Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

Flier

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

I agree, it shouldn't be. But then allowing a payment for it compounds the problem.

kylith

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,

Actually, I assumed he was talking about the dress. I doubt if I was the only one either. I'd have to wonder why, upon seeing that godsawful dress, you'd think he'd be referring to a child as 'that'.

pwurple

Penn wrote: »

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



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.

So, where is this photo from exactly, if you don't even know who the child is? Did you take it yourself?

I'm not a fan of children's images being bandied about on the internet like this in general, but it's worse when it is for general ridicule and sneering.

Penn

pwurple wrote: »

So, where is this photo from exactly, if you don't even know who the child is? Did you take it yourself?

I'm not a fan of children's images being bandied about on the internet like this in general, but it's worse when it is for general ridicule and sneering.

Of course I didn't take it myself. I didn't even post it.

Did you take it?

Rev Hellfire

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess when it comes to communion fashion. That said if someone whats to wear such a thing why shouldn't they.

Kiwi in IE

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess when it comes to communion fashion. That said if someone whats to wear such a thing why shouldn't they.

I don't really agree. If adults want to go out dressed like prostitutes fair enough, but children should be protected from early sexualisation in my opinion. The dress is suitable for a 'bride' porn movie only, not an eight year old child. Children need to be protected from the dodgy, leering element of society until they can make their own decisions, not to mention paedophiles. A child dressed in such an inappropriate way as the picture, could signal to child predator that the child may be an easy target, because clearly their parents dont give a **** about taking care not to dress them like a sexual object, and therefore they may assume parental awareness of, and protection from such threats will be lax. Parents who allow little girls to dress like hookers are being irresponsible at best. The little girl to the left of the picture wearing what looks like bright orange bra and knickers is equally disturbing. The fact that a couple of eight or nine year old girls have their photos on the Internet while dressed in clothes suitable for a street corner in a red light district is horrendous, but it is their parents fault for allowing/encouraging it in the first place.

Sulla Felix

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The little girl to the left of the picture wearing what looks like bright orange bra and knickers is equally disturbing.

Jesus. I didn't notice that first time round. If anything that's a hell of a lot more disturbing.

Brian Shanahan

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.

And here was I thinking that we were living in a secular republic, not a medieval religious theocracy.

That is my problem with the communion allowance, and all religious favourings. This country is constitutionally secular, which means it should not be doing this stuff.

Brian Shanahan

magicbastarder wrote: »

preparation for a debs is not handled within class time,

You know, debs/graduation preparation is probably more deserving of inclusion within the curriculum than religious education.

Frankly if a priest wants children to be educated about communion/confession/confirmation he should do it himself. It's his bloody job, not the state's.

Brian Shanahan

pwurple wrote: »

So, where is this photo from exactly, if you don't even know who the child is? Did you take it yourself?

I'm not a fan of children's images being bandied about on the internet like this in general, but it's worse when it is for general ridicule and sneering.

It was used for purposes of legitimate comment, i.e. to show the kind of extravagance that goes into the day.

Your posts in this thread are coming across as very dismissive and every post you have issues with is seemingly a post that contains ridicule or sneering even though it seems to me like those posts are legitimate and sincere.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

Lack of knowledge of the intricacies of the SW system including obscure and frankly bizarre payments like the communion grant doesn't appear to be the problem though.

PopePalpatine

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

This country is constitutionally secular, which means it should not be doing this stuff.

Not with that bullsh*t in the preamble.

Brian Shanahan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Not with that bullsh*t in the preamble.

Articles 44.2.2°, and 44.2.3° prohibit the "endowing" of religion by the state, and of discrimination of persons on religious grounds. The first part is a clear call back to the wall of separation clause in the US constitution, the grounds by which the US was secularised. And the second clause goes even further, banning religious discrimination in toto, something we could argue that the communion allowance was doing, being a positive discimination in favour of catholics.

Yes the preamble is obviously religious. But on the other hand constitutional preambles are usually meaningless. Take for example the preamble to the US constitution:

Gouverneur Morris* wrote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Tl;dr: Our last attempt at a constitution was a massive FUBAR. Please forget all about it and give us a Mulligan.

*While Morris was likely not the actual author of the Preamble, or even the Constitution, he was head of the committee which drafted it, and in the lack of more conclusive evidence of authorship this gives him primary claim.

shruikan2553

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.

You dont have to follow this activity. I was the only person in my class not to and not a single **** was given by anyone. If you baptise the child and plan on continuing the indoctrination then you have years to put away money for it. Some people can afford more than others, I'm sure the children notice when another child gets all the newest stuff while they dont, there isnt a grant for new play stations so why should there be one for this.

Galvasean

shruikan2553 wrote: »

there isnt a grant for new play stations so why should there be one for this.

I recall when I made my Confirmation it was refereed to as 'the Playstation fund'. Nearly everyone bought a PS1 with the money they made. Not me though. I gt an N64. Never looked back :cool:

Brian Shanahan

Galvasean wrote: »

I recall when I made my Confirmation it was refereed to as 'the Playstation fund'. Nearly everyone bought a PS1 with the money they made. Not me though. I gt an N64. Never looked back :cool:

I bought a mountain bike. Cast-iron frame the red paint turned pink, but it was by far the best thing I ever bought, and did me ten years sterling service, until I sold it to a neighbour for £10 (did him another eight).

shruikan2553

Galvasean wrote: »

I recall when I made my Confirmation it was refereed to as 'the Playstation fund'. Nearly everyone bought a PS1 with the money they made. Not me though. I gt an N64. Never looked back :cool:

My only problem at the time was not getting lots of money for doing nothing, didnt see it as anything else. Wasn't alone in thinking that way either.

Kiwi in IE

shruikan2553 wrote: »

My only problem at the time was not getting lots of money for doing nothing, didnt see it as anything else. Wasn't alone in thinking that way either.

Would rather give my son an equivelant amount of money myself than sell him to the RCC.

Galvasean

Prierst, Fr. Paddy Byrne, says Communion should be delayed until adulthood to respect both those of devout Catholic faith and none.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/delay-communions-until-adulthood-says-priest-232680.html

Well, cor blimey, some sense at last!

Sulla Felix

While I agree with the sentiment and kudos to him for saying it, it's about as reassuring as your cashier agreeing that a fifty doesn't go far these days. Ie: it'll do fsck all to change the situation.

Lucy8080

o.k.,

sorry for the delay,

".You can't live on love."

The above is the title of a "Doc. On One." R.T.E. podcast.

It's from 1984 (the last recession) and might be worth a listen for those people who are under the "belief" that events like communion should be foreseen and managed. Have a listen.

While i'm here...the picture of the traveller girl (i'm certain in myself it was a traveller girl) is indicative of the self righteous prejudice here.The new bigotry inherent in a new religion called "atheism".

These girls can dress up or down if they wish and, yet,round these parts, it seems somehow forgotten that they are more likely to be virgins at marriage than the daughters of us settled lot! Daughters who ,posibilly, will be sent out in something that does not embarrass the family in public!

The traveller girls are somehow an embarrassment for wearing short dresses whilst keeping themselves pure! How does that reasoning work out?

But let's ignore that hypocisy!



I've seen more than one judgemental post on that picture...i wonder who has the right to judge who!

It's an inconvenient truth....but for some....easily ignored if it pushes an agenda.

I'll get back to other equivocations here when I get time.

This thread is not about travellers( but they were used).

It's about the "poor" in a certain country.

The capacity of some around here to turn them into "catholics" rather than neighbours, well, i guess that's ur right.

You have the right to ignorance.

lazygal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k.,

sorry for the delay,

".You can't live on love."

The above is the title of a "Doc. On One." R.T.E. podcast.

It's from 1984 (the last recession) and might be worth a listen for those people who are under the "belief" that events like communion should be foreseen and managed. Have a listen.

While i'm here...the picture of the traveller girl (i'm certain in myself it was a traveller girl) is indicative of the self righteous prejudice here.The new bigotry inherent in a new religion called "atheism".

These girls can dress up or down if they wish and, yet,round these parts, it seems somehow forgotten that they are more likely to be virgins at marriage than the daughters of us settled lot! Daughters who ,posibilly, will be sent out in something that does not embarrass the family in public!

The traveller girls are somehow an embarrassment for wearing short dresses whilst keeping themselves pure! How does that reasoning work out?

But let's ignore that hypocisy!



I've seen more than one judgemental post on that picture...i wonder who has the right to judge who!

It's an inconvenient truth....but for some....easily ignored if it pushes an agenda.

I'll get back to other equivocations here when I get time.

This thread is not about travellers( but they were used).

It's about the "poor" in a certain country.

The capacity of some around here to turn them into "catholics" rather than neighbours, well, i guess that's ur right.

You have the right to ignorance.

I've read this several times and I still haven't a notion what your point is.

MrPudding

lazygal wrote: »

I've read this several times and I still haven't a notion what your point is.

Allow me to try to translate. Us atheists are bigots against travellers. They are lovely people and the girls don't have sex before marriage and that is awesome. In addition, we simply don't understand what it is like to be poor and how something that you have 7 years notice of can still come as a surprise. Additionally, we are hypocrites but we are entitled to our ignorance. I think that is the broad strokes of it. I am sure Lucy will clarify once she sobers up, perhaps sometime this afternoon or evening.

MrP

Delirium

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k.,

sorry for the delay,

".You can't live on love."

The above is the title of a "Doc. On One." R.T.E. podcast.

It's from 1984 (the last recession) and might be worth a listen for those people who are under the "belief" that events like communion should be foreseen and managed. Have a listen.

While i'm here...the picture of the traveller girl (i'm certain in myself it was a traveller girl) is indicative of the self righteous prejudice here.The new bigotry inherent in a new religion called "atheism".

These girls can dress up or down if they wish and, yet,round these parts, it seems somehow forgotten that they are more likely to be virgins at marriage than the daughters of us settled lot! Daughters who ,posibilly, will be sent out in something that does not embarrass the family in public!

The traveller girls are somehow an embarrassment for wearing short dresses whilst keeping themselves pure! How does that reasoning work out?

But let's ignore that hypocisy!



I've seen more than one judgemental post on that picture...i wonder who has the right to judge who!

It's an inconvenient truth....but for some....easily ignored if it pushes an agenda.

I'll get back to other equivocations here when I get time.

This thread is not about travellers( but they were used).

It's about the "poor" in a certain country.

The capacity of some around here to turn them into "catholics" rather than neighbours, well, i guess that's ur right.

You have the right to ignorance.

Noboody "turned them into 'catholics'". The thread is about Communion/Confirmation allowances, so we're hardly going to be speaking about scientologists.

The picture was posted, as I understand it, to highlight the excess that some families to go with their child. It wasn't as some sort of anti-traveller prejudice.

I don't understand the relevance of travellers being less likely to have sex before marriage. This isn't the Christianity forum so I wouldn't think that many regulars here would have the belief that people should not be having sex before marriage.

shruikan2553

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k.,

sorry for the delay,

".You can't live on love."

The above is the title of a "Doc. On One." R.T.E. podcast.

It's from 1984 (the last recession) and might be worth a listen for those people who are under the "belief" that events like communion should be foreseen and managed. Have a listen.

While i'm here...the picture of the traveller girl (i'm certain in myself it was a traveller girl) is indicative of the self righteous prejudice here.The new bigotry inherent in a new religion called "atheism".

These girls can dress up or down if they wish and, yet,round these parts, it seems somehow forgotten that they are more likely to be virgins at marriage than the daughters of us settled lot! Daughters who ,posibilly, will be sent out in something that does not embarrass the family in public!

The traveller girls are somehow an embarrassment for wearing short dresses whilst keeping themselves pure! How does that reasoning work out?

But let's ignore that hypocisy!



I've seen more than one judgemental post on that picture...i wonder who has the right to judge who!

It's an inconvenient truth....but for some....easily ignored if it pushes an agenda.

I'll get back to other equivocations here when I get time.

This thread is not about travellers( but they were used).

It's about the "poor" in a certain country.

The capacity of some around here to turn them into "catholics" rather than neighbours, well, i guess that's ur right.

You have the right to ignorance.

If you cant forsee an even in 7 years and have any money set aside then you either didnt try or are terrible at managing money.

Self righteous prejudice has been trademarked by religions long before any of us could have a go.

Atheism has less bigotry than any other religion and thats only if you think that somebody is wrong to believe in imaginary creatures and claim they are real.

Travelers are also more likely to be married younger than non travelers to get started on having 5+ children and looking after them so I would say that going by age there wouldnt be much difference

Turtwig

And it's at moments like these that you find out Sensibleken closed his account.

MrPudding

koth wrote: »

Noboody "turned them into 'catholics'". The thread is about Communion/Confirmation allowances, so we're hardly going to be speaking about scientologists.

The picture was posted, as I understand it, to high the excess that some families to go with their child. It wasn't as some sort of anti-traveller prejudice.

I don't understand the relevance of travellers being less likely to have sex before marriage. This isn't the Christianity forum so I wouldn't think that many regulars here would have the belief that people should not be having sex before marriage.

I think it is only the girls that don't have sex before marriage.

MrP

Sulla Felix

MrPudding wrote: »

I think it is only the girls that don't have sex before marriage.

MrP

Are the boys having sex outside the community, or with married traveller women or spinsters?

Anyway, @Lucy for someone accusing others of painting in broad strokes, well, that's a rather big brush you're using yourself. If you'd like to quote a few of the posts you find objectionable we might have some meat to work with.

Lucy8080

thanks for the translation Mr. p.,

I'll get back to how you misinterpreted!

Did anyone listen to the pod-cast, by the way?

Any comments on it? I had a real feeling in myself about what would be taken out of my last post.

No surprises on my part.

MrPudding

Lucy8080 wrote: »

thanks for the translation Mr. p.,

I'll get back to how you misinterpreted!

Did anyone listen to the pod-cast, by the way?

Any comments on it? I had a real feeling in myself about what would be taken out of my last post.

No surprises on my part.

Look at you on a thanking frenzy. Good to see you back.

MrP

Galvasean

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I had a real feeling in myself about what would be taken out of my last post.

No surprises on my part.

If you knew what was going to happen then why didn't you take the time to phrase your post in a manner that would be easier for all and sundry to interpret easily?

Delirium

Lucy8080 wrote: »

thanks for the translation Mr. p.,

I'll get back to how you misinterpreted!

Did anyone listen to the pod-cast, by the way?

Any comments on it? I had a real feeling in myself about what would be taken out of my last post.

No surprises on my part.

The podcast is 45 minutes long. Any chance of you making the point rather having to sit through it to try and guess what your point is?

Lucy8080

Galvasean wrote: »

If you knew what was going to happen then why didn't you take the time to phrase your post in a manner that would be easier for all and sundry to interpret easily?

Have a think about that one yourself Sean.

Lucy8080

koth wrote: »

The podcast is 45 minutes long. Any chance of you making the point rather having to sit through it to try and guess what your point is?

Is it so hard to listen to 45 minutes of real life stories about living through a recession?

Especially as some around here seem to be certain that this cut is worthy of praise.

The children of Irish families have been/ and still are prepared for communion in state schools.

84% of Irish adults still feel a connection to catholicism ...whether born of faith or culture or tradition or social pressure, or otherwise.

I understand that.

It's one more burden in a recession if you have kids of communion age.

Have a listen. You might learn something.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Have a think about that one yourself Sean.

Lucy, great to have you back posting in A+A.

You might remember that, last year, you received two cards and a temporary ban for pointedly failing to post anything worth reading. The postquoted here, and most of your recent posts in this thread are, unfortunately, treading familiar ground and you're likely to pick up cards, bans and that kind of thing if you don't up your standard.

l8r, dude.

shruikan2553

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Is it so hard to listen to 45 minutes of real life stories about living through a recession?

Especially as some around here seem to be certain that this cut is worthy of praise.

The children of Irish families have been/ and still are prepared for communion in state schools.

84% of Irish adults still feel a connection to catholism ...whether born of faith or culture or tradition or social pressure, or otherwise.

I understand that.

It's one more burden in a recession if you have kids of communion age.

Have a listen. You might learn something.

I dont have 500 euro for the new xbox, so I dont buy it. Someone else doesnt have 500 euro to spend on a communion dress so what do they do? Not buy a 500 euro communion dress.

If you cant afford your hobby then think of a new hobby or work out a way to do it cheaper.

Lucy8080

robindch wrote: »

Lucy, great to have you back posting in A+A.

You might remember that, last year, you received two cards and a temporary ban for pointedly failing to post anything worth reading. The postquoted here, and most of your recent posts in this thread are, unfortunately, treading familiar ground and you're likely to pick up cards, bans and that kind of thing if you don't up your standard.

l8r, dude.

have you listened to the pod-cast rob?

It may answer a lot of assumptions here.

l8rs, m8.

Lucy8080

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I dont have 500 euro for the new xbox, so I dont buy it. Someone else doesnt have 500 euro to spend on a communion dress so what do they do? Not buy a 500 euro communion dress.

If you cant afford your hobby then think of a new hobby or work out a way to do it cheaper.

Galvasean will get you a communion dress for 15 euro.

contact him if ya want an xbox.

Folks on the census have not been asked about their x box needs/beliefs.

It's a new religion.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

have you listened to the pod-cast rob?

Haven't seen a link for one and as I gather it's 45 minutes long, I'm unlikely to listen to it, even if I could see a link somewhere.

Any chance you could summarize it and the reason why the government should allocate my tax money to pay for overpriced religious clothing, when (a) it's available for next to nothing with five minutes searching and (b) the money is better spent on schools, roads, hospitals etc and (c) the Constitution specifically bans the government from spending money on religious activities.

shruikan2553

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Galvasean will get you a communion dress for 15 euro.

contact him if ya want an xbox.

Folks on the census have not been asked about their x box needs/beliefs.

It's a new religion.

Why would the government bother with a grant for people who need 15 euro? If you cant put away a euro a week for a few months then you have more things to worry about than communions. Least of all for the people who never go to a mass for the sake of going to a mass that isnt wedding etc.

Would probably get more accurate results on the census about if people want an xbox than they do for who is a "catholic"

Lucy8080

robindch wrote: »

Haven't seen a link for one and as I gather it's 45 minutes long, I'm unlikely to listen to it, even if I could see a link somewhere.

Any chance you could summarize it and the reason why the government should allocate my tax money to pay for overpriced religious clothing, when (a) it's available for next to nothing with five minutes searching and (b) the money is better spent on schools, roads, hospitals etc and (c) the Constitution specifically bans the government from spending money on religious activities.

Have you tried " googling" rte documentary " you can't live on love".T hat should get ya there.

I will not summarize it for two reasons

1. why would you believe my summarisation? Surely you would need to check the evidence.

2. These people (in the doc.) deserved to be listened too rather than summarised.

Check in with Galvasean if ya think religious clothing is overpriced.

You are not the only taxpayer in this country.

Religious activity....what is that?

Religion= a binding back to God.

God= that which you worship.

It can be an idea/philosophy whatever.

Do you ever find it in yourself?

Lucy8080

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Why would the government bother with a grant for people who need 15 euro? If you cant put away a euro a week for a few months then you have more things to worry about than communions. Least of all for the people who never go to a mass for the sake of going to a mass that isnt wedding etc.

Would probably get more accurate results on the census about if people want an xbox than they do for who is a "catholic"

Listen to the pod-cast.

T ry factoring in at least a pair of shoes and socks and whatever else you can think of.

Try factoring in the whole social history of this country.

It may help ya understand.

Sarky

Jesus, who pissed in your cornflakes?

shruikan2553

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Listen to the pod-cast.

T ry factoring in at least a pair of shoes and socks and whatever else you can think of.

Try factoring in the whole social history of this country.

It may help ya understand.

Listened to the first 10 minutes of it. Paying for a communion was the least of their worries, the money should to put towards bills and food. Actual important things.

Lucy8080

Sarky wrote: »

Jesus, who pissed in your cornflakes?

nobody.

what do you mean?

I hope rob doesn't pull ya on that.


Ill defend ya if ya get in trouble.

Lucy8080

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Listened to the first 10 minutes of it. Paying for a communion was the least of their worries, the money should to put towards bills and food. Actual important things.

ty. keep listening.

sponsoredwalk

Lucy you are still my hero :cool:

Lucy8080

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Lucy you are still my hero :cool:

I always liked your posts. worth reading.

Flier

Get a room;)

seamus

Lucy8080 wrote: »

You are not the only taxpayer in this country.

That's a good point. But at the same time, so long as some of my tax money is being used to fund discretionary religious spending, then I have a right to be happy when that money is redirected to be used on more important things.

Here's a question - would you support a tax specifically on religious people (like in Germany), if you knew that money would only be used to fund things like the communion grant? That seems like the fairest way to do it, right?