Communion & Confirmation allowances scrapped! Huzzah!

lazygal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

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.

Once again I haven't a clue what your point is, beyond 'its always been thus way'.

Hotblack Desiato

Lucy8080 wrote: »

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

According to who? I find that figure very hard to believe, and please don't take offence that an atheist isn't just going to take your word for it

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

Once again I haven't a clue what your point is, beyond 'its always been thus way'.

I think Lucy8080 is working on a new form of anarcho-syndicalist haiku.

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

I think Lucy8080 is working on a new form of anarcho-syndicalist haiku.

Privately, we all
have ups and downs - This is not
a private event.

I see what you mean Robin

magicbastarder

TheChizler wrote: »

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.

the debs is not organised as part of the school curriculum though; the state is not giving it its blessing (pun intended) in the same way they are doing for FHC.

TheChizler

magicbastarder wrote: »

the debs is not organised as part of the school curriculum though; the state is not giving it its blessing (pun intended) in the same way they are doing for FHC.

State or patron?

Lucy8080

I see "the Debs" has made an entrance,lol.

An event that involves people old enough to understand the financial position of their parents, old enough to take on weekend /summer work etc to fund this event...and yet ....the scraping of the barrel continues.

The figures I came by came from within "Irish Catholicism". The only source that could give an accurate figure of what goes in and out of their own doors.

Has anyone else here tried to locate a figure?

When people pretend to put their "taxpayer hat" on.....have any of those here genuinely tried to find out if this may be a false economy ( even for their own interests)?

I think stereotyping is what's in vogue here.

And blaming religion whilst conveniently ignoring any other participants., also, seems to be in vogue.

I don't mind letting ye at it.

Carry on, Im listening.

Lucy8080

Obliq wrote: »

Privately, we all
have ups and downs - This is not
a private event.

I see what you mean Robin

That referred to Lazygals intimation that she had some "private" finacial diffuculties growing up ...birthdays /xmases...et al. I was just confirming that she may not be the only one and that it has no bearing on the topic at hand.

I guess a "haiku" crack is more appealing to some than answering the last question I asked them.

I don't mind.

Sarky

If you were a bit more coherent, you might get more responses. It's not rocket science. You're bloody hard to follow because you ramble all over the shop.

Delirium

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I see "the Debs" has made an entrance,lol.

An event that involves people old enough to understand the financial position of their parents, old enough to take on weekend /summer work etc to fund this event...and yet ....the scraping of the barrel continues.

Why are the families suddenly able to fund their childs event purely because the child is in his/her late teens? A family can't manage to save/earn some money for communion/confirmation but can if it's a debs. Why the double-standard?

The figures I came by came from within "Irish Catholicism". The only source that could give an accurate figure of what goes in and out of their own doors.

Has anyone else here tried to locate a figure?

Have you got a link for you source?

When people pretend to put their "taxpayer hat" on.....have any of those here genuinely tried to find out if this may be a false economy ( even for their own interests)?

Would you like to expand on your suggestion that getting rid of the communion/confirmation payment may be a false economy? What future costs will the government possibly incur as a result of cutting the payment?

lazygal

Lucy8080 wrote: »

That referred to Lazygals intimation that she had some "private" finacial diffuculties growing up ...birthdays /xmases...et al. I was just confirming that she may not be the only one and that it has no bearing on the topic at hand.

I guess a "haiku" crack is more appealing to some than answering the last question I asked them.

I don't mind.

My parents didn't have financial difficulties growing up because they both worked and we didn't have things we couldn't afford, like lavish social occasions. If you read my post, you'll note that from an early age I, like most children, knew that some people had more than others, for whatever reason (maybe because their parents went into debt or earned more than my parents), others didn't do communions/confirmations because they just didn't do them, and that was just the way life goes.

Why should taxes fund private social occasions which parents chose to involve their children in?

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I guess a "haiku" crack is more appealing to some than answering the last question I asked them.

Well, as Sarky suggests, if you posted a few sentences that had a clear meaning that invited agreement, disagreement or at least understanding, rather than producing a series of rambling, semi-hallucinatory, stream-of-consciousness, faintly indignant posts with no clear point, then perhaps people would be more inclined to engage with you. As it is, I think people are replying to you as you reply to them.

Lucy8080

koth wrote: »

Why are the families suddenly able to fund their childs event purely because the child is in his/her late teens? A family can't manage to save/earn some money for communion/confirmation but can if it's a debs. Why the double-standard?


Have you got a link for you source?


Would you like to expand on your suggestion that getting rid of the communion/confirmation payment may be a false economy? What future costs will the government possibly incur as a result of cutting the payment?

Families are not suddenly in a position to fund the "the Debs". Their children are.You yourself also acknowledged that "some families are so poor they cannot afford bread" earlier on in this thread!

Yes ..i have a link...i'll hold it back for now because I want to see some evidence for the claims around here first.I didn't start this thread.

The claims being made here have not been backed up by any evidence....and no-one here would let "the religious" away with that.


The false economy argument: Have a look at your own conclusions from 7 minutes of the 45 minute pod-cast you listened too.

Do you want to send these people to money-lenders? Do you think the tax-payer will save money in such a scenario?

Have a look at my reply to robs "journal i.e." assertions.

Notice the tumble-weed of silence blowing across the prairie when rob was challenged on it.

I think it is time i got some evidence rather than the usual "personal attacks " which distract form the lack of evidence.

Lucy8080

lazygal wrote: »

My parents didn't have financial difficulties growing up because they both worked and we didn't have things we couldn't afford, like lavish social occasions. If you read my post, you'll note that from an early age I, like most children, knew that some people had more than others, for whatever reason (maybe because their parents went into debt or earned more than my parents), others didn't do communions/confirmations because they just didn't do them, and that was just the way life goes.

Why should taxes fund private social occasions which parents chose to involve their children in?

It's great to hear that you didn' t have finacial issues at home growing up.

Now, could you explain to me how " first communion" is a "private social occasion"

As far as I'm concerned you are entertaining a faith based position here.( something you got a lot of thanks for the first time you made the claim).

Where is the evidence for your claim?

Sulla Felix

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Families are not suddenly in a position to fund the "the Debs". Their children are.You yourself also acknowledged that "some families are so poor they cannot afford bread" earlier on in this thread!

Children don't generally pay for their own debs. At least in my school, a public one, we didn't.

Yes ..i have a link...i'll hold it back for now because I want to see some evidence for the claims around here first.I didn't start this thread.

Ha. I think you don't. If you did post it, it'd shut up a certain amount of the naysayers.

Do you want to send these people to money-lenders? Do you think the tax-payer will save money in such a scenario?

You're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not A give them money or B they'll get it from the moneylenders at ruinous rates. There's a C lets teach some basic household accounting and financial discipline from an early age and a D remove the oneupmanship factor altogether by having the ceremony after mass on a Sunday, dress any kids attending in a bliaut and have it over and done with in 15 minutes.

Possibly there's an E and an F.

Lucy8080

robindch wrote: »

Well, as Sarky suggests, if you posted a few sentences that had a clear meaning that invited agreement, disagreement or at least understanding, rather than producing a series of rambling, semi-hallucinatory, stream-of-consciousness, faintly indignant posts with no clear point, then perhaps people would be more inclined to engage with you. As it is, I think people are replying to you as you reply to them.

How have we managed to get 21 pages in here if I have not invited agreement or disagreement or understanding ?

I may not be the one who is hallucinating here!

Hotblack Desiato

Because it would be illegal to euthanise the thread?

Lucy8080

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Children don't generally pay for their own debs. At least in my school, a public one, we didn't.
Ha. I think you don't. If you did post it, it'd shut up a certain amount of the naysayers.


You're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not A give them money or B they'll get it from the moneylenders at ruinous rates. There's a C lets teach some basic household accounting and financial discipline from an early age and a D remove the oneupmanship factor altogether by having the ceremony after mass on a Sunday, dress any kids attending in a bliaut and have it over and done with in 15 minutes.

Possibly there's an E and an F.

Oh, I have the link alright Sulla! The figures are favourable to some atheist/secularist positions ( I was surprised myself at the figures).But, as I said, I don't have to defend the claims being made here, that's for the claimants. That's fair,ain't it?

There is no false dichotomy in my assertions, just the reality of the situation as it stands.

But hey, I don't mind changing my opinion in the face of hard evidence for the claims being made here.

Off you go. I'm listening.

Lucy8080

ninja900 wrote: »

Because it would be illegal to euthanise the thread?

Like I said, I may not be the one hallucinating here! I could be wrong.I have serious doubts about myself being in the wrong,especially when I read replies like the above.

Delirium

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Families are not suddenly in a position to fund the "the Debs". Their children are.You yourself also acknowledged that "some families are so poor they cannot afford bread" earlier on in this thread!

I'm not aware of a single person in my class that paid the cost of their own debs. The arguments you used for parents deserving financial aid are equally applicable for the debs. If anything, I would have thought a debs would be a bigger financial burden.

Yes ..i have a link...i'll hold it back for now because I want to see some evidence for the claims around here first.I didn't start this thread.

The claims being made here have not been backed up by any evidence....and no-one here would let "the religious" away with that.


The false economy argument: Have a look at your own conclusions from 7 minutes of the 45 minute pod-cast you listened too.

Do you want to send these people to money-lenders? Do you think the tax-payer will save money in such a scenario?

Why have they to go to the money-lenders? The parents aren't legally obliged to pay for anything related to communion/confirmation. The sacrament is free. Everything else is "keeping up with the Joneses".

Have a look at my reply to robs "journal i.e." assertions.

Notice the tumble-weed of silence blowing across the prairie when rob was challenged on it.

I haven't found the post yet so I'll have to get back to you later on that one.

EDIT:the link was about the large amount of money being spent by families on the event. It only goes to highlight the daft amount of money that gets spent on the day. Your response didn't contradict anything he posted.

You pointed out that the extraordinary circumstances allowance was only €112. Does that mean that parents still go to money-lenders as the €112 isn't enough? Would you be in favour of increasing it in an attempt to remove the necessity for any parent to go to money-lenders?

I honestly don't think that communion/confirmation meets the definition of extraordinary circumstances. It's not an unexpected event nor is it outside the norm for a large number of children to receive those sacraments. If anything it's an ordinary circumstance.