Census 2016 - Time to tick NO

Peregrinus

I don’t think it’s arbitrary at all. I think a decision about the provision of additional school places is driven by (a) demographics (are extra places needed in the district?) and (b) finance (what is the most cost-effective way of providing the extra places – expanding an existing school or establishing a new school?). So far as I can see, they don’t look at patronage at all until they have got to the point of deciding that a new school is the way to go.

When they get to that point, as I think we have seen already, they don’t look to the census figures to decide the patronage of the new school; they invite applications from prospective patrons and part of the application process involves the prospective patrons demonstrating parent demand for the type of school they offer.

At this point considerations of diversity do enter into the picture. The school will not necessarily be given to the patron who shows the greatest demand. If more than one patron demonstrates enough demand for their school type to suggest that it will be viable, they will make a selection among those patrons based on other criteria, including diversity.

OK. But as Hotblack’s example illustrates, this means that in some (many?) cases additional school places are provided without considering diversity – they just expand an existing school under an existing patron.

We’ve already noted that the objective of provide more non-religious school places is not going to be met unless the Department gets a lot more, um, effective, about divesting existing schools and awarding them to new patrons. We’ve also noted the principal difficulty in the way of this – viz, the parents at the school tend not to like it. And we haven’t really come up with anything to solve that problem beyond a bit of wishful thinking.

Maybe another thing the Department needs to do is to take diversity into account at an earlier stage of the process. Maybe there would be cases – such as the one Hotblack points to – where the most cost-effective way of providing additional places is to expand an additional school, but the importance of diversity is such that cost shouldn’t be the only criterion. Perhaps we should be prepared to set up a new school under a new patron not currently operating a school in the district even if that’s going to cost up to 20%, or 30%, or some threshold, more than simply expanding an existing school.

Ghost Buster

expectationlost wrote: »

why would somebody with no religion tick anything other then no?

I know of so very many individuals and families who tick YES to catholic because they think they should because they were baptised, this inspite of the fact that they no longer consider themselves catholic.
Thats one reason.

fisgon

Peregrinus wrote: »

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!

Oh please. Being reduced to utter facetiousness is a sign of how weak your argument is - if indeed you have one.

What do you mean by the "majority"? The people who tick "catholic" on the census, or have it ticked for them? Are you really telling us that you take this 84% figure at face value?

If so, where are these 84% when it comes to mass on Sunday? Because most of them are not in the churches. In that recent poll, 29% of people go to mass weekly. 16% of under 50s. Where is your majority?

Peregrinus

fisgon wrote: »

Oh please. Being reduced to utter facetiousness is a sign of how weak your argument is - if indeed you have one.

I assure you I'm not being facetious. You are doing on a national scale what other boardies accuse the stereotypical mammy of doing on a domestic scale - viz, ignoring what people say about their religious identity, and simply assigning to them the identity you think they ought to have.

fisgon wrote: »

What do you mean by the "majority"? The people who tick "catholic" on the census, or have it ticked for them? Are you really telling us that you take this 84% figure at face value?

You're asking me what I mean by the majority? It's you who made the claim that "we all know that the majority are non-religious". I think it's not u unreasonable of me to point out that a huge majority of those who fill out the census identify as religious, so evidently what "we all know" is in fact something that most people don't know.

fisgon wrote: »

If so, where are these 84% when it comes to mass on Sunday? Because most of them are not in the churches. In that recent poll, 29% of people go to mass weekly. 16% of under 50s. Where is your majority?

Your claim was not that the majority don't go to mass. If that were your claim, there would be no need to do "anything we can do to show this", since this is already widely acknowledged and discussed. Your claim was that the majority "are non-religious". This claim is hard to reconcile with the evidence; 92.3% of the population are identified with one religion or another in the census, and a further 1.6% did not answer the question.

If you want to repackage your claim as "the religiosity of the majority of Irish people is not expressed in regular massgoing" it will fit better with the evidence, and I promise not to give you a hard time over it. And if you really do want to campaign for a truly secular state based on rational principles, it's important that your arguments should withstand rational scrutiny. Which "we all know that the majority are non-religious" definitely does not.

magicbastarder

fisgon wrote: »

If so, where are these 84% when it comes to mass on Sunday? Because most of them are not in the churches. In that recent poll, 29% of people go to mass weekly. 16% of under 50s. Where is your majority?

say my friend goes to mass once a month, or once every three months, as well as the usuals like easter, christmas, weddings, etc.
what should (s)he put down as their religion? you see to be suggesting that we should not consider her catholic.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you want to repackage your claim as "the religiosity of the majority of Irish people is not expressed in regular massgoing" it will fit better with the evidence, and I promise not to give you a hard time over it.

Genuine question then : how does "the religiosity of the majority of Irish people" express itself then, and is there any point at which deliberate non-obedience of the basic tenets of a particular religion effectively means the person can no longer be reasonably considered to be a believer?

I ask because when I was growing up in Northern Ireland, our religious teachers taught us that one of the main ways in which Catholicism differed from Protestantism was that Catholics had the catechism, the Pope etc to formulate what all Catholics were expected to believe, and that "cherry picking" was a fundamentally Protestant approach - because they were supposed to read the bible and thereby reach their own individual understanding of and relationship with God, while our clergy was there to mediate for us.

To be clear, that doesn't mean that Catholics have to believe everything, but that there is a minimum "sine qua non" - transubstantiation was a big one for example. The Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, iirc, were two more. At the time, we were certainly led to believe that disobeying Humanae Vitae by using contraception was effectively to reject the Catholic religion.

Obviously the sinner can always get back in via confession - but my question concerns those who claim not to be committing any sin in such cases because they just don't believe that contraception, sex before marriage etc are actually sins at all.

And then of course there are those "Catholics" who don't believe in transubstantiation -and one on here who claims that six year olds are not taught in RE class that Mary was actually a virgin. And that they will realize themselves that this could not have the case anyway!

So has that all changed, and are we all Protestants now?

(Is that a Fr Ted line? Or was that racists? )

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Genuine question then : how does "the religiosity of the majority of Irish people" express itself then . . .

As I've said more than once before, if you care to know about this you need to ask them.

What I see a lot of on this board is people picking something - in this instance, regular massgoing - and arbitrarily decreeing that that is the sole measure of religiosity. I can't take this seriously; they're plainly picking a criterion which will produce the outcome they want.

volchitsa wrote: »

. . . and is there any point at which deliberate non-obedience of the basic tenets of a particular religion effectively means the person can no longer be reasonably considered to be a believer?

Well, no, there isn't, if we're being rational as fisgon thinks we ought to be. Non-obedience of the basic tenets of a religion might tell you something about the quality of my religious practice, but it doesn't tell you anything, at least directly, about what I believe. And another practice we see a lot of on this board (and in this thread) is people cheerfully hopping from treating practice as determinative of religious identity to treating belief as determinative of religious identity - they'll take either, as long as it produces the result they so desperately want.

There's two lessons in all of this.

First, what the census tells us is that 92.3% of the population are identified with one religion or another in the census. If you want to know what that means in terms of their practice or their belief or anything else, you have to ask them.

Secondly, there are few sights more ridiculous than that of an atheist decreeing who is, and who is not, a true Catholic (or a true adherent of any other religion). To understand how ludicrous this looks, just reverse the roles and imagine how that plays out.

volchitsa wrote: »

So has that all changed, and are we all Protestants now?

(Is that a Fr Ted line? Or was that racists? )

Well, the farm takes up most of the day, and at night I just like a cup of tea. I mightn't be able to devote myself full time to the old Protestantism.

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, there are few sights more ridiculous than that of an atheist decreeing who is, and who is not, a true Catholic (or a true adherent of any other religion). To understand how ludicrous this looks, just reverse the roles and imagine how that plays out.

Well.... it could play out like this......

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well IMO a genuine atheist-and you are either an atheist or you are not an atheist-would have nothing to do with religion and would not be seen within an asses roar of a church,synagogue, temple whatever. Some 'atheists' however seem to pick and choose which aspects of religion offend them.

Which might then be rebutted by

volchitsa wrote: »

Well that's just your own opinion, and as you're not an atheist, that's not terribly relevant, is it?

.
Maybe?

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no, there isn't, if we're being rational as fisgon thinks we ought to be. Non-obedience of the basic tenets of a religion might tell you something about the quality of my religious practice, but it doesn't tell you anything, at least directly, about what I believe.

That is exactly what I'm saying. The practising Catholics I know are often slightly embarrassed by some of the way-out beliefs that we were brought up to believe were an essential part of being a Catholic. One who describes himself as Catholic on here for example has said that not only does he not think Mary was a virgin but that teachers no longer teach that to be a fact, and that six years olds would in any case quickly work out for themselves the unikeliness of the claim (check out the "Mary said yes" thread if you have any doubts).

Secondly, the widespread practice of contraception is self evident, and defended by many who must, going by the statistics, have ticked the box on the form.

So it looks like you're trying to say that merely ticking a box on the census form is more meaningful in terms of someone's religion than whether or not they actually practice the obligations of the religion they ticked.

If the question hadn't been set in suc a way as to achieve exactly this effect, I'd think you might have a point that people may have such an emotional connection to their former religion that they tick it even though they don't believe a word of it. But the two points together make it impossible, to put it mildly, to eliminate a biasing effect caused by how the question was set.

Poor census writing, in other words.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

. . . So it looks like you're trying to say that merely ticking a box on the census form is more meaningful in terms of someone's religion than whether or not they actually practice the obligations of the religion they ticked.

No. I’m saying it’s more meaningful than Fisgon’s assertion that “we all know” that they’ re not religious.

As for the significance of self-identified Catholics practising contraception, or not going to mass, you need to put this in perspective. The Catechism of the Catholic church runs to 2,865 paragraphs. If you read through it from the beginning, you’ll get to paragraph 2,370 before you find any mention at all of contraception. Carry on reading and you’ll find one more mention of contraception, in paragraph 2,399. And that’s it.

Likewise with Sunday mass attendance - it doesn’t appear until paragraph 2,042.

So just how central to Catholicism are they? And what about all the other paragraphs? Are they irrelevant?

If someone is only going to notice the aspects of Catholicism that people don’t adopt and treat that alone as the only factor relevant to assessing an identification as Catholic, what they’re effectively saying is that, if you’re not a perfect Catholic, then you’re not a Catholic at all. That is an obvious strategy to adopt if someone wants to believe that nobody, or practically nobody, is a Catholic.

But they shouldn’t delude themselves that their efforts have shown that there are very few Catholics; that was their starting point, not their finding. Their strategy of looking for ways in which people fail to reflect Catholicism was merely a rationalisation for a position they already held. It never occurred to them to look for ways in which people’s lives, beliefs or practices did reflect their professed Catholicism, because how would that show what needs to be shown, which is that they’re not Catholic?

So, I come back to what I have said again and again. If someone want to knows what people ‘s identification as Catholic means, they need to ask. Pontificating about what it means when they haven’t asked says rather more about the pontificator than it does about those pontificated about. And if their pontifications refer only to ways in which people do not conform to the platonic ideas of a Catholic and make no reference at all to ways in which they do, well, that pretty much confirms the initial impression of the pontificator.

volchitsa wrote: »

If the question hadn't been set in suc a way as to achieve exactly this effect, I'd think you might have a point that people may have such an emotional connection to their former religion that they tick it even though they don't believe a word of it. But the two points together make it impossible, to put it mildly, to eliminate a biasing effect caused by how the question was set.

Poor census writing, in other words.

I disagree. Throughout this thread, there’s a strong bias at work. The census figures are not showing a low enough number of religious people; therefore we must change the census question until it produces an answer we are prepared to accept. Why do we not accept the figures from the census? Because “we all know that the majority are non-religious”. How do we know this? Because we’ve adopted an understanding of “religious” under which, if we can show that people are not religious in one respect then they are not religious at all. Why did we adopt this understanding? Because “we all know that the majority are non-religious”, and if we adopted a more holistic understanding we might not know that any more.

It’s clear that the claim that the census question is biased is in fact a massive projection. It is the critics who are biased. They can’t accept the census figures because the census figures don’t confirm the belief that they desperately need to have confirmed. The evidence is not supporting their faith; therefore the evidence must be changed.

What the census shows is that 92.3% of the population thinks of themselves as religious. Nothing in this thread has suggested to me that the Census is wrong in showing what it shows. What this thread has shown is that Fisgon and many others think that the 92.3% are wrong to think of themselves as religious. The census doesn’t reflect that, but why would it? It’s not the business of the census to record or reflect what Fisgon thinks of other peoples’ religiosity.

volchitsa

Counting paragraphs is not "putting into perspective". Not all actions are equally crucial, nor indeed equally easy to identify as refusal rather than failure, which IMO is what is relevant to the question of whether someone who ticked a box is what he says he is any meaningful way, or if it's just, dare I say it, a box-ticking exercise.

Mass-attendance for instance is only obligatory once a year, iirc (possibly twice, Easter and Christmas, but from memory I think it may only be Easter.) Contraception, OTOH, is every day for years. And it's enough to look at family sizes to gather that this is no longer a Catholic country in the way it was 25 years ago. Just to mention one aspect.

So it's poor census making if it requires actually asking people what they meant when the rest of our information directly contradicts an answer in the census and we can't explain why without going to every household in the country to ask them. I mean that's what the census was meant to do, surely : explain what's going on in the country, not contradict it.?

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Counting paragraphs is not "putting into perspective". Not all actions are equally crucial . . .

No, indeed. But the analysis offered in this thread only seems to treats paragraphs as crucial if they are paragraphs that are not widely accepted. That's fairly obviously a tendentious analysis.

volchitsa wrote: »

So it's poor census making if it requires actually asking people what they meant when the rest of our information directly contradicts an answer in the census and we can't explain why without going to every household in the country to ask them. I mean that's what the census was meant to do, surely : explain what's going on in the country, not contradict it.?

No, it's not poor census making at all. The census tells us what proportion of people claim a religious identity. It doesn't tell us why they claim that identity, or how that identity is expressed in their lives. And it doesn't pretend to tell us that.

If we want to know that, we have to do further research. And it's qualitative research, not quantitive research, that is needed. We need to be asking people open questions about religious identity, belief and expression, and listening for nuance in the answers, and following up to tease out issues. We need interviews, not box-ticking/ If we want to know the meaning - or, more accurately, the range of meanings - that religious identity has in Irish society, this is the way we would investigate it. And if fact I'd be very surprised if some such research hasn't been conducted. And I am certain that models for conducting research of this kind can be found in other countries. (Hint: none of those models involve changing, or adding to, the questions in the census.)

It's absurd to suggest that we need to ask every household in the country. Nobody conducts qualitative research this way. Has nobody heard of sampling any more?

And its even more absurd to suggest that we would do this through the census. No country conducts any kind of qualitative research through the census. Anybody who suggest that it should be will be rightly viewed as having lost the plot entirely.

Perhaps what it comes down to is this. The religion question on the census yields an answer which, you think, deserves further research in order to fully understand its meanings and implications. I wouldn't disagree. But the conclusion from that is "we would benefit from further research". The conclusion is not "the census is biased!" or "this further research must itself be carried out through the census!".

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps what it comes down to is this. The religion question on the census yields an answer which, you think, deserves further research in order to fully understand its meanings and implications. I wouldn't disagree. But the conclusion from that is "we would benefit from further research". The conclusion is not "the census is biased!" or "this further research must itself be carried out through the census!".

Well no. The conclusion is : why is the census asking this question, particularly with this wording, when the answer it gives is so much at odds with other evidence that it is useless as it stands? What exactly is that question for?

(And remember that equivalent questions in the UK and elsewhere were clearly marked as optional - which itself adds significance to the fact of replying to it. So "everybody else does it" isn't a reply. "Everybody else" doesn't - not in the same way.)

fisgon

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for the significance of self-identified Catholics practising contraception, or not going to mass, you need to put this in perspective. The Catechism of the Catholic church runs to 2,865 paragraphs. If you read through it from the beginning, you’ll get to paragraph 2,370 before you find any mention at all of contraception. Carry on reading and you’ll find one more mention of contraception, in paragraph 2,399. And that’s it.

Likewise with Sunday mass attendance - it doesn’t appear until paragraph 2,042.

So just how central to Catholicism are they? And what about all the other paragraphs? Are they irrelevant?
.

Are you kidding? Did you go to a Catholic school or receive any Catholic education? Are you seriously asking how central mass attendance is to being a Catholic?

You seem to be saying that you can neglect to go to mass, not follow any of the required tenets of Catholicism (in fact a huge proportion of this country) and still be considered a Catholic just because you say you are.

It is not me that looks on that as laughable, it is the church itself. Go back a decade or two and tell a priest or religion teacher than a person who doesn't go to mass and follows barely any of the rules of religion is "religious", and they will quickly contradict you. Even now.

What you are doing, and what a lot of religious people are now doing, is expanding the definition of what "religious" means. In other words, twisting the meaning of words to suit your position. Because the truth is, if you didn't do that, the proportion of people that you could safely count on your side would shrink to a very small proportion.

It is a desperation tactic on the part of the really religious so they don't feel that they are in a smaller and smaller minority.

"You don't attend church? That's fine, I'm sure you are still religious. You don't believe anything you are supposed to believe? No problem, you are still one of us. Wow, it's great that there are so many of us!"

Absolam

fisgon wrote: »

Are you kidding? Did you go to a Catholic school or receive any Catholic education? Are you seriously asking how central mass attendance is to being a Catholic?
You seem to be saying that you can neglect to go to mass, not follow any of the required tenets of Catholicism (in fact a huge proportion of this country) and still be considered a Catholic just because you say you are.
It is not me that looks on that as laughable, it is the church itself. Go back a decade or two and tell a priest or religion teacher than a person who doesn't go to mass and follows barely any of the rules of religion is "religious", and they will quickly contradict you. Even now.

They might. But they certainly won't tell you you're not Catholic.

fisgon wrote: »

What you are doing, and what a lot of religious people are now doing, is expanding the definition of what "religious" means. In other words, twisting the meaning of words to suit your position. Because the truth is, if you didn't do that, the proportion of people that you could safely count on your side would shrink to a very small proportion.
It is a desperation tactic on the part of the really religious so they don't feel that they are in a smaller and smaller minority.

But it's not the religious who are offering a redefinition; it's those who take issue with the notion that over 90% identify as religious. None of the churches have come out to say "We've decided to broaden the scope of who can say they belong to our religion". People ticked the box, and it is those who don't like the result who are arguing about whether those people can be covered by their own personal definition of what "religious" means.

fisgon wrote: »

"You don't attend church? That's fine, I'm sure you are still religious. You don't believe anything you are supposed to believe? No problem, you are still one of us. Wow, it's great that there are so many of us!"

They should say "See that guy over there, the one that's not one of us? He says you can't be one of us either. Sorry."?

magicbastarder

fisgon wrote: »

You seem to be saying that you can neglect to go to mass, not follow any of the required tenets of Catholicism (in fact a huge proportion of this country) and still be considered a Catholic just because you say you are.

you know the census is self-declaration?
you may not consider these people to be catholic, but they do; there is a debate to be had about the use or application of this information, but i don't see how you can argue that people should not put down 'catholic' if they consider themselves so.
it's like arguing that you can't be a bruce sprinsteen fan because you only own 'born to run' and 'born in the USA'.

Absolam

magicbastarder wrote: »

you know the census is self-declaration?
you may not consider these people to be catholic, but they do; there is a debate to be had about the use or application of this information, but i don't see how you can argue that people should not put down 'catholic' if they consider themselves so.
it's like arguing that you can't be a bruce sprinsteen fan because you only own 'born to run' and 'born in the USA'.

Now now... let's not go too far!
If you only own Born to Run and Born in the USA you definitely can't be a Springsteen fan. Heretic.

volchitsa

magicbastarder wrote: »

you know the census is self-declaration?
you may not consider these people to be catholic, but they do; there is a debate to be had about the use or application of this information, but i don't see how you can argue that people should not put down 'catholic' if they consider themselves so.
it's like arguing that you can't be a bruce sprinsteen fan because you only own 'born to run' and 'born in the USA'.

It might be, if that question were an obligatory one figuring on an official document which one is apparently obliged to fill in and return.

If the question were optional, as on the UK and Australian censuses, I'd think the number of people choosing to give that information was more likely to be an expression of their beliefs, as opposed to the "easy" answer, as in :

- "wtf do I put down here?"
- "You were baptized, weren't you? Well there you are, then, that's your religion!"

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

It might be, if that question were an obligatory one figuring on an official document which one is apparently obliged to fill in and return.
If the question were optional, as on the UK and Australian censuses, I'd think the number of people choosing to give that information was more likely to be an expression of their beliefs, as opposed to the "easy" answer, as in :
- "wtf do I put down here?"
- "You were baptized, weren't you? Well there you are, then, that's your religion!"

I can't see how it being obligatory or optional will make any difference to the proportions of those who answer it, only the total number who do. There's no objective reason to think that if only those who felt like answering did so (and let's not forget, 72,914 people didn't answer the question regardless of it being obligatory in 2011), that any more or less of those that do answer will be religious, or irreligious.

fisgon

Absolam wrote: »

But it's not the religious who are offering a redefinition; it's those who take issue with the notion that over 90% identify as religious. None of the churches have come out to say "We've decided to broaden the scope of who can say they belong to our religion". People ticked the box, and it is those who don't like the result who are arguing about whether those people can be covered by their own personal definition of what "religious" means.
?

Not true. The definition of "religious" is fairly well accepted, and involves some kind of participation in religious events or ceremonies, as well as a basic belief in the tenets of a religion. No-one is redefining it, we are simply using the everyday, well-understood meaning of the term.

And we don't have to ask people anything about these areas because we have the facts. Less than 50% of people regularly attend religious services, in poll after poll less than 50% agree with the church on a whole range of issues. Less than 50% of people when polled want a religious education for their children. Less than 50% of people followed the church in the recent referendum. More than 50% of people want legal abortion in this country in certain circumstances, in direct opposition to the church.

In giving credence to the 90% figure as a marker of the number of religious people in the state, you are really hurting your own credibility.

In fact, the only definition that you seem to be using of the term "religious" is "a person who ticks a particular box related to a religion in the census". This is in fact the only yardstick that some theocrats, and some people on this thread seem to accept to define someone as religious - did they tick a certain box? Never mind prayer, belief, practice, financial contributions to a church etc. That's all irrelevant to religiosity, all that matters is... Did they tick the box?

fisgon

To add to that, there has been a mention of the particular census question that we are talking about.

You can see it here.

It is...

"What is your religion?"

Not, "Are you religious, and if so, to what religion do you belong?"

When a question asks, What is your religion? there is a clear assumption that everyone has a religion. People are clearly being prompted to answer in a certain way. There then is a list of six different religions, and box to write in your religion if it falls into the "Other" category, and way down at the bottom, the option "No religion."

It is a question whose wording is redolent of some former time when everyone was assumed to have a religion, but it does have the appearance of a survey run by a dictatorship in an attempt to appear democratic, while ensuring that they get the answer they want.

Absolam

fisgon wrote: »

Not true. The definition of "religious" is fairly well accepted, and involves some kind of participation in religious events or ceremonies, as well as a basic belief in the tenets of a religion. No-one is redefining it, we are simply using the everyday, well-understood meaning of the term.

An everyday, well understood meaning that eludes 90% of those who complete the census? I'd suggest that the meaning used by the vast majority is the one which is everyday and well-understood, not the one which most people don't seem to use.

fisgon wrote: »

And we don't have to ask people anything about these areas because we have the facts. Less than 50% of people regularly attend religious services, in poll after poll less than 50% agree with the church on a whole range of issues. Less than 50% of people when polled want a religious education for their children. Less than 50% of people followed the church in the recent referendum. More than 50% of people want legal abortion in this country in certain circumstances, in direct opposition to the church.

Surely we don't have to ask people anything about these areas because they're not the question? The question is simply "What is your religion?" The fact that you feel your religion should be defined by something other than what most other people seem to think it's defined by doesn't mean we have to ask further questions, it means you're at odds with what is fairly well accepted.

fisgon wrote: »

In giving credence to the 90% figure as a marker of the number of religious people in the state, you are really hurting your own credibility.

What credibility exactly? I accept that when asked what religion they are over 90% of the population selected a religion. Hard to see how noting a statistical result does anything to my credibility, other than indicating I read statistics.

fisgon wrote: »

In fact, the only definition that you seem to be using of the term "religious" is "a person who ticks a particular box related to a religion in the census". This is in fact the only yardstick that some theocrats, and some people on this thread seem to accept to define someone as religious - did they tick a certain box? Never mind prayer, belief, practice, financial contributions to a church etc. That's all irrelevant to religiosity, all that matters is... Did they tick the box?

Well, I don't know any theocrats so I can't venture any opinion on what they think. But yes, in the context of the census I do accept that the only measure of whether or not someone says they have a religion is whether or not they did say they had a religion. As for religiosity... I can confidently say no one was asked about it in the census.

Absolam

fisgon wrote: »

To add to that, there has been a mention of the particular census question that we are talking about.
You can see it here. It is..."What is your religion?" Not, "Are you religious, and if so, to what religion do you belong?" When a question asks, What is your religion? there is a clear assumption that everyone has a religion. People are clearly being prompted to answer in a certain way. There then is a list of six different religions, and box to write in your religion if it falls into the "Other" category, and way down at the bottom, the option "No religion."
It is a question whose wording is redolent of some former time when everyone was assumed to have a religion, but it does have the appearance of a survey run by a dictatorship in an attempt to appear democratic, while ensuring that they get the answer they want.

I'm afraid you can't see it there, or at least I can't; it's a bad link.
But I take your point; you don't like the format of the question, which is an opinion that has been well presented on A&A. Not liking the question doesn't change how people answered it though.

looksee

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Practice-and-Belief-among-Catholics-in-the-Republic-of-Ireland.pdf

While I accept the right of people to self-declare their religion, the above document, published by the Irish Bishops offers the reason why this self declaration should not be used for state/secular/public decisions. Even the Bishops accept that the figure of 85% Catholic by self-declaration becomes 50% in terms of actually practising.

Of particular interest is the graph on page 11 relating to Mass attendance by age-group.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

While I accept the right of people to self-declare their religion, the above document, published by the Irish Bishops offers the reason why this self declaration should not be used for state/secular/public decisions. Even the Bishops accept that the figure of 85% Catholic by self-declaration becomes 50% in terms of actually practising.

I see they're not saying the rest aren't Catholic all the same

But more to the point, has anyone come across any state/secular/public decisions for which the statistic is known to be used yet?

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I see they're not saying the rest aren't Catholic all the same

But more to the point, has anyone come across any state/secular/public decisions for which the statistic is known to be used yet?

Well of course they are Catholic, they were baptised as babies by their parents into the RC church so they are Catholic. Catholic because their parents said they were.

In the same way that someone born in Ireland is Irish. If they move away from Ireland though, they do not get to vote on how the country is run.

As to use of the statistic, it is used in a general way to justify all manner of things from the Angelus to Catholic education, I am suggesting that it is overstated as an indication of what the populace actually wants.

fisgon

Absolam wrote: »

Surely we don't have to ask people anything about these areas because they're not the question? The question is simply "What is your religion?"

But yes, in the context of the census I do accept that the only measure of whether or not someone says they have a religion is whether or not they did say they had a religion. As for religiosity... I can confidently say no one was asked about it in the census.

Yeah, you are talking about "having a religion". As if "having a religion" is like "having red hair." Something you are born with, something you have no choice in. That is exactly how many people respond to the question on the census.

But the discussion is about being "religious" which is a different thing entirely. My assertion is that less than 50% of the population is religious, and that is clear from the figures I quoted.

The census is not a survey of religion or religious belief. It has 34 individual questions on it, only one of them to do with religion. To continue to beat this drum that the results somehow prove that we are a majority religious society is frankly laughable, and actually quite a religious way of looking at facts - simply ignore the uncomfortable ones that don't fit with your world view and focus in on those that seem to support your position, even if they are of only tenuous relevance.

All the questions can be seen here. The religion question is number 12. The "no religion" option is buried at the bottom, if you weren't paying attention you could easily miss it.

http://www.census.ie/The-Census-Form/Each-question-in-detail.109.1.aspx

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Well of course they are Catholic, they were baptised as babies by their parents into the RC church so they are Catholic. Catholic because their parents said they were.
In the same way that someone born in Ireland is Irish. If they move away from Ireland though, they do not get to vote on how the country is run.

I'm not sure Catholics ever get to vote on how the Church is run, but maybe you should suggest it?

looksee wrote: »

As to use of the statistic, it is used in a general way to justify all manner of things from the Angelus to Catholic education, I am suggesting that it is overstated as an indication of what the populace actually wants.

Would that be a no, you haven't come across any state/secular/public decisions for which the statistic is known to be used yet?

Absolam

fisgon wrote: »

Yeah, you are talking about "having a religion". As if "having a religion" is like "having red hair." Something you are born with, something you have no choice in. That is exactly how many people respond to the question on the census.

Really? It's not how I'm talking about it. Do you have any statistical data to show just how many people responded to the question on the census on that basis? Or are you just making your 'many' up?

fisgon wrote: »

But the discussion is about being "religious" which is a different thing entirely. My assertion is that less than 50% of the population is religious, and that is clear from the figures I quoted.

I thought the discussion was about the Census. Which asked "What is your religion?". Not "Are you religious, according to figsons criteria?".

fisgon wrote: »

The census is not a survey of religion or religious belief. It has 34 individual questions on it, only one of them to do with religion. To continue to beat this drum that the results somehow prove that we are a majority religious society is frankly laughable, and actually quite a religious way of looking at facts - simply ignore the uncomfortable ones that don't fit with your world view and focus in on those that seem to support your position, even if they are of only tenuous relevance.

Nobody said it was though? The only thing that has been put forward is that the question "What is your religion?" was asked, and over 90% selected a religion as their answer.

fisgon wrote: »

All the questions can be seen. The religion question is number 12. The "no religion" option is buried at the bottom, if you weren't paying attention you could easily miss it.

Yes, I think it's fair to say we've probably all seen it. And no one is disputing what question was asked. Your dispute seems to revolve entirely around the answer that you're trying to find more and more tenuous reasons to disagree with... like people might have 'missed' no religion, and what? Decided Catholic was good enough since they could neither see nor write what they actually wanted to say?

looking_around

looksee wrote: »

Well of course they are Catholic, they were baptised as babies by their parents into the RC church so they are Catholic. Catholic because their parents said they were.

That doesn't make someone catholic.

And the sooner this idea is changed the better.

My da will always say he's catholic. He's been told that since he was born and he doesn't see it as a "choice".
however he never ever goes to church. He doesn't pray. He doesn't know anything about the bible of the church organisation.

I wish I could convince him that that means he has no religion. But he disagrees, he's catholic the same way he's Irish.
But that is wrong. It's a choice, not a physical permanent trait. Would do well, if people didn't push the idea that you are it because parents said so.

Absolam

looking_around wrote: »

That doesn't make someone catholic.
And the sooner this idea is changed the better.
My da will always say he's catholic. He's been told that since he was born and he doesn't see it as a "choice".
however he never ever goes to church. He doesn't pray. He doesn't know anything about the bible of the church organisation.
I wish I could convince him that that means he has no religion. But he disagrees, he's catholic the same way he's Irish.
But that is wrong. It's a choice, not a physical permanent trait. Would do well, if people didn't push the idea that you are it because parents said so.

If it is a choice, and he is therefore choosing to say he's Catholic (albeit for reasons you think are wrong), then how is he not a Catholic?

By the way, I'm pretty sure looksee was being sarcastic; not 'pushing the idea' that you are Catholic because your parents said so, but deriding such people as say they are Catholic because their parents say so.

looking_around

Absolam wrote: »

If it is a choice, and he is therefore choosing to say he's Catholic (albeit for reasons you think are wrong), then how is he not a Catholic?

By the way, I'm pretty sure looksee was being sarcastic; not 'pushing the idea' that you are Catholic because your parents said so, but deriding such people as say they are Catholic because their parents say so.

needs a sarcasm font.

and my da is not catholic because he does NOTHING that defines a catholic. Doesn't follow the bible, doesn't go to church, doesn't go to commune, doesn't pray,

He can believe in god all he wants, but if he's not following the rules/beliefs of his chose religious order, he isn't a member of that order.

It's like saying you're a runner, because you used to be part of running club, but haven't gone running in 10 years.

Huntergonzo

looking_around

It's funny my dad also considers catholic simply because he was told he was a catholic since birth. But here's the thing, he doesn't go to mass, he's been consistently critical of the church since as far back as I remember, he doesn't like authority figures (worked his whole life for himself), he has a natural hatred of being told what to do (not very compatible with the catholic church) and has on a few occasions told me that the churches creation story "is probably nonsense"........but he's still a Catholic :-)

Ps, he has a right to decide what to call himself by all means and I couldn't care less what he puts on the census (he won't even look at it anyway, the mother will fill it out) and also the church these days are only too glad to claim as many people as possible but I wonder how our dad's would have got on with the church in the 40s, 50s and 60s Ireland!

Shrap

Huntergonzo wrote: »

looking_around

It's funny my dad also considers catholic simply because he was told he was a catholic since birth. But here's the thing, he doesn't go to mass, he's been consistently critical of the church since as far back as I remember, he doesn't like authority figures (worked his whole life for himself), he has a natural hatred of being told what to do (not very compatible with the catholic church) and has on a few occasions told me that the churches creation story "is probably nonsense"........but he's still a Catholic :-)

My best friend is the same. I've hopped it off her a few times and talked to her about the census (and I'll do it again) but she genuinely considers herself catholic (by culture) on a par with nationality. Even though she never goes to mass, doesn't believe in god, has a father who saw off the local paedophile priest with threats of broken bones, and has no intention of being "born again" anytime this century. All of which makes me despair for a representative census, ie. it won't happen in a country which makes up it's own rules on what constitutes the "catholic" label.

Cognitive behavioural therapy is needed, at the very least. I liken it to me automatically still calling myself a feminist in the face of the rather more radical interpretation of the movement. Elastic band treatments all round!!

Hotblack Desiato

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that Ireland remains a deeply psychologically scarred and unwell country, however 'modern' and 'over it' and 'post religion' we may think we are.

Absolam

looking_around wrote: »

needs a sarcasm font.
and my da is not catholic because he does NOTHING that defines a catholic. Doesn't follow the bible, doesn't go to church, doesn't go to commune, doesn't pray, He can believe in god all he wants, but if he's not following the rules/beliefs of his chose religious order, he isn't a member of that order. It's like saying you're a runner, because you used to be part of running club, but haven't gone running in 10 years.

So, why do you get to decide what defines a Catholic? The Catholic Church will say he's still a Catholic, your dad says he's a Catholic.... how do you manage to get the deciding vote?

Weatherproof79

I don't know what's worse Bible bashers who go on and on or the atheists who go on and on and talk about sky fairies. Both equally annoying and classless. Let people tick whatever they want. Fascist

The Randy Riverbeast

Weatherproof79 wrote: »

I don't know what's worse Bible bashers who go on and on or the atheists who go on and on and talk about sky fairies. Both equally annoying and classless. Let people tick whatever they want. Fascist

No, no. Fascists dress in black and tell people what to do.

Weatherproof79

Oh look another one. Why can't people just respect other people's belief. If you believe in God don't preach to non believers about their choice and if you don't believe don't mock those that do and make them out to be stupid.

The vast majority of people who don't believe or believe respect each others views but those who preach on the God side and those who mock on atheists side are just as bad as one another.

Just have respect. People on this thread talking about magic potions insulting those who believe and others who believe insulting non believers. Give a rest the lot of you boring old sods. Tick whatever you want. Twatism would be an appropriate option

looking_around

Absolam wrote: »

So, why do you get to decide what defines a Catholic? The Catholic Church will say he's still a Catholic, your dad says he's a Catholic.... how do you manage to get the deciding vote?

the church would say he's a lost lamb, i guess.

topmanamillion

I'm still waiting for the "full time mad bastard" option

mckar

Sweet goodness everyone pushing their veiw on others even non religious.
Wtf

I think a lot of people that have no religion would like to just stand back and not be involved in this crap a Facebook page and all. Seriously.

Why would someone have goals like this in life if you have no religious views why would you give a ****.

Everyone needs to respect every ones veiws stop give a crap about how many here and there we are one. We are all human. That's what counts.

People like this is exactly what is wrong with our world.

Last census I refused to answer cause it's none of their business

Absolam

topmanamillion wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the "full time mad bastard" option

Why wait? There's a space where you can fill it in if you like....

Hotblack Desiato

mckar wrote: »

Why would someone have goals like this in life if you have no religious views why would you give a ****.

Because it's used as an excuse to prop up religious discrimination in schools. The same schools that put my kids at the bottom of the admission queue.

Hotblack Desiato

Weatherproof79 wrote: »

Just have respect.

Respect has to be earned.

As long as religions continue to disrespect and insult me and take my tax money and try to force their religion on my family I will oppose them.

Why can't they mind their own business?

Huntergonzo

Weatherproof79 wrote: »

I don't know what's worse Bible bashers who go on and on or the atheists who go on and on and talk about sky fairies. Both equally annoying and classless. Let people tick whatever they want. Fascist

I agree that people should be allowed to tick whatever box they want, I never disagreed with that, but I think you'll find that it's the "bible bashers" who go on about sky fairies not atheists. The religious love talking about him, they know all about him, his likes, his dislikes, his interests, his whole life story, his opinions on Irish referendums etc etc it truly is an astonishing depth of knowledge, especially considering they've never even met or have spoken to the fairy.

Also I don't understand this idea that 'everybody's opinion should be respected', everyone has the right to an opinion and should have the freedom to express it but not every opinion itself deserves respect.

Ps, finally it is a little bit ironic for yourself to be calling for respect when you're on here calling people classless, fascists and saying "twatism" should be an option.

Absolam

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I agree that people should be allowed to tick whatever box they want, I never disagreed with that, but I think you'll find that it's the "bible bashers" who go on about sky fairies not atheists.

I don't believe I've ever seen a poster (even a Bible Bashing one) say they know anything about a sky fairy, his likes, his dislikes, his interests, his whole life story, or his opinions on Irish referendums. Is there any chance you can quote even one who actually says they believe in a sky fairy? Bearing in mind we'll be looking for the words "sky fairy" in the quote?

On the other hand, atheists going on about sky fairies... that does seem to happen.
Here for instance.
And here.
Here too.
As well as here.

Actually, are you sure you didn't mean to say, " I think you'll find that it's the atheists who go on about sky fairies not "bible bashers". "?

Huntergonzo

Absolam wrote: »

I don't believe I've ever seen a poster (even a Bible Bashing one) say they know anything about a sky fairy, his likes, his dislikes, his interests, his whole life story, or his opinions on Irish referendums. Is there any chance you can quote even one who actually says they believe in a sky fairy? Bearing in mind we'll be looking for the words "sky fairy" in the quote?

On the other hand, atheists going on about sky fairies... that does seem to happen.
Here for instance.
And here.
Here too.
As well as here.

Actually, are you sure you didn't mean to say, " I think you'll find that it's the atheists who go on about sky fairies not "bible bashers". "?

Hi pedantic Pete, try someone else today, I'm not interested.

Orion

Absolam wrote: »

I don't believe I've ever seen a poster (even a Bible Bashing one) say they know anything about a sky fairy, his likes, his dislikes, his interests, his whole life story, or his opinions on Irish referendums. Is there any chance you can quote even one who actually says they believe in a sky fairy?

Substitute sky fairy for god and you'll find loads of them. Plenty of people around who seem to know exactly what their god thinks about absolutely everything. You know what sky fairy means - so why play dumb about it.

Huntergonzo

Orion wrote: »

Substitute sky fairy for god and you'll find loads of them. Plenty of people around who seem to know exactly what their god thinks about absolutely everything. You know what sky fairy means - so why play dumb about it.

Ah Orion, you shouldn't have answered him sincerely, it only dignifies his little effort to divert by picking a minor detail and going to town on it. Only give him change when he's engaging, treat diversion posts with a pinch of salt, even give them a Like for the craic.