Catholic levels in the next census

Erren Music

Hopefully AI will run a campaign before the census about the importance of parents marking their children as catholic.

My question is what % do the church need to have to keep this con going.

If only 40% or lower elect to pick RC as their religion, what will the churches response be to it's control of schools? What would the gov response to this be?

old hippy

It's a disgrace that to get the kids into schools they have to be catholic.

token56

old hippy wrote: »

It's a disgrace that to get the kids into schools they have to be catholic.

Its not exactly the whole picture. Schools are legally allowed to discriminate based on religion against children wanting to gain entry. This is a disgrace considering most schools which are allowed to do such are funded by the public.

old hippy

token56 wrote: »

Its not exactly the whole picture. Schools are legally allowed to discriminate based on religion against children wanting to gain entry. This is a disgrace considering most schools which are allowed to do such are funded by the public.

Thanks for clarifying, token. I know that my nephew & niece had to be catholic to get into their local schools as all the multi denom schools were full, apparently.

Dades

Erren Music wrote: »

Hopefully AI will run a campaign before the census about the importance of parents marking their children as catholic.

A Facebook campaign was suggested a few weeks back which is an excellent idea. If there isn't one when the census is advertised next year, then we'll create one between us here. No point in doing it until next year when it becomes relevant though.

spacetweek

Erren Music wrote: »

If only 40% or lower elect to pick RC as their religion, what will the churches response be to it's control of schools? What would the gov response to this be?

Well considering the figure was 86% last time, it's doubtful it'll fall to 40 so quickly.

Totally agree on the campaign though. Anecdotally, I can tell you there's a lot less than 86% Catholic in this country - if what we're talking about is practicing Catholics. More like 40%, alright.

old hippy wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying, token. I know that my nephew & niece had to be catholic to get into their local schools as all the multi denom schools were full, apparently.

That's awful, but surely the local catholic schools would still have to accept the kids - just at the bottom of the list?

PeterIanStaker

Erren Music wrote: »

What would the gov response to this be?

Obviously nothing.

Depends on how strong the mammy effect still is !!

Cianos

Dades wrote: »

A Facebook campaign was suggested a few weeks back which is an excellent idea. If there isn't one when the census is advertised next year, then we'll create one between us here. No point in doing it until next year when it becomes relevant though.

I think it's relevant now though, and while all this stuff is going on with the church it'd be good timing to get people active. If the campaign referenced countmeout.ie then it'd give enough people time to print out the letter and send it off etc, whereas if it's left til the last minute people may not get around to doing it in time.

spacetweek

Cianos wrote: »

I think it's relevant now though, and while all this stuff is going on with the church it'd be good timing to get people active. If the campaign referenced countmeout.ie then it'd give enough people time to print out the letter and send it off etc, whereas if it's left til the last minute people may not get around to doing it in time.

OK, but apparently the census isn't taking place until 2011, according to google searches I did.

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Obviously nothing.

Just wondering, what do you actually think the Gov is supposed to do? Surely there are very strong financial reasons not to take on the administration of schools? I presume Catholic parish school boards in Ireland do not have their salaries paid for by the state? Only the secular ones.

The Gov isn't avoiding running schools because they trust the Church to do it. It's about the cost.

Am I right?

Vomit

Yeah someone *COUGH* suggested a facebook campaign a while ago. The question is, should we put down 'Atheist' or 'None'..?

Teferi

token56 wrote: »

Its not exactly the whole picture. Schools are legally allowed to discriminate based on religion against children wanting to gain entry. This is a disgrace considering most schools which are allowed to do such are funded by the public.

How many actually discriminate though? I know at least one very Catholic school that allows entry to Jews, Muslims, Atheist et al...

I wouldn't say that discrimination is in the majority...

Rev Hellfire

I guess there's the principle of the thing.

herya

Dades wrote: »

A Facebook campaign was suggested a few weeks back which is an excellent idea. If there isn't one when the census is advertised next year, then we'll create one between us here. No point in doing it until next year when it becomes relevant though.

A campaign for differentiating between "baptised" and "Catholic" in the census would help too, I think. Still too many people say the second when they mean the first.

lmaopml

Sorry Dades, I put it up as I thought it was of interest...
I'll find a more relevant thread tomorrow..

Dades

Cianos wrote: »

I think it's relevant now though, and while all this stuff is going on with the church it'd be good timing to get people active. If the campaign referenced countmeout.ie then it'd give enough people time to print out the letter and send it off etc, whereas if it's left til the last minute people may not get around to doing it in time.

What we're talking about is filling in the census correctly, and since that isn't for over a year I think we'd only have to re-run it to remind people again closer the time.

If someone wants to run a Facebook coutmeout.ie campaign that's a different kettle of fish.

Joey the lips

Erren Music wrote: »

Hopefully AI will run a campaign before the census about the importance of parents marking their children as catholic.

My question is what % do the church need to have to keep this con going.

If only 40% or lower elect to pick RC as their religion, what will the churches response be to it's control of schools? What would the gov response to this be?

I am catholic(so granted what am I doing here) however I always felt there should be a religious teachings as such in schools where many religions are thought about. Although I bring my child into the world as a catholic it will help them decide when older if they want to remain.

I also agree that while schools should not be controled by the church ultimatly through the board of management this will not be a problem into the future as the chuch and ultimatly the schools through the state will require more and more parents to get involved in the school running.

Dades

Lads - there's a heap of threads on the church/schools debate. A quick search will find one if anyone want to add to what's already been said.

This thread is about the census.

dvpower

Vomit wrote: »

Yeah someone *COUGH* suggested a facebook campaign a while ago. The question is, should we put down 'Atheist' or 'None'..?

The relevant choices on the census form are

6. [x] Other, write in your RELIGION [ ]
7. [x] No Religion

Neither choice is satisfactory. If you write "Atheist" the summary data will count you as having a religion.

You can choose 'No Religion', but choosing this doesn't record you as as Atheist or Agnostic; there may be many lapsed catholics choosing this option in the next census.

Dades

The "no religion" option is probably the right one, though I wrote atheist in the last one.

What would be great if there was an optional "details" box alongside the "no religion" option.
Or even better something like this:

Religion (specify):

Catholic
Church of Ireland (incl. Protestant)
Other Christian Religion
Presbyterian
Muslim
Orthodox
Methodist
Other (state below)

No religion (specify):
Atheist
Agnostic
Humanist
Deist
Other (specify)

The question is, if they include "Lapsed Catholic" - how is that going to be interpreted? Religion or no religion? Friend or foe of the church? Conscientious objector or too lazy to get up on Sundays?

I think currently it's too 'vague' to be of any use unless it's meaning is predefined in the context of how the results are going to be interpreted.

strobe

dvpower wrote: »

The relevant choices on the census form are

6. [x] Other, write in your RELIGION [ ]
7. [x] No Religion

Neither choice is satisfactory. If you write "Atheist" the summary data will count you as having a religion.

You can choose 'No Religion', but choosing this doesn't record you as as Atheist or Agnostic; there may be many lapsed catholics choosing this option in the next census.

I don't know, can't really see anything wrong with choosing no religion instead of being able to choose atheist.

GLaDOS

I'd be happy with no religion myself

Malari

strobe wrote: »

I don't know, can't really see anything wrong with choosing no religion instead of being able to choose atheist.

Because you can have no religion you are affiliated to but still believe in a god.

Vomit

I suppose either 'atheist' or 'no religion' would do. A report that reads, "33% said no religion and another 33% said atheist" is better than one saying "85% said Catholic"

strobe

Malari wrote: »

Because you can have no religion you are affiliated to but still believe in a god.

With regards to the census is there really a need to make a declaration that you don't believe in any god whatsoever rather than you are not affiliated to any religion whatsoever? In terms of the census and it's potential for having an effect on government policy, selecting either no religion or athiest or agnostic accomplish the exact same thing.

ColmDawson

strobe wrote: »

With regards to the census is there really a need to make a declaration that you don't believe in any god whatsoever rather than you are not affiliated to any religion whatsoever? In terms of the census and it's potential for having an effect on government policy, selecting either no religion or athiest or agnostic accomplish the exact same thing.

The census is a valuable historical record, so I think the differentiation between the groups is merited.

Malari

strobe wrote: »

With regards to the census is there really a need to make a declaration that you don't believe in any god whatsoever rather than you are not affiliated to any religion whatsoever? In terms of the census and it's potential for having an effect on government policy, selecting either no religion or athiest or agnostic accomplish the exact same thing.

I don't set the questions but if they are going to ask they should cover all options in the answer.

It's like asking what colour hair you have and not including "bald" as one of the answer options. If it has the same effect on government policy then rephrase the question.

Antbert

I think 'no religion' does suffice though. Because it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or if you believe in a god but are not part of a particular organised religion. No religion still counts as no religion. I think getting too into the detail of it (i.e. having the atheist/agnostic/humanist etc options) gives too much credibility to the irritating 'what religion are you?' question to begin with.

Edit: Must've missed Strobe's reply. Sorry about that. I agree.

Vomit

People don't like labels. I've been thinking about this, and in my opinion, we can make the biggest 'bang' by putting down 'No Religion'. There are intellectuals and thinkers out there who may be deists (whether they know it or not!) and, like atheists, equally want to let go of the ignorance and primitive dogma of the past and show the Catholic Church the door. How many people would really be comfortable labeling themselves 'atheist'? We can't count on the majority doing that, especially when they actually have the form in their hand.

So, I'll be putting down 'no religion'.

Fighting Irish

Dades wrote: »

A Facebook campaign was suggested a few weeks back which is an excellent idea. If there isn't one when the census is advertised next year, then we'll create one between us here. No point in doing it until next year when it becomes relevant though.

:rolleyes:

GLaDOS

Fighting Irish wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It is a great idea, will bring the message to the 15-25 demographic very effectivly. Worked for RATM.

Flamed Diving

ScienceNerd wrote: »

It is a great idea, will bring the message to the 15-25 demographic very effectivly. Worked for RATM.

No, I think the anonymous "rolling eyes" strategy is bound to pay off, in the end.

Vomit

Fighting Irish wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You see, this is half the problem with this country - too many complainers, not enough 'doers'. Let's hear your idea.

Fighting Irish

Vomit wrote: »

You see, this is half the problem with this country - too many complainers, not enough 'doers'. Let's hear your idea.

Sure lets make a facebook group about it :rolleyes:

Vomit

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Sure lets make a facebook group about it :rolleyes:

Well that was mine, let's hear yours. Or perhaps if you don't think the facebook group will be a good idea, please say why. After all, as someone else highlighted, RATM got to no. 1 in the UK thanks to a FB group.

Or just continue to throw stones from the sidelines while others do the talking.

ColmDawson

Vomit wrote: »

Or just continue to throw stones from the sidelines while others do the talking.

Let he who has not si-... Oops, wrong forum.

Dades

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Sure lets make a facebook group about it :rolleyes:

And you keep fighting that fight from your mum's basement.

moonpurple

next census I would welcome category,

'Christian, other'

for those from a Catholic background who are now non denominational European Christian

PDN

Many Christians are also deeply unhappy with how the census categories work, as they serve to marginalise certain types of Christianity and don't reflect the realities of what is happening on the ground.

For example, we still keep hearing about "the four main churches" (RC, CoI, Presbyterian & Methodist) even though one particular Nigerian denomination (the Redeemed Christian Church of God) has more members in Ireland than either the Presbyterians or the Methodists. Similarly, Evangelicals and Pentecostals, because there is no category for them, end up being lumped in as 'Others' and as such are accorded less notice from the State than much smaller groups such as Muslims or Orthodox (and since many of our members are young - we still get mammy putting them down as Catholics, just like you).

Now, my reason for raising that here (in case someone wonders why this is in A&A) is that it actually affects how we are treated by the State. Despite our numbers we are marginalised when it comes to legislation and broadcasting.

But I'm wondering why that would be an issue for atheists. Surely the effects of government policy will be the same whether you are listed as being Atheist or No Religion? What practical effects can you see happening if Atheist was a separate category other than No religion? Atheism is (as I am constantly being reminded by some of your regular posters) not an ideology of itself. If atheism is indeed the same as 'not collecting stamps' then does not "No religion" sum it up pretty well? If a survey was being done on stamp collecting then you would respond with "I don't collect stamps" rather than insisting that a special category would be set up for "I hate stamps".

Genuine question here, with no desire to start a war!

Flamed Diving

Should atheists, agnostics and deists be in the same category?

Tbh, as a person who has studied survey methods, there are really only so many categories you should put down, lest people get confused.

keane2097

PDN wrote: »

But I'm wondering why that would be an issue for atheists. Surely the effects of government policy will be the same whether you are listed as being Atheist or No Religion? What practical effects can you see happening if Atheist was a separate category other than No religion? Atheism is (as I am constantly being reminded by some of your regular posters) not an ideology of itself. If atheism is indeed the same as 'not collecting stamps' then does not "No religion" sum it up pretty well? If a survey was being done on stamp collecting then you would respond with "I don't collect stamps" rather than insisting that a special category would be set up for "I hate stamps".

Genuine question here, with no desire to start a war!

No religion could mean a person who believes in God/spirituality etc. but doesn't have an organised religion. This is not what atheism is. Similarly, it lumps agnostics and atheists together which is not ideal.

baalthor

Would it be a good idea to have two separate questions; one for religious belief and one for religious affilliation?

Vomit

But is deism a religion or an intellectual position? I think many people who call themselves deist would be happy to tick 'no religion'. And as an atheist I am happy to tick the same box. Why split ourselves up into difference labels? Isn't that a big part of what's wrong with religion itself? The needless division of people by meaningless labels? And surely, statistically, it would be more beneficial to have a giant percentage of 'no religion'.

keane2097

Vomit wrote: »

But is deism a religion or an intellectual position? I think many people who call themselves deist would be happy to tick 'no religion'. And as an atheist I am happy to tick the same box. Why split ourselves up into difference labels?

Sure why bother doing a census at all?

Nevyn

Cenus is needed aprently for planning....cos they have done such a good job with the planning in this country.

This isn't just a atheist issue the exact same agruements on this I see every time the cenus is mention on pagan mailing lists and online forums.

Vomit

To allow us to show that we're not cath-a-holics anymore of course!!

PDN

keane2097 wrote: »

No religion could mean a person who believes in God/spirituality etc. but doesn't have an organised religion. This is not what atheism is. Similarly, it lumps agnostics and atheists together which is not ideal.

Yes, I get that.

But how does that affect the census? The point of the census is not so we can say, "Wow! There's x number of atheists in the country." The point of the census is for planning government policies etc.

In what way do atheists want to be treated differently from agnostics. or even a theist or deist who practices no religion, when it comes to any of the governmental decisions or policies that may be influenced by the census?

drkpower

keane2097 wrote: »

No religion could mean a person who believes in God/spirituality etc. but doesn't have an organised religion. This is not what atheism is. Similarly, it lumps agnostics and atheists together which is not ideal.

PDN is spot on.

The census is not a tool to determine how many people believe in God, or in anything else. It is a tool to determine and drive governmental and public services. The 'religon' question is/was asked primarily to determine where to put/zone schools, and of what kind. Of course, the fact that the question is even asked merely reflects the sad reality that religon still matters in education. It would be the best of all worlds if the 'religon' question wasnt (didnt need to be) asked at all.

But as long as it is asked, the important thing in terms of driving policy forward is to reflect those who do not want/neeed religous education/facilities. That means that the difference between atheism, agnosticism, deism (which may be important for the purposes of debate) are irrelevent when it comes to the census, and what the census is for.

In fact, I would love (and call on) those who are religous, but who are also secularists, to answer 'No Religon' in the census. Such an answer will do nothing to diminish their own faith. But it will have a postive affect in bringing a more rapid and substantive change in policy towards secularism.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I get that.

But how does that affect the census? The point of the census is not so we can say, "Wow! There's x number of atheists in the country." The point of the census is for planning government policies etc.

In what way do atheists want to be treated differently from agnostics. or even a theist or deist who practices no religion, when it comes to any of the governmental decisions or policies that may be influenced by the census?

I agree with you totally.

My suggestion for an "ideal" census breakdown here was purely borne of curiosity to know the stats. Obviously "no religion" works on a base level. Splitting people up in atheists/agnostics serves no purpose other than interesting reading, for the reasons you've already made.

Although perhaps something stronger statement than a large "no religion" contingent might be required to get the church out of our schools?

keane2097

drkpower wrote: »

The census is not a tool to determine how many people believe in God, or in anything else. It is a tool to determine and drive governmental and public services. The 'religon' question is/was asked primarily to determine where to put/zone schools, and of what kind. Of course, the fact that the question is even asked merely reflects the sad reality that religon still matters in education. It would be the best of all worlds if the 'religon' question wasnt (didnt need to be) asked at all.

But as long as it is asked, the important thing in terms of driving policy forward is to reflect those who do not want/neeed religous education/facilities. That means that the difference between atheism, agnosticism, deism (which may be important for the purposes of debate) are irrelevent when it comes to the census, and what the census is for.

So you could end up with a deist school in an area full of atheists or whatever...

If the question is going to be asked it might as well be possible for people to give a correct answer.

keane2097

Dades wrote: »

My suggestion for an "ideal" census breakdown here was purely borne of curiosity to know the stats. Obviously "no religion" works on a base level. Splitting people up in atheists/agnostics serves no purpose other than interesting reading, for the reasons you've already made.

Fair enough we can't see any particularly pressing reason to include it at the moment, but the stats might be useful and the change needed to allow people to answer the question correctly would be pretty negligible - all it takes is a few lines of ink.