Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

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.

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

joseph brand

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



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.

Penn

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

Sarky

Jesus f*ck, what the hell is that?

PopePalpatine

^ Honey O'Boo-Boo? :pac:

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

Dave!

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

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.

Sarky

Every Doctor was actually Tyler Durden.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

magicbastarder

because for most people, it's seen as part of the standard school system which they are legally required to send their kids to.
they don't just go out and decide to have their kids communed, it's the default position in most schools.

pwurple

I'm all for the removal of the dress money, it should never have existed in the first place (thanks FF). But that photo mocking the traveller kid is a low blow surely?

Penn

pwurple wrote: »

I'm all for the removal of the dress money, it should never have existed in the first place (thanks FF). But that photo mocking the traveller kid is a low blow surely?

With respect, who said the child & family are travellers?

The point of the photo is the extravagance some people go to for FHC (expensive dress, tiara, pink limo) which is completely needless, and that the argument that poorer families don't want their children to be left out so should get some money from the State to try and compete with stuff like that (obviously not to that extreme in the vast majority of cases, but extravagance nonetheless) is ridiculous.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

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.

Because they don't know that the religious bit is, in theory, completely optional in Irish schools?

Except where it isn't, in practice, of course.

kylith

robindch wrote: »

Because they don't know that the religious bit is, in theory, completely optional in Irish schools?

Except where it isn't, in practice, of course.

Doesn't explain why they think their entitled to money though. All this keeping up with the Jones', isn't the RCC supposed to preach humility?

pwurple

Penn wrote: »

With respect, who said the child & family are travellers?

The point of the photo is the extravagance some people go to for FHC (expensive dress, tiara, pink limo) which is completely needless, and that the argument that poorer families don't want their children to be left out so should get some money from the State to try and compete with stuff like that (obviously not to that extreme in the vast majority of cases, but extravagance nonetheless) is ridiculous.

Right.... So it's not a traveller kid?

The point of the photo being taken is to mock the poor child who has been stuck in that contraption.

PlainP

pwurple wrote: »

Right.... So it's not a traveller kid?

The point of the photo being taken is to mock the poor child who has been stuck in that contraption.

No, why would anyone mock a child(the poster wasn't mocking anyone) and afaik travellers have the means to splurge on these sacraments.

Flier

magicbastarder wrote: »

because for most people, it's seen as part of the standard school system which they are legally required to send their kids to.
they don't just go out and decide to have their kids communed, it's the default position in most schools.

But couldn't you say the same for, for instance, the Debs ball (off the top of my head). And I think we'd be rightly upset if the government was giving teenagers grants to get dressed up and have a night out. AFAIK, Debs is still the default position in many schools, and some kids don't have enough money to buy the dress / suit they want.

On a more serious note, given that the money pit of government grants and social welfare payments is not bottomless, if there is money available to promote 'inclusiveness', I think I'd rather see it spent on letting kids who can't afford it complete their transition year. Lots of kids are unable to do the year as their families can't afford them an extra year in education. I think it would be a lot more beneficial than getting them a new outfit that they'll probably never wear again at 7 years of age.

Sarky

A pink limo and a dress that looks like it came from the set of a newly-wed porno being put on a 5 year old doesn't deserve mockery?

Penn

pwurple wrote: »

Right.... So it's not a traveller kid?

No real evidence that it is. We can assume that and we might be right, but either way, it's irrelevant.

pwurple wrote: »

The point of the photo being taken is to mock the poor child who has been stuck in that contraption.

Nobody here has mocked the child. It's impossible to tell if the parents chose the dress or the child did. It's impossible to know if the parents hired the limo or if the child asked for the limo. The only thing which is in any way apparant from the picture is the extravagance and how far removed that is from what the occasion should be about, and the money some families spend on this event which poorer families feel they have to try and compete with in some way, thereby thinking that for some reason the government should pay towards that.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Doesn't explain why they think their entitled to money though.

Because if people think communion is mandatory in the state-owned and paid-for but not state-run school -- possibly not realizing, or wanting to realize, that it's not mandatory -- then they're on fair grounds to run to the state looking for money to help them out.

kylith wrote: »

[...] isn't the RCC supposed to preach humility?

It preaches humility to its followers, but it's never noticeably practiced much humility itself.

iguana

magicbastarder wrote: »

because for most people, it's seen as part of the standard school system which they are legally required to send their kids to.

You aren't legally required to send your kids to school in this country. It's entirely optional, a school place for each child is a right not a requirement.

magicbastarder

Penn wrote: »

Nobody here has mocked the child.

'jesus ****, what the hell is that' is not exactly helping with that claim.

magicbastarder

iguana wrote: »

You aren't legally required to send your kids to school in this country. It's entirely optional, a school place for each child is a right not a requirement.

not entirely optional:
http://liveweb.archive.org/web/20121230091047/http://193.178.1.79/2000/en/act/pub/0022/sec0017.html

magicbastarder

Flier wrote: »

But couldn't you say the same for, for instance, the Debs ball (off the top of my head). And I think we'd be rightly upset if the government was giving teenagers grants to get dressed up and have a night out. AFAIK, Debs is still the default position in many schools, and some kids don't have enough money to buy the dress / suit they want.

preparation for a debs is not handled within class time, and i understood that it was generally organised by the students, not the school.
the age of the participants is also quite pertinent here - and most definitely important for this discussion, it's a non-religious event to which all students can be invited (and generally would raise ire if students were excluded).
it's been nearly 20 years since my debs, and i don't know if things have changed, but it *definitely* did not fall in any way within standard school hours in my school. which was a religious school, for what that's worth.

Sarky

magicbastarder wrote: »

'jesus ****, what the hell is that' is not exactly helping with that claim.

I was talking about the situation where everyone in the photo seems to think all the tack and lavish spending is perfectly normal and commendable, not the child. She is, to be blunt, sort of irrelevant in this.

magicbastarder

well, that was quite ambiguous in your post. and ambiguous to the point of being obviously so.

iguana

magicbastarder wrote: »

not entirely optional:
http://liveweb.archive.org/web/20121230091047/http://193.178.1.79/2000/en/act/pub/0022/sec0017.html

Yes entirely optional as per 2(f) of your link. All a child is required to have is a certain minimum of education which may be provided by the parents or someone else who they nominate.

magicbastarder

we'll have to disagree on the meaning of 'entirely optional' so.
it would imply to me that you can just decide not to send your child to school; but you can only do this if you can convince the dept. that your child is receiving an adequate education at home or elsewhere, and you are still very much subject to the law above.

anyway, this is just a side discussion.

Flier

magicbastarder wrote: »

preparation for a debs is not handled within class time, and i understood that it was generally organised by the students, not the school.
the age of the participants is also quite pertinent here - and most definitely important for this discussion, it's a non-religious event to which all students can be invited (and generally would raise ire if students were excluded).
it's been nearly 20 years since my debs, and i don't know if things have changed, but it *definitely* did not fall in any way within standard school hours in my school. which was a religious school, for what that's worth.

So I take it then that kids who go to ET schools for example, are excluded from consideration for the grant, on the basis that preparation doesn't take place within class time and is not handled by the school?
The example of the Debs was to illustrate another dress up affair that some people may struggle to finance.
I'd just like to know why you think HC should be almost singled out as deserving of a grant from the DSW. I can think of many more worthy causes. Like transition year or athletics facilities for example.

legspin

Penn wrote: »

The point of the photo is the extravagance some people go to for FHC (expensive dress, tiara, pink limo) which is completely needless, and that the argument that poorer families don't want their children to be left out so should get some money from the State to try and compete with stuff like that (obviously not to that extreme in the vast majority of cases, but extravagance nonetheless) is ridiculous.

I would have thought though that anyone allowing their daughter to look like that at any time should deserve a great deal of ridicule. Either for choosing such a bloody awful concoction or, if the girl chose it, allowing her out looking like that. Tastes and fashion senses aside it is a fúcking awful image.

Sarky

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, that was quite ambiguous in your post. and ambiguous to the point of being obviously so.

Uh... Sorry?

magicbastarder

Flier wrote: »

So I take it then that kids who go to ET schools for example, are excluded from consideration for the grant, on the basis that preparation doesn't take place within class time and is not handled by the school?
The example of the Debs was to illustrate another dress up affair that some people may struggle to finance.
I'd just like to know why you think HC should be almost singled out as deserving of a grant from the DSW. I can think of many more worthy causes. Like transition year or athletics facilities for example.

re ET schools - it'd be discriminatory to refuse to offer it if other people can avail of it.
i'm not saying FHC 'deserves' a grant; the actual ceremony itself is somewhat incidental; it's the fact that a non-zero-cost religious ceremony is treated as near enough to as makes no difference, part of the school curriculum.
this is the scandal here, not the money on the grants.

and yes, people may struggle to pay money for debs dresses. but this happens within a completely different context in which the state has no input, nor should have any input.

magicbastarder

Sarky wrote: »

Uh... Sorry?

the comment was on a photo where the main subject is a child, and the comment is 'what the **** is that?', it's quite reasonable to assume that what the question was referring to is the child itself.

which is why i queried penn's claim that no-one had mocked the child,

iguana

magicbastarder wrote: »

we'll have to disagree on the meaning of 'entirely optional' so.
it would imply to me that you can just decide not to send your child to school; but you can only do this if you can convince the dept. that your child is receiving an adequate education at home or elsewhere, and you are still very much subject to the law above.

anyway, this is just a side discussion.

It's not entirely optional to educate your child, it's entirely optional to send them to school. I know a few homeschooling parents and all they have to do is allow a visit every year or so from someone sent by the dept and allow them to ask the child a few questions and see examples of their reading/writing. And the standards looked for by the dept really are minimum. It's extremely easy and straightforward. Anything else is contrary to article 42 of the constitution.

42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

As I said, sending your children to school is entirely optional.

magicbastarder

iguana wrote: »

It's not entirely optional to educate your child, it's entirely optional to send them to school.

but ultimately, it's not your decision as to whether this option is accepted or not. so again, we can agree to disagree on the exact meaning.
'entirely optional, but you've to meet a certain set of criteria' does not equate to 'entirely optional' in my book.

Sulla Felix

magicbastarder wrote: »

the comment was on a photo where the main subject is a child, and the comment is 'what the **** is that?', it's quite reasonable to assume that what the question was referring to is the child itself.

which is why i queried penn's claim that no-one had mocked the child,

In a read where some of the main arguments have hinged on the extravagance of the items worn I think it's pretty obvious it want the child being referred to. In fact any other conclusion smacks of an appeal to emotion.

Flier

magicbastarder wrote: »

re ET schools - it'd be discriminatory to refuse to offer it if other people can avail of it.

Isn't this the crux of the problem though? Payments given to catholic children for FHC that aren't available to non catholic children. I wonder if the DSW has ever paid out to kids who aren't making their communion, to fund a party for them on the day the rest of their class are making their FHC. That would be the 'fair' and 'inclusive' thing to do surely!

If catholic (jewish / muslim / wiccan / whatever) kids feel 'excluded' from religious ceromonies due to poverty on the family's part, surely it should be up to the bishop ( rabbi / imam / witch / whatever) to come to the financial aid of the family, if that is what they feel is important.

It's not even the religion of it that is the main issue in my mind though (although personally I think FHC and the like should have no place in state schools). It's the fact that there are so many other things that that money could be better spent on.

iguana

magicbastarder wrote: »

but ultimately, it's not your decision as to whether this option is accepted or not.

Yes it actually is, the constitution guarantees it. The 2000 act doesn't specify what those minimum standards are because they truly are so minimum.

magicbastarder

Flier wrote: »

Isn't this the crux of the problem though?

again, as far as i am concerned, the crux of the problem is that FHC is treated as a normal part of the school year.