Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

They don't have sex before marriage, who cares? That's another negative as far as I'm concerned
Hurray for having a virginity fetish!
Bizarre thinking

These girls can dress up or down if they wish

Nobody said they couldn't...

seamus

bluewolf wrote: »

They don't have sex before marriage, who cares? That's another negative as far as I'm concerned

+1
I don't see why tying yourself to someone for life before finding out if you're sexually compatible is seen as somehow noble or virtuous. It's idiotic and short-sighted.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Have you tried " googling" rte documentary " you can't live on love". That 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.

Well, maybe because there's a chance that a documentary of 45 minutes in length might make more than one point and as Koth points out, frankly, we've no idea what point you're referring to.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

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

I've thought of a wonderful response, but it's too large to fit into this reply.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

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?

I worship good food and find it in me quite often.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

I worship good food and find it in me quite often.

I know what else I worship that I find in me quite often :pac::pac:






Drink, obviously.

robindch

^^^

Turtwig

I wish I could ban anyone who isn't a teetotaler.. .

shruikan2553

Lucy8080 wrote: »

ty. keep listening.

I listened to 10 minutes, unless you wish to point out a particular story I am done listening about how Mary cant go to bingo now that Paddy is on the dole.

ShooterSF

Jernal wrote: »

I wish I could ban anyone who isn't a teetotaler.. .

You like talking to yourself?

robindch

This year, the average family spent €713 on communion day. And kids received an average of €520, up 20% on last year.

Diddums.

http://www.thejournal.ie/holy-communion-cost-945831-Jun2013/

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

This year, the average family spent €713 on communion day. And kids received an average of €520, up 20% on last year.

Diddums.

http://www.thejournal.ie/holy-communion-cost-945831-Jun2013/

€520 to become a cannibal seems cheap.

legspin

Jernal wrote: »

I wish I could ban anyone who isn't a teetotaler.. .

Unfortunately, you would end up having no one to talk to except me and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

shruikan2553

190 for outfits for other family members because they have nothing else they could wear. Suppose they cant be seen as being "broke" even though it all they complain about.

Its a strange thing, its now in to say you have no money but then you have to look like you have money because you dont want people to think youre broke.

Being unable to spend 700 euro on 1 day doesnt make you broke or in need financial aid and nobody is forced to do it. Social pressure doesnt exist around this because nobody actually cares, if they did they wouldnt be complaining about have to go to mass for a few weeks ( i dont even understand why the even bother going) before the communion

kylith

shruikan2553 wrote: »

190 for outfits for other family members because they have nothing else they could wear. Suppose they cant be seen as being "broke" even though it all they complain about.

Its a strange thing, its now in to say you have no money but then you have to look like you have money because you dont want people to think youre broke.

Being unable to spend 700 euro on 1 day doesnt make you broke or in need financial aid and nobody is forced to do it. Social pressure doesnt exist around this because nobody actually cares, if they did they wouldnt be complaining about have to go to mass for a few weeks ( i dont even understand why the even bother going) before the communion

In some parishes the child won't be allowed to make their communion unless the parents have a record of x weeks' attendance. Boy, did my brother complain, yet he wouldn't hear of the child not doing her communion.

Galvasean

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Have a think about that one yourself Sean.

I've had a think about it and the only conclusion that I can come to is that you are waffling on about vague and vacuous nonsense (as usual) and getting narky whenever someone calls you on it because you aren't confident in your ability to uphold a decent standard of debate.

*wash & repeat

Lucy8080

Galvasean wrote: »

I've had a think about it and the only conclusion that I can come to is that you are waffling on about vague and vacuous nonsense (as usual) and getting narky whenever someone calls you on it because you aren't confident in your ability to uphold a decent standard of debate.

*wash & repeat

Keep thinking Sean.I suspect that by now, you are well aware that I will debate with folks round here ,regardless of the esteem you hold each other in.

Lucy8080

robindch wrote: »

This year, the average family spent €713 on communion day. And kids received an average of €520, up 20% on last year.

Diddums.

http://www.thejournal.ie/holy-communion-cost-945831-Jun2013/

The allowance that was cut was 112 euros.

Don't let that "fact" get in the way of your argument.

Project whatever newspaper headline suits your position.I t doesn't make it a reflection of the reality on the ground.

Some folks have money....some folks don't.

Lucy8080

seamus wrote: »

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?

Seamus, i'm off to bed, but thanks for this,....i have a few posts to answer it seems, was working backwards and saw urs.

I'll reply at the weekend.

Good question.

Lucy8080

Seamus, my "weekend " has changed to mid-week, or at worst next weekend...such is life.

Your question deserves an answer...sorry for delaying on the reply.

lazygal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The allowance that was cut was 112 euros.

Don't let that "fact" get in the way of your argument.

Project whatever newspaper headline suits your position.I t doesn't make it a reflection of the reality on the ground.

Some folks have money....some folks don't.

And some folks don't look for others to fund their religious or other lifestyle choices, and some do. What's your point? That we're supposed to see this cut as some sort of social injustice? If I can't afford a bouncy castle for my eight year old's birthday party, should I get 112 euro from the State so she won't feel left out, because everyone else is doing it?

cathy01

What's wrong with getting a second hand dress from a charity store.dress was most likely worn for 1 day.it will be cheaper and the money would go to a good cause in most cases.i know of people that spent €400 on a dress and the child wore it for about 4 hours . Madness .its nice for the child but there are ways if keeping the cost down. Tkmax sold the dresses for €30 this year.makes more sence to me.

MrPudding

cathy01 wrote: »

What's wrong with getting a second hand dress from a charity store.dress was most likely worn for 1 day.it will be cheaper and the money would go to a good cause in most cases.i know of people that spent €400 on a dress and the child wore it for about 4 hours . Madness .its nice for the child but there are ways if keeping the cost down. Tkmax sold the dresses for €30 this year.makes more sence to me.

School uniform makes the most sense, I reckon. No pissing contest a d everyone has one. People on low incomes get help with purchasing school uniforms, which is fine as it is useful beyond one day.

The parish priests need to tackle this.

MrP

swimming in a sea

MrPudding wrote: »

School uniform makes the most sense, I reckon. No pissing contest a d everyone has one. People on low incomes get help with purchasing school uniforms, which is fine as it is useful beyond one day.

The parish priests need to tackle this.

MrP

I don't agree with the school uniform as this helps keep a strong link between the church and schools. I say let them wear what they want, just don't have the tax payer paying for it.

lazygal

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I don't agree with the school uniform as this helps keep a strong link between the church and schools. I say let them wear what they want, just don't have the tax payer paying for it.

Agree with this. It reinforces the norm that its a school, rather than a religious event. School uniforms are for school events, not private religious ceremonies.

kylith

That's why I'd go with simple white robes, loaned by the church. You get one on the day, you give it back when you're leaving the church, maybe pay a tenner for the hire of it. Job done.

Mark Hamill

In the space of the last four posts I went from:

Having a specific opinion, to
Convinced that specific opinion is wrong, to
Now having a different opinion.

I love this forum.

MrPudding

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I don't agree with the school uniform as this helps keep a strong link between the church and schools. I say let them wear what they want, just don't have the tax payer paying for it.

Being perfectly honest, I had not considered this downside of wearing uniforms, but on reflection I do agree that using the uniform could have the side effect of keeping and strengthening the link between school and the church. I liked the idea simply because it was using something the kids already had and would not cause an "arms race" with parents trying to outdo each other.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In the space of the last four posts I went from:

Having a specific opinion, to
Convinced that specific opinion is wrong, to
Now having a different opinion.

I love this forum.

I know, same here. Fcuk school uniforms, plain white robes supplied by the church FTW.

MrP

Lucy8080

seamus wrote: »

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?

o.k.

The "grudge" here seems to be that "communion day" is somehow ripping off taxpayers.Those taxpayers with a grudge seem to have hypnotised themselves into a belief that they are losing money here.I suspect this idea is driven by something other than economic facts.

Rob has provided proof here that the religious spend is quite useful to the economy.

If this was a business interest....the self starters are obviously throwing into the economy.

If the uniform demand cost is 112 euro ( to play this game) ...even those who cannot self start are worth an investment.

The return to the economy on this investment ( according to rob) is 500 euro.

It's quite an economy.

What makes you think you are losing on this one?

I think your "tax on religions" question deserves its own thread. There is a lot of history to it...and we should answer that question according to our own needs .

I'd love to see it explored honestly on its own terms.

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

And some folks don't look for others to fund their religious or other lifestyle choices, and some do. What's your point? That we're supposed to see this cut as some sort of social injustice? If I can't afford a bouncy castle for my eight year old's birthday party, should I get 112 euro from the State so she won't feel left out, because everyone else is doing it?

Socially, children are prepared for communion within state schools. That makes it a social issue.

What makes you think that people who need "112 euro" will then go on to spend spend it on a bouncy castle?

Lucy8080

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I listened to 10 minutes, unless you wish to point out a particular story I am done listening about how Mary cant go to bingo now that Paddy is on the dole.

The ten minutes you listened to highlighted that the "communion allowance" is far from the mind of people struggling to feed a family.

Maybe you missed your own acknowledgement of that fact. The folks who thanked your post probably missed it too.

Whatever, at least you tried.

I was the only one who thanked you for what you discovered after just ten minutes.

The crowd loved your dismissal of the next half an hour. I wonder if they even listened?

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.

Sarky

Please use multi-quote!

lazygal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Socially, children are prepared for communion within state schools. That makes it a social issue.

What makes you think that people who need "112 euro" will then go on to spend spend it on a bouncy castle?

What about children not preparing for communion in state schools, should their families get 112 euro for social life reasons?

Delirium

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The ten minutes you listened to highlighted that the "communion allowance" is far from the mind of people struggling to feed a family.

Maybe you missed your own acknowledgement of that fact. The folks who thanked your post probably missed it too.

Whatever, at least you tried.

I was the only one who thanked you for what you discovered after just ten minutes.

The crowd loved your dismissal of the next half an hour. I wonder if they even listened?

Any chance of actually explaining what is the relevance of the podcast? The overall theme of the podcast (only have had time to listen to 8 minutes so far) is how difficult it is to survive when your husband is made redundant. Especially with regards to the strain it puts on the marriage, hence the name of the show ("You can't live on love").

some of the points raised in the first 7 minutes:

• people suffer from depression on the dole
• poverty damages marriage
• some are so poor that bread is a luxury item
• unemployed husband creates tension in the family home
• kids not taking money for sweets to help towards food shop
• struggling to pay bills
• people don't care about the plight of the poor families
• clothes are passed down from older relatives/neighbours/friends
• not enough money for the bottled gas. Ran out cooking the dinner

Are any of these what you are alluding to? If not, could you at least indicate where in the 45 minute podcast is the section of the show that is?

Link to the podcast Lucy is referring to

Rev Hellfire

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Socially, children are prepared for communion within state schools. That makes it a social issue.

Preparing for communion is optional within a state school nor is there a requirement that special garments must be worn for this occasion.

So this allowance is not needed for either state or canon requirements.
There simply is/was no justification for it.

Brian Shanahan

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Socially, children are prepared for communion within state schools. That makes it a social issue.

No it remains simply an issue of scrounging priests being too lazy to do their f***ing jobs, and passing them off onto teachers, who don't have enough hours as is to teach children properly.

Ask any teacher who has an iota of independant thinking and they'll tell you the first subject they'd drop given the choice is catholic instruction. I've heard this even from teachers who are comitted god botherers.

shruikan2553

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The ten minutes you listened to highlighted that the "communion allowance" is far from the mind of people struggling to feed a family.

Maybe you missed your own acknowledgement of that fact. The folks who thanked your post probably missed it too.

Whatever, at least you tried.

I was the only one who thanked you for what you discovered after just ten minutes.

The crowd loved your dismissal of the next half an hour. I wonder if they even listened?

Im not seeing what this has to do with people receiving money for being a certain religion. I dont think anyone is claiming that there arent people who are finding it hard to afford the basics but handing out 112 for a party isn't the solution.

People need to learn that the person who is on the dole shouldnt expect to get what the person earning 60k get. If someone wants to spend thousands on a dress then let them but you cant go running to the government to hand you money to even things out.

Lucy8080

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Preparing for communion is optional within a state school nor is there a requirement that special garments must be worn for this occasion.

So this allowance is not needed for either state or canon requirements.
There simply is/was no justification for it.

The "customs of our tribe".

Tell parents of a 7 year old girl in a class of other 7 yr old girls that this is optional!

Ask those same people about the economic changes that happened when their child was born.

And how the state told them they where in for a soft landing.

The state doesn't seem too interested in it's own requirements/duties...except when it comes to removing money.

But ,hey, let's kick the people rather than the state.

Lucy8080

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it remains simply an issue of scrounging priests being too lazy to do their f***ing jobs, and passing them off onto teachers, who don't have enough hours as is to teach children properly.

Ask any teacher who has an iota of independant thinking and they'll tell you the first subject they'd drop given the choice is catholic instruction. I've heard this even from teachers who are comitted god botherers.

No.

The issue here is the abandonment of children in schools who have been set up for communion within those schools.

It is lazy government.

And lazy thinking on your part ,and those who thanked you,to think otherwise.

Lucy8080

koth wrote: »

Any chance of actually explaining what is the relevance of the podcast? The overall theme of the podcast (only have had time to listen to 8 minutes so far) is how difficult it is to survive when your husband is made redundant. Especially with regards to the strain it puts on the marriage, hence the name of the show ("You can't live on love").

some of the points raised in the first 7 minutes:

• people suffer from depression on the dole
• poverty damages marriage
• some are so poor that bread is a luxury item
• unemployed husband creates tension in the family home
• kids not taking money for sweets to help towards food shop
• struggling to pay bills
• people don't care about the plight of the poor families
• clothes are passed down from older relatives/neighbours/friends
• not enough money for the bottled gas. Ran out cooking the dinner

Are any of these what you are alluding to? If not, could you at least indicate where in the 45 minute podcast is the section of the show that is?

Link to the podcast Lucy is referring to

Ty.

Lucy8080

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Im not seeing what this has to do with people receiving money for being a certain religion. I dont think anyone is claiming that there arent people who are finding it hard to afford the basics but handing out 112 for a party isn't the solution.

People need to learn that the person who is on the dole shouldnt expect to get what the person earning 60k get. If someone wants to spend thousands on a dress then let them but you cant go running to the government to hand you money to even things out.

Reread this.

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

What about children not preparing for communion in state schools, should their families get 112 euro for social life reasons?

The answer is in the question.

Lucy8080

Sarky wrote: »

Please use multi-quote!

apologies.

I'm computer illiterate, but trying. I understand the frustration.

I find the "new boards" a real help for disguising other deficiencies i have.

I' ll keep trying .

I' ll get there.

FanadMan

I've watched this thread for a while but never posted before now.

A cousin of mine had a communion a few months back. He is working - low wage stuff but it was helping keep the wolf from the door. His wife is a stay at home mum.....they have two more kids, one that is still a toddler. Since the communion he has been in my place a few times and from chatting to him, they are damn near the breadline. Without the grant they would have had problems paying the rent. Neither of them smoke and their treat is a cheap bottle of wine and TV every couple of weeks.

And before anyone starts whinging about bouncy castles etc - the whole thing was extremely basic. Her dress was from a charity shop (best places ever!!) There was only a few family members back to the house - most with kids (who had great fun playing outside with some games that myself and a few others put together). Most of the food and stuff was from Lidl/Aldi.

Even with trying to go cheap, they are still struggling to put food on the table. Without getting some help from the government they would be on the scrapheap.

From reading this thread, from what I see it bitter people. People that don't want anything to do with the catholic church - am not a fan myself but have nothing against people that do. But as a predominantly catholic country, until the government decides state-wide that communion/confirmation ceremonies HAVE to be be school uniform only, there is going to be problems. There is always going to be a oneupmanship(?) between families.

Personally, I think that these ceremonies should be a way lot later in life. Not that bothered about communion but pledging your life to a religion at 12 or 13 is ridiculous. At that age, it's still hard to decide between looking at something shiny or the sky

........end of rant coming up - as I said earlier....until the government decides state-wide that communion/confirmation ceremonies HAVE to be be school uniform only, there is going to be a need for extra help for poorer families.

lazygal

Why would the government set the dresscode for private religious events?

Rev Hellfire

The argument that because everyone else is doing it we have to do it also might have held water a few years ago. But the reality is now with the mix of religions in our schools the idea that children who aren't doing it are socially excluded is invalid.

If you can't afford to do an optional social tradition then don't do it.

Also if the sacrament is what is so important then simply ask your local pp to preform it for you, the pomp is also optional.

Cabaal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

No.

The issue here is the abandonment of children in schools who have been set up for communion within those schools.

It is lazy government.

And lazy thinking on your part ,and those who thanked you,to think otherwise.

So its the government's fault the parents failed to save money during a 7 year period for what apparently is such a big day?

I'd say it's lazy parents if anything.

Surely if money is such an issue for parents they could ask uncles etc to help pay rather then giving a 7 year old 800euro.

This is all very lazy parenting.

Delirium

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Ty.

With all due respect, that's not an answer to the questions posed in my post. Any chance of answering the questions?

lazygal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The answer is in the question.

No its not. My children won't be doing communion. Should I get an equivalent value grant for another social occasion if I so require, no matter what I spend the money on, be it a dress that is only worn once, clothing for the family or a celebration?

magicbastarder

lazygal wrote: »

Why would the government set the dresscode for private religious events?

because they're the ones who pay for the schools, so it's ultimately their decision about running communion within school time.

Rev Hellfire

magicbastarder wrote: »

so it's ultimately their decision about running communion within school time.

But the communion itself doesn't occur on a school day, its only the preparation which occurs in school time.