Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

Sulla Felix

FanadMan wrote: »

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.

Why did they have to do all that? Hint: they didn't.

It's the sacrament thats important surely not the dress and party. So when times are hard dispose of the frippery.

I'd actually go one further and say that people should just go up to the priest after normal sunday mass and get it done. They do go to mass right?

The secret here is that the church loves social pressure to conform and making this a communal ritual is just one more way to exercise that control.

shruikan2553

FanadMan wrote: »

Without the grant they would have had problems paying the rent.

Not aiming this at them specifically but in general if you are choosing to pay for a communion over something like rent or bills then it is no wonder they are having difficulties because they cant manage their money.

FanadMan wrote: »

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.

Or just wouldnt of had a communion, I am sure the local priest would understand if they didnt contribute as much money towards the church each week for awhile so they could save up a bit of money if it was important to them.

FanadMan wrote: »

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.

The main problem is the fact that everyone is expected to pitch in part of that 700 euro party where the biggest spend is for the mothers clothes I believe.

FanadMan wrote: »

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.

This has always existed, if my neighbor got a new merc and I had a ford. Would I get a grant so I can have a pissing contest?

FanadMan wrote: »

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

I agree with this, I find it odd that it is to confirm you will continue to be a member of the church and yet those who dont complete it are still considered members.


I have said this before, communions are optional. If there was a large jewish community in your area would you be sending your child for a bar mitzvah? Sure all the other kids are having one, you wouldnt want this evil social pressure with everyone judging you. Although if you asked people do they care about someone not having a communion I doubt any would care or remember after a week or 2. If you want to have a communion and have the money then have a yacht full of coke and hookers carried by a plane take you to the church for all I care but someone working part time on minimum wage shouldnt be going to the government to get more money just so that they can do the same.

magicbastarder

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I have said this before, communions are optional. If there was a large jewish community in your area would you be sending your child for a bar mitzvah? Sure all the other kids are having one, you wouldnt want this evil social pressure with everyone judging you.

different context; if the only option open to your child was a school where their baptised religion could affect their chances of getting in, and the same school was run by the state, that would be a very different issue than there simply being a large contingent of jewish people in the area.

i keep saying it, but this debate should primarily be about the state's implicit support for communion, not about some of the collateral damage, so to speak, caused as a result.

sponsoredwalk

I find it hard not to notice how 700 euro parties, limousines, bouncing castles & other rational hyperbole is the ideological analogue of welfare queens collecting multiple welfare checks in limousines similarly tapping into unconscious biases that ideology in here requires people to unconsciously, unquestioningly, perpetuate...

"He specialized in the exaggerated, outrageous tale that was almost always unsubstantiated, usually false, yet so sensational that it merited repeated recounting… And because his ‘examples’ of welfare queens drew on existing stereotypes of welfare cheats and resonated with news stories about welfare fraud, they did indeed gain real traction."

I wonder how sociologists would describe a thread like this in years to come, whether this would be the model chosen, what general terms they'd use to describe the shared-upon narrative people in here find so palatable, just wow...

Flier

For the majority, this is not about the rights and wrongs of being on welfare. It's about how that welfare budget is inappropriately used to support a catholic ritual. I would prefer to see the discretionary payments used for what they were intended - unforseen financial emergencies, not a religious ritual that a family has had at least 7 years to budget for.

LittleBook

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

"The development of curriculum for Religious Education remains the responsibility of the different church authorities".

Anything concerning religion is the responsibility of the patron of the school, not the government. If the patrons of the school want to run communion within school time, they should be responsible for the costs incurred.

magicbastarder

exactly - it's their decision on what the curriculum should be, and they've decided to delegate that part to the church. which is a disgrace.

but i'd see communion as being outside the curriculum; it is not education, it is a religious ceremony. but no one has had the balls to explicitly state it should not be in the curriculum.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

exactly - it's their decision on what the curriculum should be

sorry; may not have been clear here. by 'they', i was referring to the DoE, not the school patrons or the church.

Newaglish

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I find it hard not to notice how 700 euro parties, limousines, bouncing castles & other rational hyperbole is the ideological analogue of welfare queens collecting multiple welfare checks in limousines similarly tapping into unconscious biases that ideology in here requires people to unconsciously, unquestioningly, perpetuate...

I wonder how sociologists would describe a thread like this in years to come, whether this would be the model chosen, what general terms they'd use to describe the shared-upon narrative people in here find so palatable, just wow...

You've been reading too much John Waters.

Nermal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

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?

Broken window fallacy. If the State doesn't have to give out the voodoo allowance, it can spend the money on something else. It doesn't disappear.

robindch

FanadMan wrote: »

A cousin of mine had a communion a few months back [...] they have two more kids [...] 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. [...] 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.

So, let me get this straight: your cousin has enough cash for cheap wine, but not enough to fund a religious ceremony which he/she appears to care nothing for, but for which he doesn't have the cojones to abandon?

FanadMan wrote: »

[...] what I see it bitter people[...]

As somebody who pays more tax than most, I sincerely hope the wine I helped pay for was tasty. Perhaps he/she might like to share it sometime.

sponsoredwalk

Newaglish wrote: »

You've been reading too much John Waters.

I'm so happy I don't think in a way that makes sense of what you've just said as any kind of a rebuttal, I can only interpret what you've said in terms of ideology though of course I can only blame John Waters for that...

Newaglish

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'm so happy I don't think in a way that makes sense of what you've just said as any kind of a rebuttal, I can only interpret what you've said in terms of ideology though of course I can only blame John Waters for that...

What I'm saying is that you have very poor English. I can't understand what you're saying because you're trying too hard.

Strength in language is not measured in the complexity of how you say things but in the clarity of your message.

sponsoredwalk

Newaglish wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you have very poor English. I can't understand what you're saying because you're trying too hard.

Strength in language is not measured in the complexity of how you say things but in the clarity of your message.

The irony of having to re-iterate your message in a post chastising me for lack of clarity...

Maybe if you learned the meanings of all those big words John Waters uses you might not unconsciously write off everything he says, it wouldn't surprise me to find people on side of this issue sympathizing with many of John Waters opinions quite frankly so your comments might simply be a lost in translation kind of thing stemming from your own issues (however I know it's a scary thought to think of the out-grouper as making a valid point though so maybe just best to write everything the dreaded other says with six letter words or less). I seem to be on a roll with teaching people the wonders of a dictionary, however the last people were 7 year old girls who, rather than writing off what I was saying & not bothering, actually tried with all dem big wurds - even going so far as finding ways to use new ones like 'quantum chromodynamics' to complement my hair (There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio). Why don't you try again, without the irrelevant comments? The worst thing that'll happen is that you'll learn something, both educationally & in terms of interacing with people who conduct themselves in a different fashion that you're normally used to, i.e. you might start learning to accept people for who they are & how they present themselves & how not tell them to be as you'd like them to be...

Also I'd just like to point out that your little factoid about strength in language writes off about 90% of humanities greatest literature. If you really believe that little soundbite ideology then Joyce is just no better than John Waters to you. Funnily enough I would bet serious money that wherever learned your little dictum, i.e. like in a leaving cert English book telling you how language should be in the preface, they were quoting Joyce or something similar before the middle of the book...

Sierra 117

It ridiculous that communions were considered an exceptional need. I'm glad they've put a stop to it.

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The irony of having to re-iterate your message in a post chastising me for lack of clarity...

Maybe if you learned the meanings of all those big words John Waters uses you might not unconsciously write off everything he says, it wouldn't surprise me to find people on side of this issue sympathizing with many of John Waters opinions quite frankly so your comments might simply be a lost in translation kind of thing stemming from your own issues (however I know it's a scary thought to think of the out-grouper as making a valid point though so maybe just best to write everything the dreaded other says with six letter words or less). I seem to be on a roll with teaching people the wonders of a dictionary, however the last people were 7 year old girls who, rather than writing off what I was saying & not bothering, actually tried with all dem big wurds - even going so far as finding ways to use new ones like 'quantum chromodynamics' to complement my hair (There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio). Why don't you try again, without the irrelevant comments? The worst thing that'll happen is that you'll learn something, both educationally & in terms of interacing with people who conduct themselves in a different fashion that you're normally used to, i.e. you might start learning to accept people for who they are & how they present themselves & how not tell them to be as you'd like them to be...

Also I'd just like to point out that your little factoid about strength in language writes off about 90% of humanities greatest literature. If you really believe that little soundbite ideology then Joyce is just no better than John Waters to you. Funnily enough I would bet serious money that wherever learned your little dictum, i.e. like in a leaving cert English book telling you how language should be in the preface, they were quoting Joyce or something similar before the middle of the book...

Less of this personal stuff please Sponsored.

More on what you actually agree/disagree with related to the topic at hand. Attacking a groupthink is fine but you haven't really done in that your last few posts have you? You've just posited the existence of one without really bothering to go into further detail.

For what it's worth though. If Joyce wrote an essay about ethics the same way he wrote Ulysses nobody would have clue in the nay of Jimmy what he was on about. Clarity of communication is what's required not stream of conscience waffle. Jeesh! Reading Hegel was bad enough. :eek: But I digress.

Lucy8080

Jernal,

I tend to work backwards through posts because time-wise I have to play catch-up. It's unintended but unavoidable.

Any-hows, the first two posts I see are yours and Sponsoredwalks.

Let me put a case for him. I love that stuff he writes...it's got head and heart( lots of heart). It has humour and brevity....and personally...i find it easy to read.

There is also a flow to his writing. And originality.

I think he has great English (just my opinion).

Simplicity is great....but lets beware of dumbing down.

This poster is an asset.

I can see quite plainly what he disagrees with...and why.

He has great English!

He takes it out for a dance.

I love watching that dance.

No criticism of Jernal in this..I'm just balancing the view ( he supposedly has very poor English, the irony of it) in the hope that it helps.

I'll get back to the replies I need to answer during the week.

I had a quick scan...same old same old as far as i can see....but I'll give them proper attention when i have more time.

Lucy8080

robindch wrote: »

So, let me get this straight: your cousin has enough cash for cheap wine, but not enough to fund a religious ceremony which he/she appears to care nothing for, but for which he doesn't have the cojones to abandon?As somebody who pays more tax than most, I sincerely hope the wine I helped pay for was tasty. Perhaps he/she might like to share it sometime.

I was off to bed , I saw this post with the thought I'd address this post during the week.

I'll sleep better addressing it now.

The "haves" are throwing into the economy in lots off ways that go unacknowledged.

For every Euro the "have nots" are given, according to the journal i.e,. source you quoted , the people will match the government "euro" with 4 euro of their own.

That's quite something, don't you think!

The people out of their own generosity are paying for that bottle of plonk.

Now rob, let it off your chest, how much tax are you paying?

How much do the people owe you?

Let it all out, we're listening.

sponsoredwalk

Wow, Jern, wow... I knew that was coming, that's the sad thing...

sponsoredwalk

My god, I just don't know how to sum it all up in a cogent enough fashion, wow...

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Wow, Jern, wow... I knew that was coming, that's the sad thing...

I don't like when tones start getting condescending so of course it was coming.

Now, instead of phenomena of groupthink would you mind telling what exactly you are in disagreement or agreement with.

sponsoredwalk

Jernal wrote: »

I don't like when tones start getting condescending

Newaglish wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you have very poor English.

Jernal wrote: »

I don't like when tones start getting condescending

Newaglish wrote: »

I can't understand what you're saying because you're trying too hard.

Jernal wrote: »

so of course it was coming.

Newaglish wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you have very poor English.

Jernal wrote: »

so of course it was coming.

Again I'm so glad I can look at the moon with a clear conscience, one that judges the fcuk out of myself constantly yet can look at a situation like this & feel confident I'm not doing something wrong, dude...

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Again I'm so glad I can look at the moon with a clear conscience, one that judges the fcuk out of myself constantly yet can look at a situation like this & feel confident I'm not doing something wrong, dude...

If you have an issue with moderation take it to pm. If you have an issue with an individual post report it.

Newy´s post isn't as bad tone wise as yours. You escalated it. So it means you get the slightly bigger metaphorical slap on the wrist.(No cards or formally warnings or anything had been handed out.) I just didn't want the thread descending into a free for all English standards rodeo.

Anyway, I just want to move this thread on. The next post about a person's quality of English may be deleted without prejudice.

So what is your issue against or for banning the communion grant?

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

As somebody who pays more tax than most...

alarm bells ring when i hear this sort of setup to a comment.

Sulla Felix

magicbastarder wrote: »

alarm bells ring when i hear this sort of setup to a comment.

Why? Surely someone who pays taxes should be concerned about how they're spent? In this case, tax payments essentially subsidize a social construct that in the opinions of most here, is actively harmful to society.
Personally I'd prefer if citizens were more actively critical of exactly how the taxes were spent.

Galvasean

magicbastarder wrote: »

alarm bells ring when i hear this sort of setup to a comment.

Paying any taxes = paying more taxes than most

magicbastarder

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Why? Surely someone who pays taxes should be concerned about how they're spent?

everyone should be concerned about how taxes are spent.
my comment was a lighthearted one, just referring to the fact that the preamble above is often the beginnings of an 'i pay my taxes so i have a greater stake in how this country is run and my opinion outweighs yours' sort of rant. thankfully not in the case above.

Brian Shanahan

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.

No, priests are responsible for the religious "education" (brainwashing is far more accurate here), and therefore any pushing off of that responsibility on others is their fault and wrong.

And no, being truthful is never lazy. However just trying to brush off people without engaging their points (like what you constantly and exclusively do) is incredibly lazy, disingenious, mendacious and outright evil.

Brian Shanahan

LittleBook wrote: »

"The development of curriculum for Religious Education remains the responsibility of the different church authorities".

Anything concerning religion is the responsibility of the patron of the school, not the government. If the patrons of the school want to run communion within school time, they should be responsible for the costs incurred.

And compensate the child for the loss of future earnings because of their decision to take away valuable time from their early education. Proper education early in life compounds many times over in the future earning potential of a person.

Turtwig

Jernal wrote: »

If you have an issue with moderation take it to pm. If you have an issue with an individual post report it.

Newy´s post isn't as bad tone wise as yours. You escalated it. So it means you get the slightly bigger metaphorical slap on the wrist.(No cards or formally warnings or anything had been handed out.) I just didn't want the thread descending into a free for all English standards rodeo.

Anyway, I just want to move this thread on. The next post about a person's quality of English may be deleted without prejudice.

So what is your issue against or for banning the communion grant?

Hi Sponsored,

Just rereading this now. Made a cock-up. Your post just stood out more to be because it was longer. (Forget the term for that phenomenon.) And I was more focused on reading, not skimming, at the time. Both of you should have gotten equal metaphorical slaps.

Lucy8080

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No, priests are responsible for the religious "education" (brainwashing is far more accurate here), and therefore any pushing off of that responsibility on others is their fault and wrong.

And no, being truthful is never lazy. However just trying to brush off people without engaging their points (like what you constantly and exclusively do) is incredibly lazy, disingenious, mendacious and outright evil.

A quick in and out here. I'll do my best to move this debate on to something new next time.


As far as I'm concerned the D.o.E is responsible for education in schools.

If you want to give that authority to the Vatican or Maynooth or Armagh.....or whoever...at least acknowledge what you claim.

Don't blame me for the ideas you entertain.

Being dishonest with ourselves is always lazy.I agree that being truthful is never lazy.

Have a look at your own statements.

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

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

What exactly makes this a private event?

That question may be shared amongst all those who thanked your post too...the rehearsal happens in schools (not private schools).

How is this a private event by any stretch of the imagination?

Lucy8080

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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.

96% of children in schools ( which prepare for communion) are going forward for communion.

10% are estimated to turn up for their second communion the following sunday!

Some P.P. are reporting that they have had approaches by parents that their child may be baptised just so they can take part in the event.

This is not a parish activity, something that requires commitment before and after the event.

It is school based.

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

The pressure on parents in the above situation has been added too now that the allowance has been removed.

The money lender is now most likely to be the go to guy to save face.

That will create more problems for people in these situations, and when the chickens come home to roost, the 112 euro allowance will look cheap by comparison.

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

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?

If you have been prepared (with 96% of the class) for that social occasion within state schools....then yes.

I'd hate to see you left out.

TheChizler

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The pressure on parents in the above situation has been added too now that the allowance has been removed.

The money lender is now most likely to be the go to guy to save face.

That will create more problems for people in these situations, and when the chickens come home to roost, the 112 euro allowance will look cheap by comparison.

Families occasionally are also under pressure because they have spent most of their income on alcohol/other drugs and have to go to money lenders to sustain that habit/live (hyperbole I know, I don't care ). Should the government give them money for the purposes of buying drugs/alcohol so they can fend off the moneylenders?

I know it's been pointed out many times before, but how much of a communion day is actually necessary?? Let's say for argument's sake that we live in a totalitarian catholic regime, communions for all! How much money is actually required to fulfil the requirements? Let's say the children are communionised individually and don't see one another for the day, i.e. no showing off.

Lucy8080

TheChizler wrote: »

Families occasionally are also under pressure because they have spent most of their income on alcohol/other drugs and have to go to money lenders to sustain that habit/live (hyperbole I know, I don't care ). Should the government give them money for the purposes of buying drugs/alcohol so they can fend off the moneylenders?

no.

Unless you where introduced to drugs by the state as part of the curriculum.

TheChizler

Lucy8080 wrote: »

no.

Let's take the subject matter out:

Person X is partaking in nonmandatory event/purchasing Y. They feel pressured into doing so for whatever reason but at the end of the day this is their own choice and they choose to spend a great deal of money doing so. Due to other concerns their financial situation isn't great and they resort to money lenders to fund event/item Y. Should the government be obliged to give them money specifically for Y so they no longer have to turn to moneylenders?. In general terms please.

Lucy8080

TheChizler wrote: »

Let's take the subject matter out:

Person X is partaking in nonmandatory event/purchasing Y. They feel pressured into doing so for whatever reason but at the end of the day this is their own choice and they choose to spend a great deal of money doing so. Due to other concerns their financial situation isn't great and they resort to money lenders to fund event/item Y. Should the government be obliged to give them money specifically for Y so they no longer have to turn to moneylenders?. In general terms please.

Infants are being prepared for communion within state schools.

Forget x and y.

Who has the greater responsibility?

Those who lead or those who follow?

The government/state will pick up the bill whatever the fall -out from your above scenario.

TheChizler

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Unless you where introduced to drugs by the state as part of the curriculum.

Ok, suppose part of a school curriculum teaches kids how to grow and smoke their own cannabis.

Should, at the parent's request, the state be obliged to provide an underground meth lab to the child?

Just to make the analogy of course:...



Edit: Maybe the parents are trying to show up the neighbour's R.V....

Lucy8080

TheChizler wrote: »

Ok, suppose part of a school curriculum teaches kids how to grow and smoke their own cannabis.

Should, at the parent's request, the state be obliged to provide an underground meth lab to the child?

Just to make the analogy of course:...



Edit: Maybe the parents are trying to show up the neighbour's R.V....

lol.

o.k. Im off to bed. Nite.

lazygal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

If you have been prepared (with 96% of the class) for that social occasion within state schools....then yes.

I'd hate to see you left out.

What social occasion should a child not be left out of?

Where does the figure of 96% of the class come from, to what occasions are you referring?

Children aren't stupid. When I was in school there were several children not making communion, such as refugees from Lebanon and children who's parents opted out or were of other faiths. I also just accepted that some children got loads of stuff from Santa whereas I got less, or other children went away on a foreign holiday every every year but my family didn't, or other children had very large birthday parties with all the trimmings. It didn't cause social isolation, it just showed me that everyone and every family is different. Why is that a lesson not worth learning?

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

What social occasion should a child not be left out of?

Where does the figure of 96% of the class come from, to what occasions are you referring?

Children aren't stupid. When I was in school there were several children not making communion, such as refugees from Lebanon and children who's parents opted out or were of other faiths. I also just accepted that some children got loads of stuff from Santa whereas I got less, or other children went away on a foreign holiday every every year but my family didn't, or other children had very large birthday parties with all the trimmings. It didn't cause social isolation, it just showed me that everyone and every family is different. Why is that a lesson not worth learning?

The 96% figure comes from within Catholicism.

The 10% figure that estimates the amount of children turning up for "their second communion the following weekend" comes from the same source. It is hardly propaganda.It must be a pretty sobering figure for the leaders of "Irish Catholicism".

The Government have removed the payment whilst leaving the situation to be.It is a cop out.

And if they want to leave infants in that situation, as far as I'm concerned, that is the occasion that children should not be left out of . It is a situation implicitly supported by those who are responsible for their education.

The rest of your post is about how you understand and accept the position of the minority, try including the majority too ,for balance.

Privately, we all have ups and downs.

This is not a private event.

Hotblack Desiato

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The 96% figure comes from within Catholicism.

Nope. The only relevant 96% figure I'm aware of is that 96% of primary schools in Ireland are under religious control. IIRC 94% are roman catholic.

The Government have removed the payment whilst leaving the situation to be.It is a cop out.

If by this you mean that religious indoctrination / sacramental preparation should be entirely removed from state funded schools then I'd be in full agreement

Lucy8080

The 96% figure is related to the amount of children that go forward for "first communion" within schools that prepare for "first communion". It probably balances out amongst all schools that prepare.


You may be surprised to learn that leaders of Catholicism are coming to the same conclusion ( as you) about their options towards "their" flock in regards to whether they should be communed along Classroom lines or parish lines.


I'll try and dig up some quotes for you during the week or next week-end.

Let's not punish kids/the poor....Whilst the religious/political leaders hum and haa about the situation they have placed them in.

Hotblack Desiato

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The 96% figure is related to the amount of children that go forward for "first communion" within schools that prepare for "first communion".

Citation needed. 96% is only about one kid in the average class.

Lucy8080

ninja900 wrote: »

Citation needed. 96% is only about one kid in the average class.

96% of kids go forward for communion in national schools that prepare for communion.

How did you reckon that to be one kid?

I'm off to bed.

shruikan2553

If 96% decide to go through with the communion thats their issue. Parents are perfectly within their rights to tell the school that they dont want their child participating. The vast majority may do it but there is no obligation to.

Sulla Felix

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056991928

Anecdotal evidence that there was indeed sw payments made for other communal rites of passage and there too, the payments are no longer being made.

TheChizler

Sulla Felix wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056991928

Anecdotal evidence that there was indeed sw payments made for other communal rites of passage and there too, the payments are no longer being made.

Damn you beat me to it!

If anything I'd argue the debs/grads more worthy of the payment as it's not exclusive to anybody and the state wouldn't be showing preference to any particular section of society. Still can't believe it was a valid reason for payment though.