raise child benefit or something would have a far greater benefit to the economy.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

I've no problem with a Christmas allowance. It's a freakin' expensive time of year if you have kids. And people need something to look forward to.

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.

Dades

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.

wench

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

About time, hopefully other payments like the Christmas bonus will also follow suit.

The christmas bonus was one of the first to go - hasn't been paid since 2008

Peregrinus

Penn wrote: »

The communion/confirmation allowance doesn't have that large of an effect because it's only during a certain period of the year and money is spent in certain shops.

I agree, using the money to raise child benefit or something would have a far greater benefit to the economy.

Well, in the scheme of things, it's a trivial amount of money, in terms of stimulating the economy, and it would be roundings of a cent in the difference it would make to children's allowance payments. But I'd be quite happy to see the same amount spend in other "emergency grants" to people in transient or short-term need.

Rev Hellfire

wench wrote: »

The christmas bonus was one of the first to go - hasn't been paid since 2008

Excellent, I stand corrected.

iDave

krudler wrote: »

Ahh heyor, me little Rihanna needs to shyn like a diamund on her big day and Tyson needs new nikes for his, how am I sposed to afford a limo now?! bloody goverment givn all the money to dose forriners


Really though, good, let them make it in the school uniforms.

u ok hun xxx

Gatling

And actually anybody can still get a payment under the exceptional needs from there CWO they give out the payment for anything from communions-debs dresses and lingerie yes lingerie

SebBerkovich

this will do untold damage this will do to the Communion and Confirmation Shop economy. Good.

Obliq

wench wrote: »

The christmas bonus was one of the first to go - hasn't been paid since 2008

Was just going to say just that, as the good Rev's comment had me spitting feathers. My comment wasn't so polite as yours. Well done on sticking to the facts.

Obliq has managed to stand-down - three cheers!

VinLieger

Cant wait for liveline today

krudler

iDave wrote: »

u ok hun xxx

Don't wanna say on ere :pac:

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped!

Has Quinn tweeted about this unprecedented attack on religion yet?

And what about Waters on Friday -- I can hear him scrabbling about for his thesaurus already!

iDave

krudler wrote: »

Don't wanna say on ere :pac:

snd me PM chick x0x0x0x0x

Penn

robindch wrote: »

Has Quinn tweeted about this unprecedented attack on religion yet?

Not yet. Too busy focusing on abortion stuff.

seamus

This is a fundamental attack on people's right to religious freedom by denying them the ability, not forcibly, but functionally, to celebrate their child's first communion in a dignified manner.



*cough*, sorry just channeling the Iona centre there.

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

Has Quinn tweeted about this unprecedented attack on religion yet?

And what about Waters on Friday -- I can hear him scrabbling about for his thesaurus already!

Quickmeme won't let me hotlink.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3tuj02/

Dades

iDave wrote: »

u ok hun xxx

krudler wrote: »

Don't wanna say on ere :pac:

iDave wrote: »

snd me PM chick x0x0x0x0x

Take it to Facebook, kids.

krudler

seamus wrote: »

This is a fundamental attack on people's right to religious freedom by denying them the ability, not forcibly, but functionally, to celebrate their child's first communion in a dignified manner.



*cough*, sorry just channeling the Iona centre there.

Did they actually say that?

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.