Census 2016

yeppydeppy · 02-06-2015 3:37pm #1

I've just emailed information@cso.ie the following:
Dear Sir / Madam,

I've just realised there is to be a census next year.
In the last census the religions were listed:

This, I would suggest generates false information as a lot of people who are filling it out will tick the Roman Catholic option as it is listed first and to them it's like choosing a default option.
Plus option 7. No religion is listed below 6. Other with the spaces to fill in another religion, most people won't even see option 7.
They are just ticking boxes to get the form filled out as quickly as possible and get back to what ever they were doing.

I've also just realised it asks "What is your religion?" Not what are the religions of your house hold? I know of many families where there are those who consider themselves christian living together with those of no religion, and as the form is the way it is now, they would all be counted as roman catholic.

If I were visting my mother on census day and she were to fill out the form, I would then be counted as roman catholic.

Why not list the religions alphabetically and be allowed to enter the number of people according to what they consider themselves?

I would also suggest that all children should be counted as no religion, they may be baptised as babies and confirmed (with the promise of money) as young teens - but they haven't made an informed decision themselves as to which religion or none they will choose.

Yours Sincerely,
Yeppydeppy.

I could be too late to lobby them with this, as they may have printed the forms already - but let's hope not.

magicbastarder · 02-06-2015 3:51pm

their response to your point about what your mother would fill out for you would be that your mother is filling the form incorrectly.

i would say the simplest problem is the phrasing of the question - instead of 'what is your religion?', it should be more akin to 'what religion to you practice?'

also, your comment about the religion of children is a debate completely outside the scope of the census takers.

Nodin · 02-06-2015 4:31pm

If enough people type in "Fenianism" will that be reported in the results?

magicbastarder · 02-06-2015 4:33pm

don't forget, it's illegal to knowingly lie on the census.
the flipside of that is that as it's confidential, they can't report you to the authorities for doing it.

Michael OBrien · 02-06-2015 4:34pm

I could have sworn that the census at the start of 2011 had 'atheist' in it, because that caused me to look up the word and realise that was my stance.

I think I agree with the OP that the placing of no religion is poor and easily overlooked and that it should say "what religion do you practice" as being more precise. I remember marking down 'Catholic' despite being non religious because my family were, I read it more as "what tradition of religion were you raised in" than what I actually was.
Will not be making that mistake again.

Frankly I would like to see a form field under No Religion so that people can add in what they are too. It seems if you are not a christian your stance is viewed as miscellaneous at best, which is a bit insulting.

Perhaps "what philosophy or religion do you practice?" would be even better.

magicbastarder · 02-06-2015 4:46pm

going by the last census, the 'no religion, atheists and agnostics' category outranked all other categories bar catholicism. so if they list them by popularity, that should be second - with the caveat that 'no religion, atheists and agnostics' probably includes those who ticked the 'no religion' box as well as those who used the free text field to write atheist or agnostic into it.

Cabaal · 02-06-2015 4:55pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

don't forget, it's illegal to knowingly lie on the census.
the flipside of that is that as it's confidential, they can't report you to the authorities for doing it.

Yet the funny thing is, they have threatened people about entering Jedi on it in the past in relation to religion.

If they belief that a person who doesn't believe in a god and go to church is a catholic, then why do they disbelieve somebody is a Jedi?

magicbastarder · 02-06-2015 5:01pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Yet the funny thing is, they have threatened people about entering Jedi on it in the past in relation to religion.

i hadn't heard that. what sort of threats?

tbh, i wouldn't have much sympathy for people who did enter 'jedi' and got in hot water.

Cabaal · 02-06-2015 5:11pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i hadn't heard that. what sort of threats?

Actually, I stand corrected. It happened in uk though.

In Ireland the CSO chief stated

If somebody wishes, under ‘religious denomination’, to consider themselves a Jedi Knight, well the CSO is quite willing to accept it as Jedi Knight, because it’s self-declaration… whether such a thing exists is immaterial or not.

tbh, i wouldn't have much sympathy for people who did enter 'jedi' and got in hot water.

Thats a strange view I must say considering that nobody should get in trouble,
Nobody can claim somebody doesn't have a belief in Midi-chlorians and "the force" no more then they can claim they don't believe in any number of random gods.

wench · 02-06-2015 7:39pm

yeppydeppy wrote: »

I've also just realised it asks "What is your religion?" Not what are the religions of your house hold? I know of many families where there are those who consider themselves christian living together with those of no religion, and as the form is the way it is now, they would all be counted as roman catholic.

That question is asked separately for each individual, not at a household level.

yeppydeppy wrote: »

I could be too late to lobby them with this, as they may have printed the forms already - but let's hope not.

Well the consultation for changes to the 2011 census took place in 2008, so I'd say you've missed the boat.

magicbastarder · 02-06-2015 10:55pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats a strange view I must say considering that nobody should get in trouble,
Nobody can claim somebody doesn't have a belief in Midi-chlorians and "the force" no more then they can claim they don't believe in any number of random gods.

of course you can claim people don't have a belief in midi-chlorians when those people themselves would be (for 90% of them anyway) happy to admit they were just taking the piss.
the census is a determinant in how decisions are made to run the country. if you want to have a bit of fun and put some hackneyed piece of **** joke in your returns, just remember that the only people who will see it will probably roll their eyes in boredom at it, and make (probably relatively accurate) judgments about the sort of person you are.

(ps. obviously 'you' in the above is a general 'you' and not aimed at cabaal)

Peregrinus · 03-06-2015 3:06am

The order in which the religious options are listed depends on the answers given in the preceding census - the most-selected option in the 2011 census will be the first listed in the 2016 census, the second-most -selected option will be second listed, and so forth. The only exception to this rule is that the “other (write in)” and “no religion” options will appear last, mainly because that is where users will expect them to appear.

Magicbastarder is right to say that “no religion/atheist/agnostic” is the second largest group, if we treat them as a single group. But we don’t need to do this; “no religion” on its own is the second largest group - 269,811 people; we don’t have to roll in the atheists and the agnostics. In fact the numbers identifying as atheists and agnostics are tiny; in the 2011 Census there are fewer self-identified atheists (3,905) than there are Hindus (10,688); there are fewer Agnostics (3,521) than there are Buddhists (8,703). (One of the striking things about the census return, in fact, is how few unbelievers seem willing to own a label like Agnostic or Atheist.)

Could we argue, then, that “no religion” should appear second in the list? We could. I think the obvious objection is that putting “no religion” second a list of five religions creates the impression that we regard being of no religion as, in itself, a religion - a view which many people of no religion would take exception to. By putting it at the end of the list, it looks at bit more as if we are treating it as not just another option, but a sort of “none of the above” rejection of all the options offered which, on balance, makes more sense.

(Interestingly, the UK Census form puts “no religion” at the top of the list of options. One consequence of this is that the “no religion” answer is separated on the page from the “other - write in” box, with the result that very few people write in “atheist”, “agnostic” or similar qualifications of unbelief. So if Ireland was to do this, a possible outcome would be even fewer self-identified atheists or agnostics than we already have.)

If enough people write-in a particular identification that it comes in the top five, then next time round that identification will appear in the printed list. That is how “Orthodox” and “Islam” made it into the list. The converse also happens; that is how “Methodist” disappeared. It used to be listed but, in 2011, if you wanted to identify as Methodist you had to write it in.

So, yes, if enough people write “Fenianism” in the box, it will appear in the census reports. And if enough write it in so that it makes it to the top five, it will be printed on the next census form as an option. (Unless they change their policy.)

It’s unlikely that they can be persuaded to change the form of the question to “what religion do you practice”, for three reasons. First, who decrees that religion is primarily a matter of practice rather than, say, belief? That is a controversial topic, including on this board where I have argued with atheists who insist that religion is a matter first and foremost of belief. Different religious traditions take a different position on whether religion is a matter of practice or belief. This is a theological dispute which the Central Statistics Office will wish to stay out of. Secondly, State agencies generally don’t care about religious practice, as opposed to religious identification; if they don’t need the information why would they collect it? And, thirdly, every change in the census questions reduces the validity or reliability of comparisons between one census and another, because people are answering different questions in different years. Consequently they don’t make changes without good reason.

I suspect they’d say that if you want information on religious practice in Ireland, there’s plenty of qualitative research on that out there, and you are always free to commission more.

On edit: corrected the figures in this post, some of which, first time round, were mistakenly taken from the 2006 census results.

Shrap · 03-06-2015 7:30am

Simplest way to ask the question would be:

Are you a member of any religion?

Yes _
No _

If yes, state religion
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Peregrinus · 03-06-2015 7:50am

Shrap wrote: »

Simplest way to ask the question would be:

Are you a member of any religion?

Yes _
No _

If yes, state religion
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

That would lose you the information we currently have regarding the number of unbelievers who identify as agnostics or atheists. Plus, with it's talk of "membership" it treats religion as participation in an organisation as opposed to say, following a way of life or expressing a philosophy - which, again, embroils the CSO in theological/ecclesiological controversy.

The main reason for listing the more popular options is actually for the convenience of the CSO. If people are not "guided" towards established classifications, then you are faced with problems like "do we aggregate 'Church of Ireland' and 'Anglican' into a single category, or are they distinct categories?" "Is everyone who puts 'Catholic' a Roman Catholic?" "What about the people who just write 'Protestant'?" You still have this problem to some extent with respondents who use the 'write-in' box, but it's greatly reduced by the fact that about 95% of respondents choose one of the printed options. Only 3.4% fill out the write-in box. (The remaining 1.6% do not answer the question.)

I'm still not seeing any good case being made as to why there needs to be any change to the question at all. What's wrong with the present question? It's showing a dramatic increase in unbelief in Ireland, and even stronger percentage rises (if not absolute rises) in the numbers identifying as atheist and agnostic. Do people believe that that's misleading? What exactly is the problem here?

Pherekydes · 03-06-2015 7:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Magicbastarder is right to say that “no religion/atheist/agnostic” is the second largest group, if we treat them as a single group. But we don’t need to do this; “no religion” on its own is the second largest group - 186,318 people; we don’t have to roll in the atheists and the agnostics. In fact the numbers identifying as atheists and agnostics are tiny; in the 2011 Census there are fewer self-identified atheists (929) than there are Latter-Day Saints (1,237); there are fewer Agnostics (1,515) than there are Pagans (1,691). (One of the striking things about the census return, in fact, is how few unbelievers seem willing to own a label like Agnostic or Atheist.)

I am a self-identifying atheist, but on the census I ticked no religion. The reason is simple. The question asked "What is your religion?" and the answer is a straightforward No Religion.

In my opinion, the 929 above are giving atheism a bad name (and giving religious adherents ammunition when they claim that atheism is a religion).

Again, only in my opinion, the question should ask "Do you practice a religion?" Yes/No

If "Yes", state your religion. /Pick from list.

If "No", are you a poor unenlightened agnostic, or an ugly, fat, stupid, baby-eating atheist, who wants to tear down the very fabric of society? (The question the iOnanists would love to appear).

Atheism is NOT a religion!

magicbastarder · 03-06-2015 8:26am

i don't really give any credence to any argument that writing 'atheist' in the text box gives ammunition to those who claim it's a religion; in the sense that that argument is immaterial given the intentions of the census.

but i would agree it's an error for an atheist to write 'atheist' instead of ticking the 'no religion' box. the text box is there for someone who does not see an option listed which corresponds to their beliefs, and the atheists are catered for with that tick box.

just off the top of my head, it could be an option to place 'no religion' as the sole entry in a parallel column. separate it, but make it more prominent, and remove it from the list of religions.

Pherekydes · 03-06-2015 8:31am

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't really give any credence to any argument that writing 'atheist' in the text box gives ammunition to those who claim it's a religion; in the sense that that argument is immaterial given the intentions of the census.

You don't and neither do I, but do you think that applies to every David Quinn or Breda O'Brien (Sure, lookit, there's only 929 atheists in the country)?

magicbastarder · 03-06-2015 8:34am

have they actually made that argument?

Peregrinus · 03-06-2015 9:19am

On reflection, I think you can argue this one both ways.

The current arrangement means that we do have a proportion of people identifying not merely as “no religion” but as “atheist” or “agnostic”. Granted, in order to do that, they have to not tick the “no religion” box, and instead tick the “other” box, and write in. To do that, as Pherykedes points out, could be seen as accepting that atheism/agnosticism is a religion, rather than a rejection of religion. So, presumably quite a lot of people are ticking the “no religion” box who, if asked in a qualitative survey, would identify as atheists or agnostics. Presumably also there are some people ticking the “other” box and writing “agnostic” who wouldn’t be comfortable with “no religion” - they are agnostic believers of one sort or another.

So, on the one hand, there is no way that the current tots for “atheist” and “agnostic” in the census are an accurate count of the numbers of people who would accept or claim that label. Used for that purpose, the census data would be misleading.

On the other hand, if we compare the 2006 and 2011 censuses we find striking proportionate increases the numbers who do claim these labels - atheists up by 320% and agnostics up by 133%, over a period when the population as a whole increased by 8.2%, and the population of “no-religionists” increased by 45%. Even if it’s not an accurate count of absolute numbers of atheists and agnostics, I think that’s still significant in pointing to a trend. And it’s a trend which, I suggest, the regulars on this board are glad to have evidence of.

If you restructure the form as suggested by, e.g. magicbastarder, I think you lose that. It’s much less likely that you will find unbelievers ticking “other” and filling out the box with “atheist”, “agnostic” or anything similar.

My guess is that, under the current structure of the form, there are some unbelievers who approach it on the basis that “no religion” is the category for people who take no position at all on religious questions. They’re just not interested - the apatheists, if you will. And “other” is the category for people who do have a position on religious questions, even if that position is an agnostic/atheist/nontheist one. Atheism is not a religion, but it is a religious position - as in, it’s a position on a religious question (“does God exist?”).

You might be inclined to think, as Pherykedes is, that that’s a misconception on their part, that “other” is for other religious/theistic positions, and that all unbelievers should be ticking the “no religion” box. But, if it is a misconception, in some ways its perhaps a fortunate one, since it’s yielding data on the growth of affirmative atheist and agnostic identifications that we wouldn’t otherwise have. And, as I say, it’s data that regulars on this board are probably glad to have.

Orion · 03-06-2015 9:24am

The question should be
12. Do you have a religion Yes / No
If No - skip to question 14.

13. What is your religion:
a) b) c) etc.

14. Whatever the next topic is ...

This feedback was given by AI and others after the last census.

Shrap · 03-06-2015 9:29am

Orion wrote: »

The question should be
12. Do you have a religion Yes / No
If No - skip to question 14.

13. What is your religion:
a) b) c) etc.

14. Whatever the next topic is ...

This feedback was given by AI and others after the last census.

That would certainly be my preference, and it's just about the niggle that I have over the question "What is your religion?" which, to answer Peregrinus's question below, I find pretty presumptuous.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What exactly is the problem here?

Peregrinus · 03-06-2015 9:29am

Orion wrote: »

The question should be
12. Do you have a religion Yes / No
If No - skip to question 14.

13. What is your religion:
a) b) c) etc.

14. Whatever the next topic is ...

This feedback was given by AI and others after the last census.

That does imply, though, that you have no interest in knowing how many or what proportion of non-religious people hold atheist or agnostic views or, at any rate, you don't think the census should attempt to capture that information. Is that in fact the case?

Orion · 03-06-2015 9:36am

I'd be happier to see the number of people identifying as no religion rise rather than splinter it. One of the primary uses for this question is for school patronage allocation. The more people tick "No Religion" the more the church's hold over our primary education system weakens.

If you were to break it down further where would you stop?
i) Agnostic
ii) Agnostic Atheist
iii) Gnostic Atheist
iv) Humanist
v) Realist
vi) Pragmatist
vii) etc etc

Shrap · 03-06-2015 9:38am

Peregrinus wrote: »

That does imply, though, that you have no interest in knowing how many or what proportion of non-religious people hold atheist or agnostic views or, at any rate, you don't think the census should attempt to capture that information. Is that in fact the case?

But it doesn't tell us accurately anyway. I consistently tick "no religion", in answer to the actual question and do not fill in the "other" box as my atheism is NOT a religion. So although I identify as an atheist, I do not show up in those statistics.

NIMAN · 03-06-2015 9:38am

IMHO anyone who considers themselves a jedi is just a knob and needs to catch themselves on.

Btw, I think the op raises some very valid points.

Peregrinus · 03-06-2015 9:47am

Shrap wrote: »

But it doesn't tell us accurately anyway. I consistently tick "no religion", in answer to the actual question and do not fill in the "other" box as my atheism is NOT a religion. So although I identify as an atheist, I do not show up in those statistics.

Yes, I get that. The absolute number of atheists, per the census count, is certainly much smaller than the number of people who, if asked "are you an atheist?" would answer "yes". Ditto for agnostics.

My point, though, is that the growth in the number of atheists showing up in the census, incomplete thought that number is, is still relevant, interesting, useful and valid information. But maybe I'm attaching too much information to that, and it's information that we could better collect through more focussed research and surveys rather than through the census.

In which case, yes, the AI suggestion for how this question should be handled looks like a sound one.

magicbastarder · 03-06-2015 9:51am

it all boils down to how important you believe the difference between 'no religion' and 'atheist' is.
there are lots of people who are functionally atheist but who do not want to identify as such (for varying reasons, one of them being that they don't believe in a god, but do not want to align themselves with 'the dawkins crowd')

for the purposes of the output from the referendum - in how the figures might influence policy, i assume that 'atheists' and 'no religion' are treated the same, so a lot of the above could be seen as just splitting hairs.

Peregrinus · 03-06-2015 10:02am

I think the State probably doesn't greatly care how many unbelievers identify as atheist, agnostic or something else, which is why the form is not really set up to elicit that information.

But I would think atheists - and certainly atheist organisations, like AI - might care. Presumably it would add some weight to AI's lobbying efforts if they could claim to be representing the position of a largish chunk of the 270,000 or so "no-religionists" identified in the census.

Shrap · 03-06-2015 10:28am

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point, though, is that the growth in the number of atheists showing up in the census, incomplete thought that number is, is still relevant, interesting, useful and valid information. But maybe I'm attaching too much information to that

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I would think atheists - and certainly atheist organisations, like AI - might care. Presumably it would add some weight to AI's lobbying efforts if they could claim to be representing the position of a largish chunk of the 270,000 or so "no-religionists" identified in the census.

I think the issues that AI are lobbying about are as relevant for people with no-religion (regardless of personal label) and atheists alike. There'd be a much more obvious upward curve to the statistics if atheists/agnostics/humanists etc. all just presented as not religious.

Since AI doesn't claim to represent all atheists anyway, just it's members, I doubt it could be anything but helpful to them if the census showed up a greater number of folk that are affected by the same issues that AI lobbies about.

yeppydeppy · 03-06-2015 10:32am

What I really want to know is how many people just went and ticked roman catholic? As that's what they were told they were growing up and now they go to only mass at xmas. Most of them are, in the eyes of the chruch lapsed catholics and possible even agnostics? They continue with the facade to placate mammy and get the kids into the schools.

magicbastarder · 03-06-2015 10:45am

when was the last time there was a poll commissioned to ask about attitudes towards catholic patronage towards schools, etc. etc.; the sort of detail they don't have room for in the census?

Peregrinus · 03-06-2015 10:53am

magicbastarder wrote: »

when was the last time there was a poll commissioned to ask about attitudes towards catholic patronage towards schools, etc. etc.; the sort of detail they don't have room for in the census?

There was a fairly large consultation exercise on this commissioned by the Dept of Education a couple of years back, in connection with the (as-yet-unrealised) proposal to transfer schools from Catholic to other patronage in response to changing parent demands. It was much discussed on this board at the time. It wasn't a national survey; it focussed on a number of school districts (I think 38) where the Department felt there was unmet demand for non-Catholic patronage, and it involved surveying the parents of school-age and pre-school age children about their patronage preferences, with a view to identifying whether there was enough unmet demand for non-Catholic patronage to justify transferring (at least) one school in the district to non-Catholic patronage.

No surprise; actual provision of Catholic-patronage places exceeded the demand for Catholic patronage places. On the other hand, Catholic patronage was, by a long measure, by far the favoured patronage model of parents in, if I remember rightly, all but one of the 38 districts surveyed.

Shrap · 03-06-2015 11:22am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No surprise; actual provision of Catholic-patronage places exceeded the demand for Catholic patronage places. On the other hand, Catholic patronage was, by a long measure, by far the favoured patronage model of parents in, if I remember rightly, all but one of the 38 districts surveyed.

There's only one chance of changing that preference, and that's by obliging all schools to drop extra-curricular faith formation practice during school hours. I believe the favouring of Catholic patronage is artificially generated by parents being able to rely on their school to drag their kids through communion and confirmation practices.

Mark Hamill · 03-06-2015 12:01pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, State agencies generally don’t care about religious practice, as opposed to religious identification; if they don’t need the information why would they collect it?

What is the use of asking peoples religious identification if you admit that it has no bearing on with their religious practise? It would be like asking people how many kids they would like to have and using that to measure population.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That does imply, though, that you have no interest in knowing how many or what proportion of non-religious people hold atheist or agnostic views or, at any rate, you don't think the census should attempt to capture that information. Is that in fact the case?

If, as per your earlier argument, the government doesn't need to know the difference between fundie, honest-to-god-bothering, No-voter catholic and a-la-carte, "I'm 30 and having a church wedding because I'm afraid of my mammy" catholic, then why would it need to know the difference between atheists and agnostics or the like?

kylith · 03-06-2015 1:44pm

Shrap wrote: »

Simplest way to ask the question would be:

Are you a member of any religion?

Yes _
No _

If yes, state religion
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The problem I would have with that is that the same people who would tick 'Catholic' because they were baptised even though they never go to mass would tick 'Yes', just because they were baptised.

I really think that it should be 'Are you a practicing member of any religion'.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-06-2015 2:10am

I have no religion, so I ticked 'no religion'. Atheism is not a religion.

Peregrinus · 04-06-2015 2:14am

Shrap wrote: »

There's only one chance of changing that preference . . .

How is that the business of the state? I'm a republican; I think citizens should form their own values and preferences. It is generally no business of the government to try and change these.

Peregrinus · 04-06-2015 2:17am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is the use of asking peoples religious identification if you admit that it has no bearing on with their religious practise?

I didn't say it has no bearing on their religious practice. I said the state's reasons for collecting the data do not include wishing to know about people's religious practice.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If, as per your earlier argument, the government doesn't need to know the difference between fundie, honest-to-god-bothering, No-voter catholic and a-la-carte, "I'm 30 and having a church wedding because I'm afraid of my mammy" catholic, then why would it need to know the difference between atheists and agnostics or the like?

You're right, it doesn't. I'm curious to know this, but I have to concede that there is no reason why taxpayer funds should be spent collecting this information through the census. But to the extent that it does emerge from the census, that interests me.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-06-2015 9:29am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't say it has no bearing on their religious practice. I said the state's reasons for collecting the data do not include wishing to know about people's religious practice.

All they're getting at the moment is 'I am somewhere on the spectrum between being a devout follower of religion X, and having been inducted as an infant into X but have since rejected it but regard X as a cultural label and/or my mammy filled it in for me'

I'm wondering how much use, if any, the answer to such a vague question is in relation to the setting of any government policy.

Looking at non-church marriage statistics would be a much more useful (although still far from perfect) indicator of what the demand in the near future for non-religious education is going to be.

Peregrinus · 04-06-2015 9:49am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All they're getting at the moment is 'I am somewhere on the spectrum between being a devout follower of religion X, and having been inducted as an infant into X but have since rejected it but regard X as a cultural label and/or my mammy filled it in for me'

I'm wondering how much use, if any, the answer to such a vague question is in relation to the setting of any government policy.

Well, the UK Office of National Statistics conducted a public consultation prior to the UK Census of 2011 on user need for information from the census. They consulted various stakeholders about all of the census questions - what topics should be covered, what questions should be asked, what form the questions should take, etc. Those consulted included central and devolved government; local and regional government; expert, community and special interest groups and local service providers. With regard to the question on religion (which is almost identical to the question in the Irish census) the consultation found:

- The majority of respondents across all groups require information from religion on the census.
- Local and regional government expressed the greatest need for information on religion (91% of respondents wanted it); central and devolved government the least (68%). Overall 81% of respondents said they needed the religion information.
- Reasons cited for wanting the religious question in the census included providing a clearer view of society; gaining a better understanding of
certain ethnic groups; improving understanding of local populations and markets; promoting legal obligations to prevent discrimination and promote equality.
- Only a minority of respondents (11%) felt the census should seek more religious information. Those who did want more information looked for information on religious activity, more detailed information on non-religious beliefs, or a breakdown of the single "Christian" category offered in the UK census form into different denominations. To the extent that there was a demand for more information, it was skewed towards the "expert, community and special interest groups" category of respondents, 35% of whom wanted more information. By contrast, only 18% of local and regional government respondents wanted more religion information, and 21% of central and devolved government respondents.
- A majority of the respondents (76%) said they wanted the religion information elicited in a way which made it usefully comparable with the religion information elicited in the previous census.

OK, it's the UK, not Ireland. But the nature and purpose of the census, and the form of the religion question, are very similar in both countries, and the cultural, social and legal context is at least comparable, so I think it does offer pointers as to why users of the Irish census might find the religion information relevant or useful.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Looking at non-church marriage statistics would be a much more useful (although still far from perfect) indicator of what the demand in the near future for non-religious education is going to be.

It's not an either/or situation. Obviously, having both datasets is more useful than having just one of them.

Mark Hamill · 04-06-2015 9:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I said the state's reasons for collecting the data do not include wishing to know about people's religious practice.

Edit: Your previous post seems to answer this, I'll respond to that.

Peregrinus · 04-06-2015 9:56am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what reasons are those?

See my post #40 to Hotblack.

Mark Hamill · 04-06-2015 10:17am

Peregrinus wrote: »

- Reasons cited for wanting the religious question in the census included providing a clearer view of society; gaining a better understanding of
certain ethnic groups; improving understanding of local populations and markets; promoting legal obligations to prevent discrimination and promote equality.

Which are all based on the assumption that religious identification = religious practise. Different agencies also want to know population ages, growth and income. But a census asking if people think they are old (instead of age), or if they think they have enough kids (instead of how many kids they have), or if they feel poor (instead of their income) is not going to give an useful information. You can't plan schools based on how many kids people think is enough or how many nursing homes based on how old people feel.

Peregrinus · 04-06-2015 10:52am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which are all based on the assumption that religious identification = religious practise.

No, they're not. These users weren't making assumptions that identification = practice. The didn't need to, because they mostly weren't interested in practice. A substantial majority of them said they did not need census information to cover religious practice.

At this point I think we have to raise a question that we have ducked up to now; what exactly do we mean by "religious practice"? Is it:
- Goes to church (chapel/meeting-house/mosque/synagogue) every Sunday(Saturday/Friday)?
- Goes to church (etc) at unspecified intervals, or ever?
- (Endeavours to) love the Lord his God with all his heart and all his soul and all his mind and all his strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, but is not that fussed about church attendance?
- Isn't really sure what he believes and isn't that interested in beliefs as such but, in general, lives his live in accordance with the ethical principles of the religion he was raised in, which principles he regards as fundamentally sound?
- Would choose to send his children to Catholic (etc.) school?
- Something else?

Obviously the school choice question is the one that's of most interest to at least some users of the census. Equally obviously, not that many people answering a question about religious practice are going to understand it as a question about school choice.

So, if you do reframe the question as one of religious practice, will that enable you to predict demand for school places more reliably that a question about religious affiliation? Is there any evidence that school preference correlates more closely with religious practice than with religious affiliation?

No, is the answer, there isn't. As already pointed out, it will be hard to know what people mean when they answer a question about religious practice and, if we don't know that, it's going to be very hard even to theorise about what their answers might tell us about school preferences. Plus, we do already have some data on the correlation between affiliation and school choice. For instance, in the consultation on school patronage preference already mentioned in this thread, something like (I'm speaking from memory) 68% of those consulted preferred Catholic patronage. Obviously this is a lot closer to the 84% of Irish people who identify as Catholic in the census than to the 18% who, reportedly, are regular mass attenders. (We could refine this further by looking at the census figures for the areas surveyed, rather than nationally. And the mass attendance figures, if they're available in that breakdown.)

Note, I'm not suggesting that the 84% Catholic identification rate in the census translates into a demand for 84% of school places to be Catholic; just that, if you're trying to project demand for Catholic places, knowing the Catholic affiliation rate is probably a more useful datum than knowing how many people consider themselves to be "practising" Catholicism by some unspecified definition.

I'm not against collecting data on religious practice. And if you can find a meaningful correlation between religious practice (on some definition of that term) and school choice, by all means use that data to plan the provision of school places. I just don't think the case for gathering the data through the census is that strong. As yet, nobody is presenting evidence that it would be useful for census purposes. (In the UK, remember, most users did not want this data.) And census questions have to be pretty punchy; the more nuanced and detailed they get, the more people don't answer them, or give unreliable answers. I think if you're interested in religious practice, qualitative research is what you want, and that's not best gathered done the census.

Mark Hamill · 04-06-2015 7:10pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

At this point I think we have to raise a question that we have ducked up to now; what exactly do we mean by "religious practice"?

Are you seriously trying to portray "practising catholic" as a more nebulous term than "self-identifying catholic"? Really?
With "practising catholic" we can, at the very least, say a person is highly likely to go to mass and pray.
With "self-identifying catholic", all we can say is they self-identify as catholic, nothing more. We can't even say if they believe in god.

Peregrinus wrote: »

68% of those consulted preferred Catholic patronage.

You mean the patronage the only patronage they know, the one they were themselves indoctrinated in? I'm sure they all gave informed responses to that survey :rolleyes:.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-06-2015 10:03pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You mean the patronage the only patronage they know, the one they were themselves indoctrinated in? I'm sure they all gave informed responses to that survey :rolleyes:.

It would also include parents who would be reluctant for their child to change school, or for their child's school to change how it's run - at least until their kid finishes there!

The existing school is a known quantity in a known location, even for parents whose kids haven't started school yet it's quite the leap of faith* to ask them to trust that a new school run by an unknown principal and staff, with an ethos the parents may be entirely unfamiliar with, in an unknown location and/or an unsuitable temporary premises for several years, will be a better choice for their kids.

* see what I did there

Peregrinus · 05-06-2015 2:14am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to portray "practising catholic" as a more nebulous term than "self-identifying catholic"? Really?
With "practising catholic" we can, at the very least, say a person is highly likely to go to mass and pray.

Mark, the census isn’t going to ask whether you are a practising Catholic; it’s going to ask whether you practice any religion. Obviously, what that implies means different things to people of different religions. And, even within a particular religion, it will mean different things to different people. Different Christian traditions, for example, attach different weight to regular churchgoing. And, even within a denomination, different people will attach different weight to regular participation in worship as constituting the “practice” of religion. There are lots of people who don’t participate regularly in worship but who consider themselves to be practising religion. You may not consider them to be doing so, but it won’t be you who fills out their census forms. And the danger that their answers will be understood through filters like the one you are applying illustrates precisely why information of this kind, gathered through the census, is not much use.

Like I say, qualitative research. I don’t know what you have against it.

(Besides, if you really think that the practice of religion can be (and will be, by most people) equated with regular massgoing (or participation in equivalent communal worship) I genuinely struggle to see why you think this information should be collected through the census. What is it needed for?)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

With "self-identifying catholic", all we can say is they self-identify as catholic, nothing more. We can't even say if they believe in god.

We also can’t say of the non-religious whether they believe in god, Mark. Why would this be a problem that the census needs to address?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You mean the patronage the only patronage they know, the one they were themselves indoctrinated in? I'm sure they all gave informed responses to that survey :rolleyes:.

That’s the same survey that showed a demand for the transfer of a significant number of schools from Catholic to non-religious patronage, Mark. I’m sorry you thinks its findings are bogus.

Peregrinus · 05-06-2015 2:30am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It would also include parents who would be reluctant for their child to change school, or for their child's school to change how it's run - at least until their kid finishes there!

The existing school is a known quantity in a known location, even for parents whose kids haven't started school yet it's quite the leap of faith* to ask them to trust that a new school run by an unknown principal and staff, with an ethos the parents may be entirely unfamiliar with, in an unknown location and/or an unsuitable temporary premises for several years, will be a better choice for their kids.

Yes, of course. The consultation didn’t ask parents whether they would transfer their children to (or enter their currently pre-school children in) a school of a patronage model not currently available. It just asked them whether they wanted such a school to be available.

Armed with the answers to this question, that still leaves school planners with a dilemma; how many people who express an interest in the availability of a particular patronage will actually take it up? Presumably less than 100%, but how much less?

For the record, the Department took a pretty strong line on this. The minimum viable school size is generally reckoned to be about 80 kids. If, in any district, the parents of 80 school-age and pre-school age kids wanted (e.g.) an ET patronage school (or another ET patronage school, if there was already one or more) to be available, the Department identified that as a district in which one school should be transferred from Catholic to ET patronage. There was a risk, obviously, that some of the parents who expressed an interest in that patronage would not take it up. On the other hand, some of the parents of kids already in the school would keep them there, even though they hadn’t called for new patronage, so I think the Department was making a kind of “swings and roundabouts” assumption that these two factors would more or less balance out. But it was still a risky assumption; because they set the threshold at the lowest limit of viability, if these things didn’t balance out, they could transfer a school to ET patronage only to find it becoming unviable.

(FWIW, I think they’re right to run the risk. There are too many Catholic schools, relative to demand, and far too few ET, etc, schools, and this can only be remedied by transferring schools from Catholic to ET, etc, patronage. Yes, the transition will be difficult, with lots of people upset along the way, and it will involve risks. But if we’re not prepared to face the difficulties and the risks then it will never happen.)

Still, that’s a bit of a sideshow. If what you are arguing is that the finding that demand for non-religious patronage was a minority demand is invalidated because it only measured willingness to change schools, you are mistaken. Parents weren’t asked whether they would change schools or (for pre-school-age children) choose a particular school ; just whether they wanted (more) schools of particular patronage models to be available to them.

Hotblack Desiato · 05-06-2015 8:29am

They were not actually being asked if they wanted their school to change, but that doesn't mean that some didn't interpret it that way, or didn't twig that the implication of a vote for other patronage options could mean a school in the area - maybe their one - changing patronage down the line.

You can hardly blame them for thinking that when it's what Ruairi Quinn and Diarmuid Martin were saying at the time.

What is being asked and what people answer are not the same thing. You only have to look at the religion question on the census, or boards in general, for proof of that.

I'm a parent in an area with no non-christian school options, there was no survey here. It's not a new growing suburb so there will be no new schools. The small CoI primary is full. All the secondary schools are RC. Something has to give eventually, but I'm not hopeful of my daughter (in first class now) having any option but to go to one of the RC secondaries

Peregrinus · 05-06-2015 8:56am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They were not actually being asked if they wanted their school to change, but that doesn't mean that some didn't interpret it that way, or didn't twig that the implication of a vote for other patronage options could mean a school in the area - maybe their one - changing patronage down the line.

On the other hand, we have no substantial reason to think that they did interpret the question that way. You seem to be just hypothesising reasons to invalidate and ignor a finding that you don't like. And you don't like it because it tends to validate another finding that you don't like. This is unimpressive, Hotblack.

In the real world, per the census most Irish residents identify as religious, and per the patronage consultation most parents do in fact want religious patronage in their children's schools, and it is likely that these two facts are connected. A strategy for defending the rights of those who don't want religious patronage is undermined if it ignores the realities.

For example , following the consultation, the Department moved actually to transfer schools from Catholic to non-Catholic patronage. In some of the schools concerned, there was blowback from those parents who were happy with the current patronage. In thread on this board, a good deal of disgust and irritation at this was expressed, together with claims (not backed by any colourable detail) that this was being orchestrated by the bishops, fomented in homilies in parish churches, etc.

In fact, if you take the results of the consultation seriously where they are unwelcome as well as where they are welcome, the findings would suggest that a majority of parents in most religious-patronage schools were likely to favour religious patronage. Given that, blowback was entirely to be expected. The rational course would be to expect blowback, and to prepare a strategy for responding to it and managing it. As it was, people simply took refuge in conspiracy theories rather than acknowledge the possibility that the research showing the facts to be otherwise than they wished they were might, actually, be correct, and should have been attended to.

As I say, unimpressive.

Mark Hamill · 05-06-2015 10:50am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mark, the census isn’t going to ask whether you are a practising Catholic; it’s going to ask whether you practice any religion.

What's that got to do with my point? You can change my point to read "practising theist" and "self-identifying theist" and it won't change it: you learn far more from asking someone if they are a practising theist than only asking if they identify as theist. It's getting quite ridiculous how far you are going out of your way to try and muddy the waters on this.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We also can’t say of the non-religious whether they believe in god, Mark.

Of course we can. If you believe in god, but don't follow any specific religion then you are deist, not non-religious.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That’s the same survey that showed a demand for the transfer of a significant number of schools from Catholic to non-religious patronage, Mark. I’m sorry you thinks its findings are bogus.

Who said the findings are bogus? I implied that reasoning behind most of those who favoured catholic schools is based on indoctrination and ignorance.

Census 2016

Comments