The Census results Are Out (quite interesting) Merge. All census talk in here.

TanG411

marozz wrote: »

In principle you did answer the question on the census correctly. As far as I know , leaving the Catholic church is no longer an option. They managed to put a stop to that.

That's true.

The only way you can 'leave' is by simply not believing, and denouncing your faith.

seamus

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Every time an Modern atheist comes into a debate they throw the word idiot around freely. Jews exist whether they are religious, or not. Ask someone who a secular Jew. Most will do something like a bar mitzvah, or passover, whilst not believing a word. It becomes an ancestral tradition, same with confirmation and Christmas, or Easter.

If that's their justification then they should answer the question on "ethnicity" with "Jewish", as to put that answer in the "religion" section is still incorrect.

pickarooney

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The Catholic Church makes that hard, but it doesn't matter. You can add what you want to the Census.

How is it hard to leave a religion exactly? It's not like they tattoo you or anything.

chin_grin

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Is it really necessary not to have any trace of a sense of humour?

Is it really necessary to.....YORE MA! :pac:

AnonoBoy

I don't have time to read the results. So, quickly now, can someone who has tell me whether the number of people called Jeremy with red hair who live within 5 miles of the nearest school, work in a factory and have 3 children, one of whom has already emigrated, is up or down on previous years?

It's just something I need to know before this afternoon.

aidan24326

KeithAFC wrote: »

Actually I was. I was expecting a lot higher than that. I have heard a lot of complaining about the Roman Catholic Church in recent years. The abuse scandals, the questioning of their faith and so on. I honestly thought it would be much higher than that. I think others probably did too.

But you could be right on the culture thing.

The numbers are highly misleading though. Who knows how many people will have unthinkingly marked themselves down as 'catholic', despite being no more than vaguely catholic (if even that) in any practical sense. What percentage of those who ticked the catholic box actually pray regularly, go to mass, really believe catholic dogma etc? That would be a more revealing number I think, and undoubtedly a much lower one. The dwindling numbers in churches up and down the country on Sunday mornings are proof enough of that.

KeithAFC

aidan24326 wrote: »

The numbers are highly misleading though. Who knows how many people will have unthinkingly marked themselves down as 'catholic', despite being no more than vaguely catholic (if even that) in any practical sense. What percentage of those who ticked the catholic box actually pray regularly, go to mass, really believe catholic dogma etc? That would be a more revealing number I think, and undoubtedly a much lower one. The dwindling numbers in churches up and down the country on Sunday mornings are proof enough of that.

I think it is rather simple. Are you religious or not. Say no. It really isn't difficult. Obviously a lot of people have put down religious.

Dave!

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Every time an Modern atheist comes into a debate they throw the word idiot around freely. Jews exist whether they are religious, or not. Ask someone who a secular Jew. Most will do something like a bar mitzvah, or passover, whilst not believing a word. It becomes an ancestral tradition, same with confirmation and Christmas, or Easter.

So then we have no statistics on who is a believing/practicing Catholic, rather than a cultural/traditional Catholic?

Maybe we could use other statistics to infer the trend and rate of increase/decline among practicing Catholics. Church attendance perhaps?

Cee-Jay-Cee

mikemac1 wrote: »

Cavan has seen the largest traveller population percentage increase, 114%
What's so attractive about Cavan?

Second was Donegal, 99% increase

Seeing as you asked, both Cavan and Donegal are border counties. It has been reported that 'some' travellers sign on the dole on both sides of the border and therefore a border county is ideal for their commuting needs. Close proximity to the border is also ideal when you need to go somewhere in a hurry thats a different jurisdiction.

sbsquarepants

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Or calling yourself an Atheist Jew? Or course it isn't. The minute you go to Northern Ireland you will be a Mick - as well as a fenian bastard - regardless of what you personally think of God. There are Anglican atheists as well. It isn't just the religion, its the upbringing and the historical narratives, and the folkways.
Yes, Ireland did well there.

Bullshít.
It's a religion plain and simple. There is no such thing as an atheist catholic, or atheist protestant. Atheists are by definition neither catholic nor protestant! It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
As far as i know the only "religion" where you can also be atheist is buddhism. There may be other ones but that's all i'm aware of. Christianity of any creed makes no such allowance, how the hell could someone be a christian but not follow christ??

aidan24326

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Surprised no one commented on this, travellers are outgrowing the rest of the population.

I'd say it's unlikely that there are more travellers, just more likely that more of them actually filled the form this time around. And I'd imagine most if not all of those who have settled would still identify themselves as travellers.

RobbieTheRobber

token101 wrote: »

Tomorrows Daily Mail headline: Fundamentalist Catholic Poles flood Ireland in search of tasty swans

Don't you mean tomorrows Irish Independent headline?

In saturday's edition they can hide an apology for a bad translation somewhere in the middle of the paper!

token101

mikemac1 wrote: »

It has increased in every county except Waterford where it decreased 7%
Waterford also has the lowest number of travelers per thousand people

Jesus, not even the travellers can handle the Waterford accent!

token101

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Don't you mean tomorrows Irish Independent headline?

In saturday's edition they can hide an apology for a bad translation somewhere in the middle of the paper!

Probably. Sure they're all the same. The Irish Times is no better will probably have some rant from Vinny B going on a government rant about how SVP are being forced to starve the Poles, thus forcing them to eat swans. He'll go on to harangue Peter Matthews about his on his show, asking what kind of spices the Poles use to make the swans so tasty and if the taxpayer and ordinary decent people are paying for these spices.

Nothingbetter2d

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Bullshít.
It's a religion plain and simple. There is no such thing as an atheist catholic, or atheist protestant. Atheists are by definition neither catholic nor protestant! It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
As far as i know the only "religion" where you can also be atheist is buddhism. There may be other ones but that's all i'm aware of. Christianity of any creed makes no such allowance, how the hell could someone be a christian but not follow christ??

an aethist catholic is someone that was baptised as a catholic (usually shortly after birth) but does not practice the religion

a catholic is someone that DOES practice the religion

personally i think the government should make it illegal to baptise anyone until they are 18 years old and able to make an informed choice.

My name is URL

I once had a subscription to National Geographic magazine. I stopped renewing it about 6 years ago, but never 'officially' had my name removed from their records. Am I still a subscriber?

Anyone

Why do people care what other people put as their religon?

lividduck

CJC999 wrote: »

Seeing as you asked, both Cavan and Donegal are border counties. It has been reported that 'some' travellers sign on the dole on both sides of the border and therefore a border county is ideal for their commuting needs. Close proximity to the border is also ideal when you need to go somewhere in a hurry thats a different jurisdiction.

Evidence please , a link to the Report you are quoting.

Anyone

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Surprised no one commented on this, travellers are outgrowing the rest of the population.

I'm guessing an improvement in their quality of life has increased the life expectency as well.

My name is URL

Anyone wrote: »

Why do people care what other people put as their religon?

The whole point in the census is to help with future-planning. If people are incorrectly marking themselves as Catholics then it skews the results and makes the whole point in including the question redundant. I've no problem with people ticking the box for Catholicism or any other religion. I just wish people gave it a bit more thought than 'well I was born a Catholic and baptised so I'll mark that box', even though they do not really see themselves as being part of, or practice the faith. You wouldn't do it for any other question so why do it for the one about religion?

Anyone

My name is URL wrote: »

The whole point in the census is to help with future-planning. If people are incorrectly marking themselves as Catholics then it skews the results and makes the whole point in including the question redundant. I've no problem with people ticking the box for Catholicism or any other religion. I just wish people gave it a bit more thought than 'well I was born a Catholic and baptised so I'll mark that box', even though they do not really see themselves as being part of, or practice the faith. You wouldn't do it for any other question so why do it for the one about religion?

Yes but its planning in regards to schools,shops,services,roads etc etc....its not like they are going to build more churches.

Old_-_School

1500 families have 7 or more kids.
400 of these families are travelers.

25% of travelers aged 15-24 are married compared to 2% of settled folk of this age group.
No wonder they're having 7 or more kids if they're getting married at 17.

Mal-Adjusted

My name is URL wrote: »

I once had a subscription to National Geographic magazine. I stopped renewing it about 6 years ago, but never 'officially' had my name removed from their records. Am I still a subscriber?

no, because National Geographic subscriptions are for a yearly, fixed time. hence why you were "renewing" it for 5 years.

My name is URL

Anyone wrote: »

Yes but its planning in regards to schools,shops,services,roads etc etc....its not like they are going to build more churches.

The vast majority of primary schools in Ireland are owned by the church, and promulgate a particular religious ethos.

and - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0310/1224313105941.html

Tonyandthewhale

Anyone wrote: »

Yes but its planning in regards to schools,shops,services,roads etc etc....its not like they are going to build more churches.

Yeah, and the government needs to know whether it should be building non-denominational educate together schools or Catholic schools or anglican schools.

lividduck

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Yeah, and the government needs to know whether it should be building non-denominational educate together schools or Catholic schools or anglican schools.

The government has no business building schools for any religon, catholic, anglican or otherwise.
If parents want their kids educated in a particular religion let them send them to Sunday School or whatever.

Anyone

lividduck wrote: »

The government has no business building schools for any religon, catholic, anglican or otherwise.
If parents want their kids educated in a particular religion let them send them to Sunday School or whatever.

Even if theres a majority of people wanting it?

seamus

Anyone wrote: »

Even if theres a majority of people wanting it?

Yes. Because this is not a "majority rules" scenario. Core public services should provide access for everyone, not just for the majority.

If you provide a catholic school because 99.9% of children are catholic, then you have failed as a state because you have failed to provide for the 0.1% who cannot access that service.

You do not have to be a member of a religious denomination to access any other core public service - Gardai, fire, parks, libraries, hospitals. So why is it OK in our schools?

Knasher

Anyone wrote: »

Even if theres a majority of people wanting it

Segregation often leads to sectarianism, the government shouldn't be taking steps that encourage it.

Penn

Anyone wrote: »

Even if theres a majority of people wanting it?

The State should not promote one religion over another. What should be happening is an inverse of what we have now. Instead of the State funding Catholic schools, and where there is enough demand, and Educate Together school which also receives funding, there should be Secular schools (such as Educate Together) and where there is enough demand for it, a Catholic school can be set up with funding from the State.

Anyone

seamus wrote: »

Yes. Because this is not a "majority rules" scenario. Core public services should provide access for everyone, not just for the majority.

If you provide a catholic school because 99.9% of children are catholic, then you have failed as a state because you have failed to provide for the 0.1% who cannot access that service.

You do not have to be a member of a religious denomination to access any other core public service - Gardai, fire, parks, libraries, hospitals. So why is it OK in our schools?

I'll be honest, I dont know much about how schools are run, are you saying, that if a child is not baptised, they cant attend a school?

Paparazzo

Anyone wrote: »

I'll be honest, I dont know much about how schools are run, are you saying, that if a child is not baptised, they cant attend a school?

Yes, there's a provision in law that says schools can discriminate on religious grounds. They can take a catholic over another religion.

Tonyandthewhale

Anyone wrote: »

I'll be honest, I dont know much about how schools are run, are you saying, that if a child is not baptised, they cant attend a school?

They can attend alright but only provided there's space left over once all the Catholics are given a place first.

Duggys Housemate

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

They can attend alright but only provided there's space left over once all the Catholics are given a place first.

Or Anglicans are given a place first, or Jews etc, depending on the schools.

Tonyandthewhale

lividduck wrote: »

The government has no business building schools for any religon, catholic, anglican or otherwise.
If parents want their kids educated in a particular religion let them send them to Sunday School or whatever.

Yeah but it makes it harder to argue for non-denominational schools if the majority of people are describing themselves as Catholics in the census and the church and the like are banging on about the census results and how that makes us a Catholic country etc etc.

amacachi

Obviously it's fair to assume that the 180k increase in the number of Catholics has been reflected in the numbers going to mass every week.

kieranfitz

mikemac1 wrote: »

This is AH so we'll get the traveller post out of the way



Cavan has seen the largest traveller population percentage increase, 114%
What's so attractive about Cavan?

Second was Donegal, 99% increase

Largest number increase was Galway, in particular Galway City

It has increased in every county except Waterford where it decreased 7%
Waterford also has the lowest number of travelers per thousand people

Longford has the highest number per thousand people.

Proximity to the border and double dole.

seamus

Anyone wrote: »

I'll be honest, I dont know much about how schools are run, are you saying, that if a child is not baptised, they cant attend a school?

You'll find a lot of kerfuffling and spluttering on this issue.

At the simplest level, yes, the school can offer preferentials places to children who have been baptised.

In more complicated cases where there are no other schools, the school cannot blankly refuse to accept a child on the basis of religion, but more subtle religious discrimination then kicks in where theoretically the child should be able to receive a non-denominational education within the school, but the school make this deliberately or maliciously difficult. This is effect makes it impossible for the child to obtain a non-religious education.

John Doe1

Jesus christ if any travellers are reading this (if you can read), get out of donegal.

AlcatrazLogan

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

an aethist catholic is someone that was baptised as a catholic (usually shortly after birth) but does not practice the religion

a catholic is someone that DOES practice the religion

personally i think the government should make it illegal to baptise anyone until they are 18 years old and able to make an informed choice.

But as atheists do not believe in the Catholic faith then a baptism is nothing but a worthless gesture in their eyes, so why would any atheist identify themselves as also being a Catholic?

Just because you were baptised into a faith doesn't mean you have to identify yourself by that faith once you've stopped believing in it.

It's a shame to think the Census may have been skewed because of this, especially as it could have a potential knock on effect with schools placement which I believe was an important topic in the news last year?

kylith

seamus wrote: »

Anyone wrote: »

I'll be honest, I dont know much about how schools are run, are you saying, that if a child is not baptised, they cant attend a school?

You'll find a lot of kerfuffling and spluttering on this issue.

At the simplest level, yes, the school can offer preferentials places to children who have been baptised.

In more complicated cases where there are no other schools, the school cannot blankly refuse to accept a child on the basis of religion, but more subtle religious discrimination then kicks in where theoretically the child should be able to receive a non-denominational education within the school, but the school make this deliberately or maliciously difficult. This is effect makes it impossible for the child to obtain a non-religious education.

Indeed. The school can make all sorts of demands like insisting that the parent comes to supervise the child while the others are doing religion; which simply isn't possible for most parents.

amacachi

Love the headline on Aertel: Divorce rate - up 150% since 2002
What a surprise :rolleyes:

kylith

Anyone wrote: »

Even if theres a majority of people wanting it?

I believe that's called Tyranny of the Masses.

yoyo

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

I bet the atheists are fuming :pac:

I didn't even notice an Atheist/Agnostic option on the census, I just picked No Religion, I'm sure many other athiests did similar :P

Nick

grindle

Girlfriend was filling the census beside me, but luckily I don't trust anyone to get anything right, so I read over it, and she had the two of us down as Catholic!
Neither of us believe. Massive fight ensued, and she left hers as is, so that's at least one incorrect number, and I'd suspect most of the country are least as moderately stupid/thoughtless as she is to have done that.
Imagine all the homes that weren't checked and changed...
Census=Invalid in that respect.

RiseToTheTop

Had a look on the atheist board and came across this gem:

You should have to pass some sort of IQ test before filling out the census.

Arrogrant, "more intelligent", and believing that all people who fill in Roman Catholic are stupid and dumb people.

Atheists aren't just on top of a high horse, they are on top of about 50 stables of horses.

(BTW, the post got 12 thanks.)

sbsquarepants

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

an aethist catholic is someone that was baptised as a catholic (usually shortly after birth) but does not practice the religion

a catholic is someone that DOES practice the religion

personally i think the government should make it illegal to baptise anyone until they are 18 years old and able to make an informed choice.

An atheist catholic, is an oxymoron and figment of your imagination.
What you are thinking of is a lapsed catholic, or a non practising catholic but being an atheist point blank excludes you from being a catholic.

Commandment number one: I am the lord thy god......

Come on now if your disagreeing this early on, you can't claim to be a member of the club!

amacachi

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Had a look on the atheist board and came across this gem:



Arrogrant, "more intelligent", and believing that all people who fill in Roman Catholic are stupid and dumb people.

Atheists aren't just on top of a high horse, they are on top of about 50 stables of horses.

(BTW, the post got 12 thanks.)

It's not about what people believe, it's about filling in the form correctly.

amacachi

OSI wrote: »

Well considering grindles post below, I would tend to agree with the "Atheist" that you seem to have a problem with. Far too many people fill in the Census wrong because they have some bizarre attachment to identifying themselves with a religion they no long practice purely because it's the Irish or Republican thing to do.

Not just that, look at the spike in the 20s. That'll happen again in 5 years. Unfortunately as those people get a little older and have kids some will likely revert back to being "Catholic".

AlcatrazLogan

I actually know a few people who wouldn't consider themselves Catholics but had their children baptised to ensure school placement.