Census 2016 - Time to tick NO

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

I'd agree the format of the "Do You Speak Irish" question is probably a good way to go; I'd avoid the 'practice' bit though and keep it as non pejorative as possible, since that seems to be the point?
"Do you profess a religion y/n, if so...' sort of thing? That's seems about the closest you'll get without trying to determine to what degree they might be what they say they are.

My understanding of the reasoning behind the existing question is it offers the possible answers in order of those provided by people in the last census, so really the only issue is whether 'no religion' is a sufficiently large enough portion to be worth excluding entirely at the outset, as non-Irish speakers are.
I'm not sure that how Census questions are asked ought to be based on peoples agendas rather than statistical usability, but I can't see it damaging the information coming from the Census?

In social science, when people are completing questionnaires, the wording of the questions do impact the results. It's very important that due regard is given to avoiding leading questions and avoiding prompting answers as this can bias the results so much as to make the study useless

With the census, they are worried about changing the questions too much because this makes comparisons between the census results less reliable.

I am 100% confident that if the wording of the census was changed to

census wrote:

1. 'Do you practise/believe/profess a religion? (whichever wording, doesn't really matter that much)
1a If so, what religion?

we would see a large increase in the number of recorded as having no religion compared to the previous census, and the CSO have chosen consistency, over accuracy.
They'd prefer to see the trends in people prepared to search for the no religion box, over the actual number of people who no longer believe in any god.

Daith

Akrasia wrote: »

we would see a large increase in the number of recorded as having no religion compared to the previous census, and the CSO have chosen consistency, over accuracy.
They'd prefer to see the trends in people prepared to search for the no religion box, over the actual number of people who no longer believe in any god.

Indeed. I can't see the CSO changing it but the question format is biased.

Which is why I attach no real weight to the "84% of Irish people are Catholic" because it actually doesn't mean that much.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

"What is your religion" is a readily understandable question, and if somebody has no religion, and "no religion" is one of the options offered, I really struggle to think that many people are confused, and don't know how they ought to answer the question.

But it's not a readily understandable question, because for many people they are culturally catholic even if they don't believe in god. They would tick the box 'Catholic' because that's a part of their ingrained identity, even if their beliefs are that they are secular, atheists.

If the census cares about belief or practises, then it's important to ask specifically about people's belief or practises.

People have an emotional barrier that prevents them from saying that they have 'no religion'
Even staunch atheists will avoid this question in conversation by saying 'I'm not very religious'

magicbastarder

there should be 'i don't call myself catholic anymore, but i'm a, y'know, spiritual person, and i believe there's something out there but not the 'god' we think of, i think?' option in the census.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Currently, as regards religion the census only attempts to elicit information about one variable: religious identity. As I suggested already, the information they are looking for can be presented as a pie-chart, with one slice of the pie representing those of no religion.

I don't see why use of Irish couldn't be shown as a pie chart either, and religion isn't one variable in the question anyway, it's various religions or none, and quite possibly whether the person practices that religion or is merely a nominal member.

Asking about mere self identification is not an entirely suitable question for a census, it indicates prurience rather than governmental needs : that's why those countries you mention mark OPTIONAL or VOLUNTARY at the start of that question. Ireland doesn't, it seems to be obligatory. So no, I think there is either incompetence or a deliberate choice there. And unless there are other questions which are as poorly phrased, I think incompetence is less likely.

Or are you just not interested in a better understanding of any identity other than Catholic? And, fourthly, leaving aside the curiosity of tragics like ourselves, what is the public interest which justifies gathering this data through the census?

So you managed all of this (I cut a lot of it) without ever pushing your thinking a little further and asking why exactly we are gathering this information at all??

Because not only do other countries leave this as a voluntary question, clearly marked as such, the UK at least (I haven't checked for the others) appears in fact also to use it as a cross-reference wrt immigration : first "no religion" then "Christian" as one single box, and the various religions of immigration after that.

I have repeated asked for evidence that the present form of the question leads to confusion; nobody has produced any.

You must have missed the results then. The idea that 84% of the population are catholic in the way their grandparents were is laughable.

Finally, I note that the NI, Scottish, English, Australian and New Zealand census questions on religion all ask a question in form of “what religion . . . ?” and then offer a range of options, one of which is “no religion”. Do you think they are all deliberately engendering confusion? Or is it just an amazing coincidence that the Irish census authorities, bent on creating confusion, decided to use the exact same form of question as is used by other census authorities who just want to collect information. Googling hasn’t found me any national census with a question on religion which doesn’t take this form. Why do you think that might be?

But it's not true that it's "the exact same form of question" at all. They're marked as one of the few (perhaps the only) voluntary questions, and "no religion" is the default response. Which is also leading, I accept that - but closer to the observed situation and therefore unsurprising. Like the question about having a sewerage system.

My point exactly. The form of the religion question is entirely consistent the form of other census questions that seek to elicit information about only one variable. Which is as it should be.

But it isn't one variable, it's many variables. You keep saying this but it's self evidently untrue.

There are 3,555 of them, apparently, which is almost exactly the same as the number of self-identified agnostics in the country. Coincidence?

I'm sure not.

recedite

If the CSO changed the wording of the question, there would be a one-off statistical blip, but thereafter they could continue the monitor the trend as before, and in a more accurate way. After a few years had passed, the blip could be "adjusted for". Failure to do this is akin to somebody refusing to put their clock back one hour for winter time, on the basis that they want "consistency" in their life.

Absolam wrote: »

I think Peregrinus did already point this out but still, they are:
42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
Parents are Constitutionally entitled to provide religious education for their children in schools recognised or established by the State.

You have not given an example of a religious service that the state is obliged to provide. You have merely pointed out that the state is constitutionally prohibited from interfering if and when parents opt to provide any such services privately.

Absolam wrote: »

So do we have any reason to think any colleges should have Muslim chaplains then?

Colleges should not use public money for the benefit of any religion, but if they do allocate a budget for chaplains then they should allocate it fairly according to how popular each religion is among the students.
The TCD model seems the fairest, whereby chaplains are apparently allowed in to minister to their own support base, but at their own expense. The worst model is to be found in some of the IT's where a significant amount of public money is handed over to one particular religion annually, for unspecified religious services.

Peregrinus wrote: »

...you can argue that the default should be a secular school, since this is a neutral space as between competing religious/philosophical worldviews. I don’t think that argument has ever been run in in Ireland, and I don’t think that it would find much traction if it were run, given what the Constitution says about both religion and education. But it has been run in the ECHR, in Lautsi, and it got short shrift. As far as the ECHR is concerned, secularity isn’t a position of neutrality between competing religious/philosophical worldviews; it’s just one more member of the set of religious/philosophical worldviews. I’d bet a pint and a chaser that, if the question came up in the Supreme Court, they’d find that analysis quite appealing, and a neat fit with the relevant Constitutional provisions.

That analysis (similar to the idea that atheism is a religion) may well have found favour within the Irish legal system in the past. But that is not actually what ECHR said. The case centred on whether the mere presence of a crucifix in (an Italian) state school constituted religious indoctrination by the state. They found that it did not.

It granted that, "by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-schools classrooms - a sign which, whether or not it is accorded in addition a secular symbolic value, undoubtedly refers to Christianity - the regulations confer on the country's majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment." But it declared: "That is not in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on the respondent State's part and establish a breach of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1". It added that "a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and (...) cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities"

The situation in some Irish schools is much worse, with religious discrimination a normal part of the admissions policy. And "faith formation", sacramental preparation etc...and these are not private schools.

magicbastarder

volchitsa wrote: »

You must have missed the results then. The idea that 84% of the population are catholic in the way their grandparents were is laughable.

maybe we need a 'rate how catholic you are on a scale from 0 to 100; with 100 being equivalent to how catholic the pope is'.

volchitsa

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe we need a 'rate how catholic you are on a scale from 0 to 100; with 100 being equivalent to how catholic the pope is'.

Well, seeing how some more extreme Catholics have been heard to mutter darkly about the current Pope, I'm not sure they'd all agree that he was at the 100% mark either! Benedict now...

Akrasia

THE CSO have designated 2016 as a 'no change census' other than one question about marriage due to our constitutional change

They said it was to save money on doing the pre-census survey

The next census after this one in 2021 will face extra pressure to update the questions so we should probably start the campaign to update the religious question with that census in mind

magicbastarder

i once contacted the CSO about the release of the 1911 census returns; as we're always assured that census returns are completely confidential, and that there were people still alive who were recorded in 1911.

the response was that the act guaranteeing confidentialty was passed after the 1911 census; which raises the question about whether they still had to release the details anyway.

that said, i knew someone who was excited to see the 100 year old return which mentioned her as an infant.

pinkypinky

1911 census was released a very long time ago on microfilm, along with 1901 when Charlie Haughey was a junior minister.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

there should be 'i don't call myself catholic anymore, but i'm a, y'know, spiritual person, and i believe there's something out there but not the 'god' we think of, i think?' option in the census.

I'm going with the "Well, it was only a few bad eggs. Different era back then. Wouldn't happen now" camp.

La Fenetre

robindch wrote: »

I'm going with the "Well, it was only a few bad eggs. Different era back then. Wouldn't happen now" camp.

Believe me, it's still happening today, and it's far more than a few, they've just moved onto other institutions where they can use and abuse position.

The Randy Riverbeast

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe we need a 'rate how catholic you are on a scale from 0 to 100; with 100 being equivalent to how catholic the pope is'.

On a scale of Dawkins to the pope, how catholic are you?

Some form of question like the how often do you speak Irish question would be useful. Could just add it on so they dont have to change the what religion are you question, no messing with their statistics.

My mother used to think we could speak Irish until I informed her none of us can have a conversation in Irish. The how often question was the only thing stopping us being used as proof the language is doing great.

PopePalpatine

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, seeing how some more extreme Catholics have been heard to mutter darkly about the current Pope, I'm not sure they'd all agree that he was at the 100% mark either! Benedict now...

Maybe if you said "on a scale of Dawkins to Pope John Paul II/Pius X" it'd accommodate the extremists.

Hotblack Desiato

pinkypinky wrote: »

1911 census was released a very long time ago on microfilm, along with 1901 when Charlie Haughey was a junior minister.

He must have been a quare age when he passed away in 2006.

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

I am 100% confident that if the wording of the census was changed to
Originally Posted by census
1. 'Do you practise/believe/profess a religion? (whichever wording, doesn't really matter that much)
1a If so, what religion?

we would see a large increase in the number of recorded as having no religion compared to the previous census, and the CSO have chosen consistency, over accuracy.
They'd prefer to see the trends in people prepared to search for the no religion box, over the actual number of people who no longer believe in any god.

First off, it's pretty apparent that the wording appears to matter a great deal to some posters; practice and profession would immediately be called out as being substantially different propositions.
Secondly, it's a concern that you're proposing a question that you believe will see a large change in the data, in 'favour' (for want of a better word) of a result that you would prefer. If we're changing the questions to get the results we want it's not really a census anymore, it's an exercise in confirmation bias.

Akrasia wrote: »

But it's not a readily understandable question, because for many people they are culturally catholic even if they don't believe in god. They would tick the box 'Catholic' because that's a part of their ingrained identity, even if their beliefs are that they are secular, atheists.

The fact that it is, as you say, part of their ingrained identity, would seem to be worth knowing though? If the census, rather that caring about beliefs or practices, is actually about who we are?

Akrasia wrote: »

People have an emotional barrier that prevents them from saying that they have 'no religion'
Even staunch atheists will avoid this question in conversation by saying 'I'm not very religious'

That seems like a very odd assertion indeed, but still, if people are averse to saying they have no religion (and I find that enormously difficult to believe of people who have no religion), should the census be pushing them into it?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

You have not given an example of a religious service that the state is obliged to provide. You have merely pointed out that the state is constitutionally prohibited from interfering if and when parents opt to provide any such services privately.

Well, I've pointed out that the State is obliged to provide for free primary education, and that eduction, according to the Constitution, is comprised of "religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education". The provision for such education is itself a service.

recedite wrote: »

Colleges should not use public money for the benefit of any religion, but if they do allocate a budget for chaplains then they should allocate it fairly according to how popular each religion is among the students.

Which is fair enough, but unlikely to result in any Muslim chaplains in Irish colleges with the possible exception of maybe RCSI.

recedite wrote: »

The TCD model seems the fairest, whereby chaplains are apparently allowed in to minister to their own support base, but at their own expense. The worst model is to be found in some of the IT's where a significant amount of public money is handed over to one particular religion annually, for unspecified religious services.

Though in fairness, no one has actually shown that TCD doesn't use public money to support it's chaplaincy services

conndeal

If you look at any of the lists of death notices or sites like RIP.ie over 90% of people appear to die Catholic. The funeral arrangement include a Catholic church and a mass. So they must revert back to their faith at some stage.

conndeal

conndeal wrote: »

If you look at any of the lists of death notices or sites like RIP.ie over 90% of people appear to die Catholic. The funeral arrangement include a Catholic church and a mass. So they must revert back to their faith at some stage.

Or its the accepted death ritual in Irish culture, organised for ease's without reference to the beliefs, practice or behaviour of the deceased.

Absolam

conndeal wrote: »

If you look at any of the lists of death notices or sites like RIP.ie over 90% of people appear to die Catholic. The funeral arrangement include a Catholic church and a mass. So they must revert back to their faith at some stage.

I suspect it may have more to do with those organising the funeral than those whose funeral it is... though it does seem to indicate that a large proportion of the living population still lean towards Catholic funerals (presumably for people who were at least baptised Christian in fairness).

Walter Bishop

conndeal wrote: »

If you look at any of the lists of death notices or sites like RIP.ie over 90% of people appear to die Catholic. The funeral arrangement include a Catholic church and a mass. So they must revert back to their faith at some stage.

Or older people are more likely to be Catholic and request such a service. Have another look in 30 years and see what the proportion is.

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

First off, it's pretty apparent that the wording appears to matter a great deal to some posters; practice and profession would immediately be called out as being substantially different propositions.
Secondly, it's a concern that you're proposing a question that you believe will see a large change in the data, in 'favour' (for want of a better word) of a result that you would prefer. If we're changing the questions to get the results we want it's not really a census anymore, it's an exercise in confirmation bias.

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. I'm in favour of accurate results, I want the true picture of religious belief in Ireland to be recorded in the census. The current question format is almost universally accepted as giving an inaccurate result.

Even the census acknowledge that it's a leading question, they just choose consistency over accuracy. (I've heard representatives acknowledge this in various radio interviews throughout the last number of years)

The fact that it is, as you say, part of their ingrained identity, would seem to be worth knowing though? If the census, rather that caring about beliefs or practices, is actually about who we are?
That seems like a very odd assertion indeed, but still, if people are averse to saying they have no religion (and I find that enormously difficult to believe of people who have no religion), should the census be pushing them into it?

If someone feels Catholocism is still part of their ingrained identity, they would probably tick the box to say they're catholic. The question change would capture the non committed person who doesn't really give it enough thought one way or the other. Right now, these people are being recorded as catholics even if they aren't religious and haven't been to mass in decades.

Leading questions give inaccurate results. if you ask someone what religion are you, they might say 'catholic' even if they identify as atheist 99% of the time. If you ask someone 'Do you practise a religion?' They're much more likely to give an accurate answer.

Akrasia

conndeal wrote: »

If you look at any of the lists of death notices or sites like RIP.ie over 90% of people appear to die Catholic. The funeral arrangement include a Catholic church and a mass. So they must revert back to their faith at some stage.

The person who dies doesn't usually make the funeral arrangements, And even if they did, would you even know where to start if you wanted to have a secular funeral service?

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. I'm in favour of accurate results, I want the true picture of religious belief in Ireland to be recorded in the census. The current question format is almost universally accepted as giving an inaccurate result.
Even the census acknowledge that it's a leading question, they just choose consistency over accuracy. (I've heard representatives acknowledge this in various radio interviews throughout the last number of years)

Just wrong? But you acknowledge yourself that the question you think should be asked is one that will result in statistics that you favour. Does that ring no alarm bells at all when you want to see a true picture of religious belief? Even the fact that you use the word true rather than accurate doesn't cause you to pause?

Akrasia wrote: »

If someone feels Catholocism is still part of their ingrained identity, they would probably tick the box to say they're catholic. The question change would capture the non committed person who doesn't really give it enough thought one way or the other. Right now, these people are being recorded as catholics even if they aren't religious and haven't been to mass in decades.

I don't think that's necessarily true though. We've no real reason to think "Do you practise/believe/profess a religion?" will provoke any greater levels of religious introspection than occurs now, do we?

Akrasia wrote: »

Leading questions give inaccurate results. if you ask someone what religion are you, they might say 'catholic' even if they identify as atheist 99% of the time. If you ask someone 'Do you practise a religion?' They're much more likely to give an accurate answer.

But then, as Peregrinus has pointed out, if anyone bothers to consider the concept of practicing rather than being (and I'm not persuaded anyone will) you're measuring something new; not something the State necessarily wants to know about, but something that anti-theists want to know about.

Daith

Ha, can you imagine leaving the "Do you speak Irish?" as one question. Wow 84% of Irish people can speak Irish! Let's build a Gaelscoil everywhere. Let's get more Irish language shows. This is amazing.

If the 84% of Irish people are Catholic is going to be used to justify anything than lets ask a question that actually means something.

Why do we not assume all Irish people can speak Irish but assume all Irish people are religious?

Edit: Just to add, I don't think we need to get into "How often do you practice". The question should be a Yes/No, followed by a what religion if Yes. It's the same question it's just not as biased.

anothernight

After reading this thread, I asked my boyfriend what he put down on the census last time around.

"My mam filled it in."

She put him down as Catholic because he was baptised Catholic. No regard for how he hasn't been to mass since he was 12 (up until last year he'd never even heard the word 'catechism'!), he has no religious beliefs whatsoever, and he will happily say he's an atheist.

When I asked what he would have ticked, he thought for a bit and said:

"Catholic, because I was baptised Catholic".*


If every adult was expected to fill in their own section, and if they were asked about beliefs or practice, those supposed Catholics who don't even believe in god, such as my boyfriend, would have ticked the correct box. (and no, I don't think "correct" means "atheist"; just whichever option actually corresponds to the religious beliefs of the respondent.


*When I asked whether he considers himself Catholic, he said no... but he was taught that once you're baptised, then you're Catholic. Never even considered that there's people who aren't baptised but profess a religion, as he assumed every Christian is baptised soon after birth.

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

If the 84% of Irish people are Catholic is going to be used to justify anything than lets ask a question that actually means something.

What exactly is the 84% being used to justify? And... just a thought... if 84% identified as 'no religion', what would that be used to justify?

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

What exactly is the 84% being used to justify? And... just a thought... if 84% identified as 'no religion', what would that be used to justify?

I don't think it should be used to justify anything either for or against.

It's nice that you cut the rest of my post though where again I say we can have the same question just not in a biased way.

But hey here's Dr Martin Mansergh using the results

While secularism is hard to measure or classify neatly, it is worth reminding ourselves that in the 2011 census about 6% of the population (or double the Protestant denominations combined) declared themselves to be of no religion, of which slightly over 7,000 people or 0.02% declared themselves to be atheists or agnostics. While down on the peak of 95% recorded in 1961 in a significantly smaller population of slightly less than three million, the proportion of Catholics in 2011 is still 84%, consisting of just under four million people. Obviously, the return comprehends both practising Catholics and occasional Massgoers.

On the face of it, a pluralist/multicultural state should reasonably reflect, in a balanced but generous way, the religious make-up and identity of its population, rather than treat a secular humanism as an organising principle, as demanded by a small, albeit growing, vocal minority claiming that as a right based on their supposed neutrality.

- See more at: http://irishcatholic.ie/article/eliminating-catholic-influence-will-not-enhance-respect-religious-minorities#sthash.JgueUriV.dpuf

However my issue is around the question not whatever comes from people using it.

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

I don't think it should be used to justify anything either for or against.

Fiar enough, but you said "If the 84% of Irish people are Catholic is going to be used to justify anything than lets ask a question that actually means something.", in response to which I was asking what do you think it is being used to justify (regardless of whether you think it shouldn't).

Daith wrote: »

It's nice that you cut the rest of my post though where again I say we can have the same question just not in a biased way.

I didn't think it hadn't been put forward already, so there seemed no point in repeating it?

Daith wrote: »

But hey here's Dr Martin Mansergh using the results

I can't say he's really making much use of them, though he's certainly offering an opinion about them. But I guess that's likely to happen if you ask any question at all about religion.....

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

I can't say he's really making much use of them, though he's certainly offering an opinion about them.

Ah so now you're looking for a Govt policy which explicitly references some policy referencing the 84% or something?

You asked for somebody using the stats to justify something. A former Govt person offering his "opinion" to justify that the State should represent religion and not be secular isn't good enough.

Again Absolam with his wibbly wobbly "well they answered my question how do I rephrase the question now" approach.

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

Ah so now you're looking for a Govt policy which explicitly references some policy referencing the 84% or something?
You asked for somebody using the stats to justify something. A former Govt person offering his "opinion" to justify that the State should represent religion and not be secular isn't good enough.
Again Absolam with his wibbly wobbly "well they answered my question how do I rephrase the question now" approach.

Not really; what exactly has Dr Mansergh used the 84% to justify?
You bolded his statement "On the face of it, a pluralist/multicultural state should reasonably reflect, in a balanced but generous way, the religious make-up and identity of its population", which I don't think, as an opinion, many people would disagree with, do you? Nor is there any indication his statement would alter if the number were 4% rather than 84%. But I can't see any proposal, or current activity, that Dr Mansergh is saying would be or is justified by the 84%, can you?
Apologies if that seems 'wibbly wobbly', I'm just looking for the facts......

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Not really; what exactly has Dr Mansergh used the 84% to justify?

Justify his stance, his opinion, whatever. You looked for something, I showed you, now you're nitpicking at a question I didn't ask!

"If the 84% of Irish people are Catholic is going to be used to justify anything". Note the word "anything".

Absolam wrote: »

Apologies if that seems 'wibbly wobbly', I'm just looking for the facts......

Facts? I didn't say facts. I said justify. Wibbly wobbly again.

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

Justify his stance, his opinion, whatever. You looked for something, I showed you, now you're nitpicking at a question I didn't ask!

Well no, what I'm saying is he doesn't appear to be using the stat to justify his opinion, does he? If the stat were, for instance, 4%, he's given no indication that his opinion would be different.

Daith wrote: »

"If the 84% of Irish people are Catholic is going to be used to justify anything". Note the word "anything".

Right. I just can't see it being used to justify anything. Do you see?

Daith wrote: »

Facts? I didn't say facts. I said justify. Wibbly wobbly again.

Nope, it was me who said facts. I said " I'm just looking for the facts......". Like the facts about what (if anything) the stat is being used to justify.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Well no, what I'm saying is he doesn't appear to be using the stat to justify his opinion, does he? If the stat were, for instance, 4%, he's given no indication that his opinion would be different.

Yes he is.

He uses the census stat to say secular people are a small minority (based on the census stats) and therefore shouldn't be listened to. His entire argument is based on the friggen census stats.

He's using the the census stats to back up his claim. Again you asked for somebody using the census figures to justify anything. You can be sure his opinion would be different if the stats showed 84% of people were Muslim.

You'd seriously give Ben Conroy a run here in being giving evidence then changing what your question is.

lazygal

Daith wrote: »

You'd seriously give Ben Conroy a run here in being giving evidence then changing what your question is.

Maybe he is the man himself. Or another member of the Conroy family. Very similar 'debating' style anyway.

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

Yes he is.

He uses the census stat to say secular people are a small minority (based on the census stats) and therefore shouldn't be listened to. His entire argument is based on the friggen census stats.

Just to be clear; you're saying he's using the census to justify his opinion that a small minority shouldn't be listened to?
Because obviously he can't be using the census to justify the fact that a small minority declared themselves to be of no religion.
The thing is, I can't see where he says "secular people are a small minority and therefore shouldn't be listened to" anywhere in the statement quoted. I can see that he said "On the face of it, a pluralist/multicultural state should reasonably reflect, in a balanced but generous way, the religious make-up and identity of its population" which would be rather at odds with not listening to a minority. Could it be that when he says we shouldn't treat a secular humanism as an organising principle, as demanded by a small, albeit growing, vocal minority, you' re trying to twist that into we shouldn't listen to the small, albeit growing, vocal minority? Even if you are, where does he use the fact that the census shows those who identify as having no religion (who are not identified as secular humanists, by the way; he actually points out that secularism is hard to measure or classify neatly, but even if they were) to justify not listening to them?

Daith wrote: »

He's using the the census stats to back up his claim. Again you asked for somebody using the census figures to justify anything. You can be sure his opinion would be different if the stats showed 84% of people were Muslim.

He's certainly pointing out that the census stats don't measure or classify secularism, true. But he hasn't used them to justify not listening to secularists, has he? His point was simply that on the face of it, a pluralist/multicultural state should reasonably reflect, in a balanced but generous way, the religious make-up and identity of its population, rather than treat a secular humanism as an organising principle, as demanded by a small, albeit growing, vocal minority claiming that as a right based on their supposed neutrality. And, if 84% of the population were Muslim, I don't see why he might change his opinion of secular humanism. Can you explain that?

Daith wrote: »

You'd seriously give Ben Conroy a run here in being giving evidence then changing what your question is.

I seriously haven't changed the question. He has offered the stats, certainly, and they give some context to his statement. But he doesn't once say the stats are why we shouldn't treat secular humanism as an organising principle. Never mind said that they're a reason for not listening to secular humanists at all. Indeed, if 84% of the population identified as secular humanists I suspect he might be even more strident about secular humanism not being treated as an organising principle. So the question remains; What exactly is the 84% being used to justify?

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

Maybe he is the man himself.

Speculating about the identity of a boardsie is against the site charter - section 5, fifth item:

http://www.boards.ie/content/terms?site=desktop

Thanking youze.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I've pointed out that the State is obliged to provide for free primary education, and that eduction, according to the Constitution, is comprised of "religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education". The provision for such education is itself a service.

Not quite, the constitution mentions religion and also physical education when referring to the family as the educator, but only "moral intellectual and social" when referring to the states role. The constitution is also big on protecting pupils from unwanted religious faith formation.

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Not quite, the constitution mentions religion and also physical education when referring to the family as the educator, but only "moral intellectual and social" when referring to the states role. The constitution is also big on protecting pupils from unwanted religious faith formation.

For the first part, whilst religion is specified when referring to the family as the educator, it is immediately followed by the States obligation to allow this education to be provided in schools recognised or established by the State:
42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
And the Constitution is specific about protecting students in State funded schools from attending religious instruction, which is a little different, to be fair:
2.4°: Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Zamboni

Absolam wrote: »

And... just a thought... if 84% identified as 'no religion', what would that be used to justify?

Eating babies.

Absolam

Zamboni wrote: »

Eating babies.

Well, that's something we'd want to avoid I suppose.

fisgon

RossieMan wrote: »

Would you not go behind a cause that is important rather than this crap? Who gives a ****?

Me, I give a ****. And lots of other people do.

Over and over and over again we are told by the theocrats that "this is a Catholic country" or there is talk of the "majority". Of course we all know that majority are non religious and anything we can do to show this is helpful in creating a truly secular state based on rational principles.

fisgon

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Then they will continue to put themselves down as Catholic. Dawkins sake, nobody will be forced to do anything they don't want. Have no idea where this panic is coming from.

The panic is coming from the same place it always comes from, which is asking people to think about something that in the past they never had to think about.

It is the same panic that fueled the no campaigns in the Divorce, Abortion and gay marriage referendums. The panic comes from people who always assumed that they would continue to occupy a privileged position from which they could dictate to society how we should live our lives.

It is the same panic that prompts some people on this thread to claim that there is an attempt to "force" people to answer a census question in a certain way, when in fact all that is happening is that the population is simply being asked to think about something they may have never thought about before.

Asking people to think is frequently a cause for such panic, especially in religious circles.

Absolam

fisgon wrote: »

Over and over and over again we are told by the theocrats that "this is a Catholic country" or there is talk of the "majority". Of course we all know that majority are non religious and anything we can do to show this is helpful in creating a truly secular state based on rational principles.

But..... if we all know that the majority are non religious, then we obviously don't rate what the theocrats tell us. Since they're being ignored already, what's to worry about? Those who want to create a truly secular state based on rational principles can just go ahead and run for public office on that basis.

Peregrinus

fisgon wrote: »

. . . Of course we all know that majority are non religious and anything we can do to show this is helpful in creating a truly secular state based on rational principles.

You may know that the majority are non-religious, but it seems the the majority don't know that.

So the solution to our problem is obvious. Leave the census form as it is, but just instruct respondents to leave the religion question blank. Then, on the way to the CSO, drop by figson's place with all the forms and let him fill out the religion question for everybody, since he knows what religion they are.

Let the mammy factor work for you instead of against you! All hail to Figson, the ubermammy!

The Randy Riverbeast

Check out the latest thread on AH about foreigners with their foreign religions arent happy with catholic education. The claim that if you tick catholic on the census it means you want a place in a catholic school has been brought up.

Absolam

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Check out the latest thread on AH about foreigners with their foreign religions arent happy with catholic education. The claim that if you tick catholic on the census it means you want a place in a catholic school has been brought up.

Did someone from the government appear to say they'd be adopting the policy as a result?
Was it not just an unbacked assertion by Bristolscale7, and Hotblack Desiato saying this seems to be the case with no evidence?

Hotblack Desiato

I didn't mean the Dept Ed looks at the census religion box. I meant that the Dept Ed look at the census for birth rate in an area, in practice they also do (or should, I hope) use birth registrations to augment that, but neither captures immigration/migration within Ireland during the timeframe between censuses.

As far as I know they determine total demand for places in an area, if they deem it insufficient then they authorise either extensions to existing schools, or new schools. They don't look at the religion box and then say 'there's a fierce number of non-religious here, better build an ET.'

Their criteria as to whether to expand existing schools or authorise new ones appear to be totally arbitrary. Where I live there are no non-religious options and there is clear demand for an ET, but the RC primaries got a number of new classrooms instead.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Their criteria as to whether to expand existing schools or authorise new ones appear to be totally arbitrary. Where I live there are no non-religious options and there is clear demand for an ET, but the RC primaries got a number of new classrooms instead.

Would it be fair to say they appear arbitrary simply because you don't know the reasoning behind them? Which is to say, there's no real reason to think they might actually be arbitrary?