Census 2016 - Time to tick NO

Penn

Absolam wrote: »

A question which, in that regard, is no different to the others. So the fact that people can treat it as they treat the others isn't exactly a valuable insight...

And how much would you guess it happens to other questions on the Census compared to how much it happens to the question on Religion? Because the same thing happened to me in the last Census. I made sure my mother marked me down as No Religion. The next morning I was having breakfast, saw the Census form on the table, looked at it and realised my father had then changed mine to Roman Catholic (though hadn't done it properly, meaning I was able to change it back to No Religion).*

Do you think that happens the same amount when it comes to how far a person travels to work? When they finished school? The main type of fuel used in their house?



*and if you think anyone is going to report their parents over it you're dreaming. It's the principle behind it that people are discussing

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

A question which, in that regard, is no different to the others. So the fact that people can treat it as they treat the others isn't exactly a valuable insight...

Yet despite it's similarity to every question that can have an incorrect answer, we are discussing this particular question.

Absolam

Penn wrote: »

And how much would you guess it happens to other questions on the Census compared to how much it happens to the question on Religion? <...> Do you think that happens the same amount when it comes to how far a person travels to work? When they finished school? The main type of fuel used in their house?

IS there a reason to think it doesn't happen the same amount with other questions? That people might ignore instructions about the number of rooms in their house? That they might choose a more 'appropriate' job title? Or a different salary? Perhaps they might feel they shouldn't be considered intellectually disabled, or they might think that they're more linguistically capable than they are. Or is religion the only measure you think people are opinionated about?

Penn wrote: »

*and if you think anyone is going to report their parents over it you're dreaming. It's the principle behind it that people are discussing

The principle is exactly what I'm pointing out; if you're not prepared to take appropriate action to legally remedy your misrepresentation, it doesn't seem to be all that principled a stand.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Yet despite it's similarity to every question that can have an incorrect answer, we are discussing this particular question.

Though not entirely out of context I'm afraid

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

The principle is exactly what I'm pointing out; if you're not prepared to take appropriate action to legally remedy your misrepresentation, it doesn't seem to be all that principled a stand.

The penalty is up €25,000. That's a large penalty to balance against a person's desire to be recorded non-religious (or whatever). Not everyone is an absolutist and would be so quick to hit a relative with that sort of penalty.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Though not entirely out of context I'm afraid

OK then, so this question is similar to other questions in that it can be answered incorrectly, but is it not also different for the reasons why it can be answered incorrectly?

If someone was raised a male but is now a female, would that person still put down their gender as male? And if they did, would they be correct?

If a son is married but the mother doesn't like the wife or thinks it won't last, does she put him down as unmarried? Or, like in the case of Penn, change their answer later without their consent?

Penn

Absolam wrote: »

IS there a reason to think it doesn't happen the same amount with other questions? That people might ignore instructions about the number of rooms in their house? That they might choose a more 'appropriate' job title? Or a different salary? Perhaps they might feel they shouldn't be considered intellectually disabled, or they might think that they're more linguistically capable than they are. Or is religion the only measure you think people are opinionated about?

When weighted against the other examples you mentioned, religion is far more likely to be the measure that people are most opinionated about.

Absolam wrote: »

The principle is exactly what I'm pointing out; if you're not prepared to take appropriate action to legally remedy your misrepresentation, it doesn't seem to be all that principled a stand.

Your brother takes €20 out of your wallet. Do you call the guards?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

The principle is exactly what I'm pointing out; if you're not prepared to take appropriate action to legally remedy your misrepresentation, it doesn't seem to be all that principled a stand.

I'll have to remember this when the abortion threads pick up again.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

The penalty is up €25,000. That's a large penalty to balance against a person's desire to be recorded non-religious (or whatever). Not everyone is an absolutist and would be so quick to hit a relative with that sort of penalty.

That's true. But I think it's fair to point out that if you're going to carp about being misrepresented, it is your choice to be misrepresented. You have the opportunity to stand up for your convictions; not liking the result doesn't transfer responsibility to the government somehow.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

OK then, so this question is similar to other questions in that it can be answered incorrectly, but is it not also different for the reasons why it can be answered incorrectly?
If someone was raised a male but is now a female, would that person still put down their gender as male? And if they did, would they be correct?
If a son is married but the mother doesn't like the wife or thinks it won't last, does she put him down as unmarried? Or, like in the case of Penn, change their answer later without their consent?

Does it matter? You said the only point you were offering was that this was how the question was being answered. What's your new point? If it's answered incorrectly for one reason that's somehow more significant to a statistical document than being answered incorrectly for another?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

I'll have to remember this when the abortion threads pick up again.

Oh, I think you know how I'll vote if it comes to it :-)

Absolam

Penn wrote: »

When weighted against the other examples you mentioned, religion is far more likely to be the measure that people are most opinionated about.

I think you might be underestimating peoples ability to be opinionated.

Penn wrote: »

Your brother takes €20 out of your wallet. Do you call the guards?

If that's the only way to get my €20 back, sure, why not?

Penn

Absolam wrote: »

That's true. But I think it's fair to point out that if you're going to carp about being misrepresented, it is your choice to be misrepresented. You have the opportunity to stand up for your convictions; not liking the result doesn't transfer responsibility to the government somehow.

It's not your choice to be misrepresented. As with my own case, I was marked down as No Religion (as per my choice), but it was then changed without my knowledge. Only for I decided to double check it myself did I see it.

Again, do you think the same thing would happen to even half the extent it does with that question, than with other questions?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Does it matter? You said the only point you were offering was that this was how the question was being answered. What's your new point? If it's answered incorrectly for one reason that's somehow more significant to a statistical document than being answered incorrectly for another?

And we have gone beyond my original point. Now we are addressing the reasons for why the question was answered incorrectly for 75% of my household which appears to be unique to the question of religion.

You have mentioned that there is legal recourse that can be taken to correct an error in a completed census form, but should we make no efforts to reduce the incorrect answers in the first place?

Choochtown

Absolam wrote: »

A question which, in that regard, is no different to the others. So the fact that people can treat it as they treat the others isn't exactly a valuable insight...

That's just not true. It's a different and misleading layout compared to all the other questions as I've outlined in posts 341 and 345 in this thread.

expectationlost

robdonn wrote: »

My mother, being the designated census filler in our home, has marked me as RC in both 2006 and 2011 despite me being openly atheist since 2004. We've argued over it but I am not going to battle the pen out of her hand, so I have been marked down incorrectly twice.

After discussions with both my father and my sister I found that neither of them believe in a god, the former actively despising the RC, yet both are marked as RC because they think that since they were both baptised then they are Catholics.

One household. 4 people. 1 Roman Catholic, yet 4 marked on the census.

Obviously this is just a personal account, not all households are the same, but I would be shocked if it was unique!

change it before it leaves the house, that's what I did last time

meeeeh

Choochtown wrote: »

That's just not true. It's a different and misleading layout compared to all the other questions as I've outlined in posts 341 and 345 in this thread.

Do you practice religion is more confusing option because baptizing your kid to get him in the school is practicing religion. So is organizing catholic funeral. It's also completely useless data for international or historical demographic comparisons. The order could be rearranged but anything else just confuses the issue.

expectationlost

should we not campaign to get rid of the question entirely?

nomdeboardie

Absolam wrote: »

Does that mean you'll feel compelled to complete the questionnaire if you think you're likely to be prosecuted for not doing it, or you'll feel compelled if you come to the understanding that you are obliged by the legislation, even if you're not likely to be prosecuted? Apocryphally, only 6 people were prosecuted for not filling in the Census in 2011, and 20 in 2006, so if the threat of prosecution is all that's compelling you, the odds seem pretty low?

I'll feel compelled to fill out some of it to avoid being one of the few presecuted this time (presumably for refusing to fill in anything at all). In the absence of the possibility of presecution I would not feel compelled, but might give partial cooperation.

If they should at some point decide the religion Q is compulsory I will be bracing myself to take the state to court :eek::pac:

nomdeboardie

Absolam wrote: »

Do we need a campaign? No one has actually shown when these stats are used to justify Church involvement in state matters, or what the involvement would be.
And oddly enough, when the DoE wants to find out what kind of schools people want they do ask that question via the patronage assessment process, where patrons have to demonstrate to the DoE what support they have for the kind of school they're proposing. In fact, there's nothing in the documentation (that I've seen) to suggest the DoE relies on Census information about religion at all; it seems to rely on Census information for age demographics to determine potential demand for new schools generally, not new schools of a particular religious persuasion.

So do you think the religion Q is included only satisfy the curiosity of historians & sociologists etc.? If that is the case, I certainly object to its being implied compulsory (even though it may not be, in practise*)

* I second your request in a previous post for clarification as to what items can be omitted without prosecution. (Perhaps they are as listed in the enumerator thread post from the last census that I quoted in 346 above, though I have no proof of that. + I see Fred Swanson has answered re religion)

meeeeh

expectationlost wrote: »

should we not campaign to get rid of the question entirely?

I don't think so. It can tell you a lot. Often also what are differences in number of births among different religions and if numbers of any religious groups are increasing and by how much. I suspect it will be very useful to see where European population is going and without sounding to alarmist maybe instal certain precautions into national policies.

nomdeboardie

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't think so. It can tell you a lot. Often also what are differences in number of births among different religions and if numbers of any religious groups are increasing and by how much. I suspect it will be very useful to see where European population is going and without sounding to alarmist maybe instal certain precautions into national policies.

Gulp...I feel a Godwin approaching? :eek:

meeeeh

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Gulp...I feel a Godwin approaching? :eek:

Don't be ridiculous.

But there is no point avoiding questions because you don't like the answers.

nomdeboardie

meeeeh wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous.

But there is no point avoiding questions because you don't like the answers.

Choochtown

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you practice religion is more confusing option because baptizing your kid to get him in the school is practicing religion. So is organizing catholic funeral. It's also completely useless data for international or historical demographic comparisons. The order could be rearranged but anything else just confuses the issue.

How about "Do you consider yourself religious?"

Absolutely nothing wrong with that question. It's very straightforward and easy to answer. Anyone who answers "Yes" could then qualify that answer with the "What is your religion" question.

I am positive that the figures for the percentage of Roman Catholics in Ireland would be vastly different from what was gleaned in 2011 if the above format was used.

meeeeh

Choochtown wrote: »

How about "Do you consider yourself religious?"

Absolutely nothing wrong with that question. It's very straightforward and easy to answer. Anyone who answers "Yes" could then qualify that answer with the "What is your religion" question.

I am positive that the figures for the percentage of Roman Catholics in Ireland would be vastly different from what was gleaned in 2011 if the above format was used.

What are the options if you say no? And what is religious defined as? Where are agnostics, do they go under 'orher' in religious or 'other' in non religious?

I know you are trying to stop people whose parents even don't go to mass not just themselves declaring as Catholics but you are only making it more confusing.

One eyed Jack

Choochtown wrote: »

How about "Do you consider yourself religious?"

Absolutely nothing wrong with that question. It's very straightforward and easy to answer. Anyone who answers "Yes" could then qualify that answer with the "What is your religion" question.

I am positive that the figures for the percentage of Roman Catholics in Ireland would be vastly different from what was gleaned in 2011 if the above format was used.

The problem with that question format, is that it still wouldn't actually make any difference to people who do consider themselves religious. It just wouldn't give you the answer you want. But your attempts are a very good example of how data can be gathered and manipulated to give anyone trying to promote an agenda, the figures they want.

In the case of the census though, there's just far too much of a discrepancy between the figures you want, and the actual figures themselves.

Choochtown

meeeeh wrote: »

What the options if you say no?

Same as questions 9, 14, 15, 16, 22 and 24.

No further option.

Choochtown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem with that question format, is that it still wouldn't actually make any difference to people who do consider themselves religious. It just wouldn't give you the answer you want. But your attempts are a very good example of how data can be gathered and manipulated to give anyone trying to promote an agenda, the figures they want.

In the case of the census though, there's just far too much of a discrepancy between the figures you want, and the actual figures themselves.

I disagree.

The 2011 Gallup poll I referred to earlier had the question:

"Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?"

A very fair and balanced question in my opinion. In Ireland only 43% said that they were a religious person.

This figure is so far from the results given by our 2011 Census as to render one or both polls useless. Personally I think the Gallup question is a much much more straightforward one. It doesn't presume any answers unlike the one in our census and it also leaves the onus on the individual to decide "irrespective of... "

Link:http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf

Shrap

meeeeh wrote: »

And what is religious defined as?

I think it's a great question, in that people who do describe themselves as religious can go on to do that in more detail. Religious, to me, is by definition someone who describes themselves as such. If you're not religious, you don't. Simples.

And I reckon anyone who would go as far as to say they're agnostic, would generally describe themselves as non-religious, so it shouldn't be a problem for them.

meeeeh

Shrap wrote: »

I think it's a great question, in that people who do describe themselves as religious can go on to do that in more detail. Religious, to me, is by definition someone who describes themselves as such. If you're not religious, you don't. Simples.

And I reckon anyone who would go as far as to say they're agnostic, would generally describe themselves as non-religious, so it shouldn't be a problem for them.

What you generally describe sin really a great basis for category. Agnostic really isn't that much of a problem but where do you put 'there is something' people.

In no particular order for me categories should be: no religion, none of your business, atheist, major religions, other...

One eyed Jack

Choochtown wrote: »

I disagree.

The 2011 Gallup poll I referred to earlier had the question:

"Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist?"

A very fair and balanced question in my opinion. In Ireland only 43% said that they were a religious person.

This figure is so far from the results given by our 2011 Census as to render one or both polls useless. Personally I think the Gallup question is a much much more straightforward one. It doesn't presume any answers unlike the one in our census and it also leaves the onus on the individual to decide "irrespective of... "

Link:http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf

If you don't see how that's actually a loaded question that presupposes an answer, I'm not sure you're ever going to be able to.

Imagine if the question was simply "Are you atheist?"

Do you still think 57% would say they are atheist?

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you don't see how that's actually a loaded question that presupposes an answer, I'm not sure you're ever going to be able to.

Imagine if the question was simply "Are you atheist?"

Do you still think 57% would say they are atheist?

Actually that one is not so bad, because at least it covers pagans and similar and doesn't equate them to atheist.

expectationlost

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't think so. It can tell you a lot. Often also what are differences in number of births among different religions and if numbers of any religious groups are increasing and by how much. I suspect it will be very useful to see where European population is going and without sounding to alarmist maybe instal certain precautions into national policies.

jaysus!

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually that one is not so bad, because at least it covers pagans and similar and doesn't equate them to atheist.

The way it includes the precursor of "irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not...", many people in Ireland identify as RC, but they don't attend a place of worship, so the question predisposes them to associate being a religious person with attending a place of worship. It's subtle, which is the point I suppose, but it also explains the reason just under half of the respondents identified as religious, and just over half identified as either non-religious or committed atheist.

I'm just looking through the survey now to see if there's a breakdown of the figures for Ireland.

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way it includes the precursor of "irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not...", many people in Ireland identify as RC, but they don't attend a place of worship, so the question predisposes them to associate being a religious person with attending a place of worship. It's subtle, which is the point I suppose, but it also explains the reason just under half of the respondents identified as religious, and just over half identified as either non-religious or committed atheist.

I'm just looking through the survey now to see if there's a breakdown of the figures for Ireland.

Actually I think the breakdown of figures in Ireland has a lot more to do with publication of different reports about clerical abuse then any implications about attendance of place of worship. While people were prepared to culturally define as Catholic, they weren't prepared to align their beliefs to those of Catholic church. That would be my explanation for huge discrepancy in results between one and the other.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way it includes the precursor of "irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not...", many people in Ireland identify as RC, but they don't attend a place of worship, so the question predisposes them to associate being a religious person with attending a place of worship. It's subtle, which is the point I suppose, but it also explains the reason just under half of the respondents identified as religious, and just over half identified as either non-religious or committed atheist.

I'm just looking through the survey now to see if there's a breakdown of the figures for Ireland.

Do you know what irrespective means?

You're saying that specifically telling people it's ok to be religious even without attending services, is a subtle way of telling them that they can't be religious without going to mass?

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually I think the breakdown of figures in Ireland has a lot more to do with publication of different reports about clerical abuse then any implications about attendance of place of worship. While people were prepared to culturally define as Catholic, they weren't prepared to align their beliefs to those of Catholic church. That would be my explanation for huge discrepancy in results between one and the other.

That's actually a brilliant point. It goes some of the way towards explaining why one woman I was talking to she said she's not religious herself, but she still wants her daughter to make her confirmation, or why another woman was telling me she wanted the name of the venue where she coached hockey from "St. (name) Youth Club" to drop the "Saint" bit. She stumbled over the words trying to tell me she was non-religious. It was actually pretty awkward as she was trying not to offend me, but if she'd known me better she'd have known I wouldn't be offended at all.

I think too it has a lot to do with people seeing being known to be religious as a morally 'better' person (seriously, if I hear an atheist refer to themselves as a 'heathen' one more time... as if people really give a shìt!!), it's a double-edged prejudice that's based upon ignorance and stereotyping really. Whether a person is religious or non-religious has fcuk all to do with whether they're a decent human being or simply an a-hole. I can remember back in the mid-90's when all the scandals were being uncovered and I was going into mass, and there were a couple of lads about the same age as myself standing around outside the church calling me a child molester as I went in. It was 'cool' to be an a-hole*.


*Not really.

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you know what irrespective means?

You're saying that specifically telling people it's ok to be religious even without attending services, is a subtle way of telling them that they can't be religious without going to mass?

Yes, I know what irrespective means. You're familiar with a suggestive question?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestive_question

nomdeboardie

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't think so. It can tell you a lot. Often also what are differences in number of births among different religions and if numbers of any religious groups are increasing and by how much. I suspect it will be very useful to see where European population is going and without sounding to alarmist maybe instal certain precautions into national policies.

meeeeh wrote: »

What you generally describe sin really a great basis for category. Agnostic really isn't that much of a problem but where do you put 'there is something' people.

In no particular order for me categories should be: no religion, none of your business, atheist, major religions, other...

I'd be quite happy if a "none of your business"option were included, but might that not compromise the...er...population surveillance and control opportunities ?

meeeeh

nomdeboardie wrote: »

I'd be quite happy if a "none of your business"option were included, but might that not compromise the...er...population surveillance and control opportunities ?

Once you notice radicalisation of society I think it is time to pay attention. Frankly if numbers for any religion start increasing it's bis time to check why because general trends in European countries are exactly the opposite.

'None of your business' was exaggeration of 'I don't want to answer' which I think should be an option in questions about religion, sexual orientation (if there is one) and similar.

legocrazy505

Last time the census was done, my parents put down Catholic for me. Thankfully they aren't overly religious it's just for appearances to fit into the education system. This time I'll finally be able to put down no myself.

expectationlost

AI suggests you can request an individual form http://atheist.ie/2016/03/individual-census-forms/
https://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=individual+census+form+site%3Acensus.ie%2F&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en&q=%22individual+form%22+site:census.ie%2F
in the 2011 version of the site it says you can ask for an individual form if you've got more then 6 people in your house (the amount of space on the main form) http://2011.census.ie/_uploads/documents/PR_9430_Large_Print_Version.pdf on the 2016 it doesn't really mention it http://census.ie/the-census-and-you/a-census-form-journey/

ps you can also post the form back to evade nosey enumerators

nomdeboardie

meeeeh wrote: »

Once you notice radicalisation of society I think it is time to pay attention. Frankly if numbers for any religion start increasing it's bis time to check why because general trends in European countries are exactly the opposite.

'None of your business' was exaggeration of 'I don't want to answer' which I think should be an option in questions about religion, sexual orientation (if there is one) and similar.

OK, we agree on making a declaration on religion/non-belief optional then. But don't you think adherents of certain religions might gravitate towards that, if they were worried about the possibility of just such govt. plans?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

expectationlost

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

that would also require you to be there when enumerators calls and have thought of doing that

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

nomdeboardie

expectationlost wrote: »

AI suggests you can request an individual form http://atheist.ie/2016/03/individual-census-forms/
https://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=individual+census+form+site%3Acensus.ie%2F&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en&q=%22individual+form%22+site:census.ie%2F
in the 2011 version of the site it says you can ask for an individual form if you've got more then 6 people in your house (the amount of space on the main form) http://2011.census.ie/_uploads/documents/PR_9430_Large_Print_Version.pdf on the 2016 it doesn't really mention it http://census.ie/the-census-and-you/a-census-form-journey/

ps you can also post the form back to evade nosey enumerators

Individual forms are a good option for multi-person dwellings, assuming they can be obtained this time - in any case the more they're demanded the better!

I forgot about the postal option, which is something, but the forms are still read by human eyes at the destination, and also made public some decades in the future. (And even if the process were fully automated online and private, and anonymised info extracted followed by destruction of primary data, I would still object to being made to decide on the issue...yes, maybe I'm that profoundly agnostic :pac:)

Choochtown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, I know what irrespective means. You're familiar with a suggestive question?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestive_question

Can there be a more suggestive question than "What is your religion?" ?

Surely that would suggest very strongly that you must have a religion and therefore tick one of the 6 religions shown shown directly after the question.

Contrast that with the other suggestive questions on the census.

Qu.19 How do you usually travel to work? (Suggesting that you must work)

First option: Not at work

Qu.s 20 and 25 are similar.