Communion and Confirmation grants scrapped...

seriously?

there was/is a grant?

why?

Madness.

just so little girls can dress up like brides in a paedo fantasy......

I THINK NOT!!!!

homer911 wrote: »

About time or mean spirited?

Personally speaking.. this seems like a grant that should never have been made in the first place. It only supports the crazy excess of what should be a spiritual occasion, and the Catholic church should be more outspoken on the matter...

I agree it should not have been a grant in the first place, and also the CC should have been a lot more outspoken on the excess. Would be great if the grant could be done away with, but used to maybe maintain childrens allowance rates etc, and not simply thrown into the bank debt black hole.

There wasn't really a grant directly for this.

There's an "emergency payments" system for people who are on social assistance. It's recognised that social assistance provides the bare minimum to cover routine expenses, and if a substantial occasional expense arises - your fridge breaks down, it's the start of the school year - you can apply for an "emergency payment" and your application it will be considered. Up until now childrens' first communions and confirmations (and analagous ceremonies in other religious traditions) were events on which an emergency payment would be considered; they no longer will be.

The idea, basically, was to minimise social exclusion and alienation through being unable to afford to participate in the socially acceptable rites of passage.

On the whole, I'm pleased to see communions and confirmations taken out of the "emergency payments" list, and I'd like to see more done to eliminate the materialist excess that surrounds these events. But I don't want to overstate the issue; last year the total paid out was something under 1.5 million euros. Add that to the children's allowance, and it's roundings of a cent to each payment.

Zombrex wrote: »

Out of curiosity, where did the whole mini-wedding dress thing come from in relation to first communion? I assume it is supposed to represent the innocence of the child or something. Is it purely an Irish thing or a Catholic thing?

Other way 'round. Wearing white garments for the sacraments of initiation (baptism, confirmation, eucharist) is one of the most ancient Christian traditions that we know of; it goes back to at least the second century.

Whereas the white wedding dress is a nineteenth century innovation, and then only for The Quality. It didn't become general through all social classes until the 1920s.

Generally people wore finery to be married in, but not unique wedding finery; they would wear clothes that could be worn again on other occasions. A bridal dress could be of any colour.

Queen Victoria chose a white dress for her own wedding. It was much admired for its "simplicity", "purity", "freshness", etc though, by our standards, it was anything but simple:



This started a fashion (among those who could afford a single-use dress) for white wedding dresses, which over a century or so gradually spread downwards through the social classes.

So, in truth, girls making their first communion are not being dressed up as little brides. Rather, women getting married are being dressed up as little girls. (Which, if you think about it, is a bit sinister.)

Gumbi wrote: »

One of the particularly disgusting things some people do (thankfully, my family didn't do this, indeed I wasn't aware of it being a thing, and my extremely Catolic Dad abhorred it), the "tradition" of dressing up in your Communion gear and going to all your neighbours etc collecting money.

*shudders* Had someone whom I barely knew come to my door doing that recently.

Not so many years ago children used to play out on the street with each other more freely than today, there wasn't a lot else to do - also neighbours used to know each other perhaps a little better because everybody in a neighbourhood was pretty much in the same circumstances of relative poverty or prosperity ( and the business of others, right or wrongly ) a little better than today -

The difference now is that, most young couples are out at work paying for to live in Ireland and trying to be honorable today and survive and it's really difficult to know the state of affairs next door, don't mind the in's and out's of the Governer - we're kept distracted paying up, or worrying about it.

During that time, you might have a street where they made a fuss over a child who made their Communion and was well known by the adults who may invite them to 'knock in' on the day, even if it was only a biscuit or just a twirl or hug from the family who lived there - That is why the children went and knocked in, because they were 'invited' and received by the community and equally so the parents received another child in the neighbourhood that theirs were a part of, into their own home and invited them to 'knock in' on their neighbours child's big day.

There was nothing 'sinister' - and there was nothing embarrassing about it at all, unless one is very easily embarrassed by having good friends and good neighbours.

riffmongous wrote: »

The problem with the demonisation of a lot of these social grants is that once they are gone, the people who were abusing them will still be alright, whereas the people who really depended on them will be lost

It was a ridiculous state of affairs anyway. The government shouldn't support certain religious ceremonies of certain religions.

In any case, it should uniform only.

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I'd rather not conflate it further with the national school system. How about some nice robes, reuse them year after year.

Well you can't have it both ways. The two are already totally integrated. Nearly all primary schools in this country are Catholic, and by default, you are confirmed/have your first Communion as part if the school system.

I've no problem at all with having some kind of dress code as long as it doesn't require lavish amounts of money to be spent.

Gumbi wrote: »

The two are already totally integrated. Nearly all primary schools in this country are Catholic, and by default, you are confirmed/have your first Communion as part if the school system.

Yeah, but who pays for the teachers all those hours of preparation for first communion and confession etc.? And when your children are not RC you are not obliged to participate in most schools, but then you realise how much time and money is wasted on this.

To my mind any school that receives State funding should not have preparation for religious ceremonies as part of the teaching day.

If parents want their children to be involved in such activities there are weekends and a whole summer of school holidays available for such activities.

If a school is wholly funded by the parents - go for it. Otherwise there should be an absolute separation of Church and State.

SD

lmaopml wrote: »

So basically a school with a Christian ethos shouldn't be allowed even though the parents pay taxes - it should be a one size fits all that suits 'some' parents values only. While we're at it private schools could go too and how dare they ask for funding from the department of education....there shouldn't be such a thing that parents could choose to support a school and it's students by contributing to facilities etc. It's not a good thing that a parent should be interested in that at all....

People and families, mothers and fathers in general shouldn't be able to choose to send their child to a school that says a morning prayer and especially grace before meals, or a school that includes God in the day. There should be no God in schools that are funded by the State even 'if' the vast majority of people think this that it's valuable and in this country we are finding some kind of equilibrium or at least trying to - they should have no say, just because - well some people think so like you.

I have no problem with parents choices - I support the ET model, I also support C.O.I. ethos schools as well as any other body that is interested in education, so long as they follow the curriculum to the dot - and care for their pupils within that ethos - whether it's primary, secondary or third level.

I will always support multi-denominational schools as a person who pays taxes - and always support freedom of religion and freedom of choice for parents and the family. I don't worship the Government and thank it for distributing taxes equally (LOL) I worship God, and I send my children to a school with a Christian ethos because I believe this is valuable and a freedom that I feel is important.

That's very interesting, however, there ought not be religious instruction in publicly funded schools for the simple reason that religion is a private matter and to my mind is it wholly inappropriate for the State to fund private organisations with monies from the public purse.

If parents want to have their children educated in religious matters like I said there is time after school, weekends and school holidays for that.

Religion if it is part of the curriculum should be taught in the same way as English or Maths - as a subject - covering all beliefs equally - with exams etc.

I know from my own experience growing up, the school I had to attend (there were no alternative schools available) spent a ridiculous amount of time on religious activities that had no relevance to my day to day life and hindered my study of necessary subjects.

SD

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you claiming this in relation to religion in educational institutions or society writ large?

Frankly yes. Religious belief or lack thereof is a wholly private matter and should not be funded by the State - at any level.

SD

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see. But that wasn't quite my question. Are you saying that religion (and I'll take religion to be something akin to Christianity, Islam etc.) is purely a private affair that has no place in the public square?

What I'm saying is that as a private matter, it should not be paid for with public funds. I have no objection to people practicing their religion, that is their right. I just don't think the State should pay for it. We have a separation of church and state for a reason.

SD

StudentDad wrote: »

That's very interesting, however, there ought not be religious instruction in publicly funded schools for the simple reason that religion is a private matter and to my mind is it wholly inappropriate for the State to fund private organisations with monies from the public purse.

If parents want to have their children educated in religious matters like I said there is time after school, weekends and school holidays for that.

Religion if it is part of the curriculum should be taught in the same way as English or Maths - as a subject - covering all beliefs equally - with exams etc.

I know from my own experience growing up, the school I had to attend (there were no alternative schools available) spent a ridiculous amount of time on religious activities that had no relevance to my day to day life and hindered my study of necessary subjects.

SD

That's very interesting, however those who pay taxes and contribute to the 'public purse' are members of the 'public' - you seem to be saying they shouldn't have a choice at all to send their child to a faith school where the ethos might be Christian, and receive the same funding from the department at all? There should only be one school type, the State school, with a multi-denominational ethos that is controlled by the State and not the people.

Even if it's a private run enterprise, it shouldn't get normal state funding, and the department shouldn't pay teachers? So basically your worldview trumps other citizens simply because you hold it? That's nice.

robp wrote: »

There is no compelling reason why the system should be homogenised. As long there is public demand there isn't any grounds for a one size fits all curriculum. Such calls are purely idealogical and not rooted in education achievement or even spending efficiently.

We'll have to agree to differ on that I'm afraid. Cost has always been trotted out as an excuse for the current mess that is our school system.

We need a school system that is inclusive of all citizen regardless of their beliefs. To my mind 'belief' should be left at the school gate. The current system promotes division and does nothing to help children who are forced through a school day that contains religious elements that have nothing to do with their lives.

SD

homer911 wrote: »

As a Christian, I agree absolutely - the school system should be representative of the type of education parents want for their children

Beliefs are not something that can be left at the school gate - you either have them or you don't, but you cant put them aside just to suit someone else. You can however act in a way which respects the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others - and that applies to those without beliefs, just as much as it does to those with them - its very much a two way street, unfortunately the people who are most outspoken want a one way street to suit themselves only..

When the State is paying the bill having a system that places one religious belief ahead of others in an educational setting is to my mind incorrect. It is not the place of the state to fund the religious education of a particular section of society.

If parents want a specific religious education for their children frankly they should fund that cost themselves. The current system marginalises and excludes those who are forced to send their children to a particular 'faith' school, mainly because there are no viable alternatives.

To my mind schools should not promote any particular belief system and should welcome all citizens equally on that basis. Following on from that if parents want their children to be educated in a particular religious denomination, that inculcation should occur outside of school hours where parents frankly can better participate in such activities.

SD

robp wrote: »

The cost argument is baloney. As it stands the schools are overwhelmingly Catholic and there are already usually small by international standards. Thus Irish school size is low due to reasons that must be unrelated to attempts to create ETs or VECs. If you want to reduce costs go head and close schools but there is no reason why schools couldn't be rationalised while still maintaining a variety of choices. It is only in the most remote rural areas while only a tiny minority lives is a variety of school choices not feasible. It is unlikely that schools are going to be rationalised any time soon as it is problematic and political dangerous so the Irish system may continue to be usually well suited to a denominal schools approach for the foreseeable future.


One system is treated not above others. Each are given the pre-eminence according to local demand.

Although we know there is shortage of ETs locally there is no evidence of the widespread exclusion and marginalisation which you suggest.

You're missing the point.

As it stands these 'Catholic' schools you mention are funded by the State. If you want a system of 'Catholic' (or any other faith for that matter) schools they should be wholly funded by the parents who choose to send their children to such schools. Bearing in mind that these schools should be subject to the full weight of equality legislation and any exceptions in that legislation should be removed.

Just because the system 'is' does not make it correct.

The denominal approach you seem to recommend does nothing for social inclusiveness and frankly is a waste of resources.

SD

homer911 wrote: »

You cant talk about social inclusiveness and then demand that everyone else changes their views to suit yours. Your argument is only relevant based on facts and figures. Show me, say, a catholic school which has say a 90% non-catholic student roll and I will agree with you. There is no
empirical evidence to support the notion that non-catholic pupils in a catholic school are somehow socially excluded.

For the record, my children attend a protestant school which has a significant catholic student group and its fully inclusive - to the point where nobody asks, cares or complains

I presume that you would be happy to bear the full economic cost of your child attending a non-denominational school..

Well, don't you need a baptisimal certificate to register in a Catholic school? So, it's not like there's much choice in the matter...

Lets be honest its not Religion thats being taught in schools its Catholicism which is only one religion. If we are gonna have religion in schools then it needs to be taught as a subject where children learn the philosophies and historys of all major religions and are properly examined on it and if parents want to encourage they're own beliefs onto their child its up to them to do it in their own time and at their own cost

StudentDad wrote: »

I'm not asking you to change your views. Whatever your beliefs are frankly they're unimportant to me.

I don't think that is entirely the truth!

However, this country is supposed to be a Republic with a definite separation of church and state. That being the case the State should not be funding the religious education of private citizens.

That would include yourself?

As I said earlier to my mind if religion is taught in schools it should be an exam subject that covers all religious belief in a non-biased manner.

Well, you see that kind of says that you would like a 'non-denominational' system and to exlude any kind of public worship at all -

Students should be able to decide if they want to study this accordingly. Otherwise reference to religion should remain outside.

Give a good reason? Perhaps it held you back in some ways and that's your testimony, but the statistics for 'faith' ethos schools says different -

There are private schools all over this country who derive their income from fees. I have no problem with such institutions so long as they do not try to tap the public purse for funds and adhere to equality legislation.

Well, that's where you are wrong - the teachers are paid from the public purse, because they are providing a 'public' service to the 'public'...

So long as the State pays the bill to my mind 'religious studies' that are not an exam subject should remain separate.

It IS a subject, an exam subject no less where they are taught about all faiths in the curriculum, that the world is not necessarily a Christian world - and they are not hidden away from the world - students are not 'idiots' or taught to be such?

- they are brought up in a school with an ethos, a Christian one, not an Atheist one, but they are not taught to be unthinking, their grades speak for themselves, and of course the demand that parents have to get their children into faith ethos schools speaks for itself. Especially in countries where the state public system has been rolled out in the secular way.

Personally, I think that it would be cool to introduce students to the great philosophers actual teaching rather than merely the historical impact ( they know the poets ) but also the great philosophers, and thinkers too, in 5th year and have some cool discussion in religious education, rather than wait years for people to introduce such things on the 'internet' - I think it's the one thing lacking in the system that genuine question and answer sessions are not engaged in.

To be honest, I had a pretty cool religious teacher, but that was only in 5th year - prior to that they were ok and child friendly, but my 5th class teacher was really really cool...It made the difference - he knew what he was talking about!

LM.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am no expert on the subject and am basing this on personal opinion not research, but I am not sure the above is correct.

Before contraception was widely available and it was not unusual to have 10 or 12 children, how much 'parent time' do you think these children got? Men went out to work and women stayed home. If you were solely responsible for the feeding, washing, and cleanliness of family of 12 or 14 people, I imagine there would be very little time for any personal, quality interactions with 10 to 12 individual children.

I'm the youngest of eight children, and it was very very very cool having the camaraderie of a close family, having brothers and sisters, and still having them - and the love and example of amazing parents. I don't think I could possibly explain or even begin to imagine the amazing parents I had, that even thought that they could possibly have me - no. eight! All I can say is 'Wow', and really really thankyou for giving me 'life'....

I wouldn't be posting here if they didn't. They were amazing, my parents! I love them.