Be Honest to Godless in the Irish Census - New campaign launched

Michael Nugent

Atheist Ireland has launched our campaign to ask nonreligious people to tick the no religion box in the Census, which takes place on 10 April.

The theme is: Be Honest to Godless in the Irish Census: If You're Not Religious, Say So.

You can read details here on the Atheist Ireland website.

Please also like our campaign Facebook page and spread the word, both in real life and on the Internet.

Zombrex

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland has launched our campaign to ask nonreligious people to tick the no religion box in the Census, which takes place on 10 April.

The theme is: Be Honest to Godless in the Irish Census: If You're Not Religious, Say So.

You can read details here on the Atheist Ireland website.

Please also like our campaign Facebook page and spread the word, both in real life and on the Internet.

Not the best name in the world given that "godless" has negative meaning for a lot of people, even those who would not practice a religion. Also a lot of people would be non-religious but still believe in some fuzzy notion of "god" simply because they like the idea, while being a million miles from Catholic or Protestant. You seem to recognize that in the blurb below

What if you believe you are spiritual but not religious? What if you believe in a god but not in religion? Please remember that the Census is not a survey of theological beliefs. It is a measure of social changes, including in religious affiliation, to help plan the allocation of State services and other policies.

which is odd then that you make the slogan so God orientated rather than religion orientated.

Oh well, hopefully that will only be a minor issue. I would love for the census to more accurately reflect the population.

robindch

I'm with Wicknight on this one -- this, I hope, will be a fairly high-profile campaign, so it's got to be (a) as simple as possible and (b) as inoffensive as possible. Quite apart from the questionable grammar (I don't think it works as a play on words), there are too many words in the ad.

I'd go with this:

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wicknight wrote: »

Not the best name in the world given that "godless" has negative meaning for a lot of people, even those who would not practice a religion. Also a lot of people would be non-religious but still believe in some fuzzy notion of "god" simply because they like the idea, while being a million miles from Catholic or Protestant. You seem to recognize that in the blurb below

What if you believe you are spiritual but not religious? What if you believe in a god but not in religion? Please remember that the Census is not a survey of theological beliefs. It is a measure of social changes, including in religious affiliation, to help plan the allocation of State services and other policies.

which is odd then that you make the slogan so God orientated rather than religion orientated.

Oh well, hopefully that will only be a minor issue. I would love for the census to more accurately reflect the population.

Its hard to call because I've been a ''new-atheist'' type for a few years now but I think the ''honest to godless'' sounds tongue in cheek and in that context may not have the negative connotations ''godless'' usually would.

I think anyone who sees godless as such a terrible thing is unlikely to listen to this campaign anyhow

Dades

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think anyone who sees godless as such a terrible thing is unlikely to listen to this campaign anyhow

Actually, I think that's a fair point.

Michael, will there be a more specific push to have young people living under their parents roof assert their (lack of) beliefs? Just look at the demographic on Boards.ie - young and hugely non-religious - how many of these posters will have mammy ticking the catholic box for them?

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Just look at the demographic on Boards.ie - young, sexy and hugely non-religious - how many of these posters will have mammy ticking the catholic box for them?

Ahem:o

Dades

Take a cold shower, Fr Malty! :pac:

seamus

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think anyone who sees godless as such a terrible thing is unlikely to listen to this campaign anyhow

I respectfully disagree.

The whole point of the campaign is to try and reach out to those people who tick the religious box through habit or some deep-seated emotional guilt about upsetting their parents, or whatever.

We already know that most people who accept themselves as "Godless" will tick the "no religion" box. Aside from a couple of hundred numpties who'll write "atheist" in the box.
So this campaign doesn't actually need to target the "Godless", it needs (in fact is trying to) target those who are de facto non-religious - i.e. non-practising Catholics - but who for whatever reason will not admit this.

"Godless" is a very specific term which will alienate the exact group they're trying to target. "Atheist" is still bad word, even for those who think the pope is a prick. They're basically asking a group of people to "side" with them, while at the same time asking them to declare that they're atheist. Which they may not necessarily be.

A political comparison may be a march where they say, "March to improve our health services, we deserve it", and then putting a huge "Sinn Fein" logo at the top of the notice. You instantly lose a big chunk of potential supporters because they don't want to be seen to associate with you.

robindch's logo, while lacking the clever catchphrase, I think is more likely to inspire the target audience of this campaign.

Turtwig

seamus wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

The whole point of the campaign is to try and reach out to those people who tick the religious box through habit or some deep-seated emotional guilt about upsetting their parents, or whatever.

We already know that most people who accept themselves as "Godless" will tick the "no religion" box. Aside from a couple of hundred numpties who'll write "atheist" in the box.
So this campaign doesn't actually need to target the "Godless", it needs (in fact is trying to) target those who are de facto non-religious - i.e. non-practising Catholics - but who for whatever reason will not admit this.

"Godless" is a very specific term which will alienate the exact group they're trying to target. "Atheist" is still bad word, even for those who think the pope is a prick. They're basically asking a group of people to "side" with them, while at the same time asking them to declare that they're atheist. Which they may not necessarily be.

A political comparison may be a march where they say, "March to improve our health services, we deserve it", and then putting a huge "Sinn Fein" logo at the top of the notice. You instantly lose a bug chunk of potential supporters because they don't want to be seen to associate with you.

robindch's logo, while lacking the clever catchphrase, I think is more likely to inspire the target audience of this campaign.

Excellent point, love the sig btw.:)

Bottle_of_Smoke

seamus wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

The whole point of the campaign is to try and reach out to those people who tick the religious box through habit or some deep-seated emotional guilt about upsetting their parents, or whatever.

I'm not actually talking about them. I think they only people who really see ''godless'' (in this context anyway) as a terrible thing are religious people - who should be ticking the religious boxes.

We already know that most people who accept themselves as "Godless" will tick the "no religion" box. Aside from a couple of hundred numpties who'll write "atheist" in the box.
So this campaign doesn't actually need to target the "Godless", it needs (in fact is trying to) target those who are de facto non-religious - i.e. non-practising Catholics - but who for whatever reason will not admit this.

By non-practising Catholics do you mean precisely that or atheists from Catholic families/backgrounds? I mean if someone believes in Jesus, Mary etc but doesn't go to church I still think they should tick a Christian box whereas atheists from christian families should be choosing the ''no religion'' option.

"Godless" is a very specific term which will alienate the exact group they're trying to target. "Atheist" is still bad word, even for those who think the pope is a prick. They're basically asking a group of people to "side" with them, while at the same time asking them to declare that they're atheist. Which they may not necessarily be.

Well isn't the point to get people who don't believe in god to tick the ''no religion'' box? If they aren't atheist why would we want them to choose ''no religion''? If they are spiritual or whatever wouldn't choosing the ''other'' option be best?

A political comparison may be a march where they say, "March to improve our health services, we deserve it", and then putting a huge "Sinn Fein" logo at the top of the notice. You instantly lose a big chunk of potential supporters because they don't want to be seen to associate with you.

I see your point. Though I don't think the Godless thing is near as offputting as a Sinn Fein logo would be for that kind of march.

robindch's logo, while lacking the clever catchphrase, I think is more likely to inspire the target audience of this campaign.

Its a tough one tbh. I feel you may be right about ''godless'' turning people off but I also think the catchphrase could make people more enthusiastic and draw them in

seamus

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm not actually talking about them. I think they only people who really see ''godless'' (in this context anyway) as a terrible thing are religious people - who should be ticking the religious boxes.

There is actually quite an emotional jump from "I believe in God" to "I don't believe in God". Think of it along the lines of changing your belief in Santa - the kids who don't believe in Santa are going to get a bag of coal for Xmas, why would I take that risk and not believe, even though I know the story doesn't add up?
So even though many people have no truck with religions and go as far as to lambast them, they will still believe in God and "Godless" is an entirely separate state of being altogether. Thankfully it is changing and it's no longer a way to be turned into a pariah, but many non-religious people I know are still somewhat "uncomfortable" when someone else declares their atheism publically.

By non-practising Catholics do you mean precisely that or atheists from Catholic families/backgrounds? I mean if someone believes in Jesus, Mary etc but doesn't go to church I still think they should tick a Christian box whereas atheists from christian families should be choosing the ''no religion'' option.

"Christian" isn't a religion though any more than "atheist" is. If you consider the purpose of the census, then it makes sense that anyone who is not part of a religious denomination (i.e. doesn't practise it) is honest and ticks the "no religion" box instead of ticking a slot which doesn't accurately reflect their religious outlook.

Many non-practising/former Catholics have distanced themselves from that church and have no intention of raising their children as Catholics, but would still claim to be "Christian" and pray to God and the like. If they tick "Roman Catholic" out of habit, or because it's the most appropriate box, then they are incorrectly inflating Catholic numbers in their area.

Well isn't the point to get people who don't believe in god to tick the ''no religion'' box? If they aren't atheist why would we want them to choose ''no religion''? If they are spiritual or whatever wouldn't choosing the ''other'' option be best?

No, because the point is so the civil authorities can look at the distribution of various religious people and say, "Yes, that application for a faith school in this area is justified because there are 300 muslims in that area". "Spiritual", "Christian", etc aren't religions. They're perhaps religious outlooks, but the census doesn't care what your personal feelings are - they're asking what religion someone is a member of and therefore practises. If they don't practise, they're not a member, so God or no God they should tick "no religion".

I see your point. Though I don't think the Godless thing is near as offputting as a Sinn Fein logo would be for that kind of march.

I'm probably too close to a number of atheists to know tbh. I do feel that declaring oneself an atheist these days, in some places is on a par to admitting to homosexuality in the eighties.
People seem to be OK with, "I'm not very religious", but tense up at, "I'm atheist actually".

Personally I feel it's an institutionalisation thing - being Catholic was part of your Irish identity, we were taught that the core of every good Irishman is a good Catholic. So even if someone hasn't been to Mass in 20 years, telling them they're not Catholic is felt deep down as an attack on their very identity. Likewise declaring yourself an atheist is often felt like a judgement, like you're an enemy of something in that person's core.

Actually I could go on about that forever. It's something I've experienced as a vegetarian. Someone will notice that you're not eating meat on your dinner, you tell them it's because you're vegetarian, and they'll go on a rant and for some reason attempt to either justify their position or rubbish yours, even though you haven't actually said anything more than, "I'm vegetarian". I've seen the same thing happen to atheists, even when speaking to people with no specific religious leanings. Declaring yourself contrary to the norm is seen as some kind of "attack" on a person's identity which they automatically attempt to repel.

Michael Nugent

Dades wrote: »

Michael, will there be a more specific push to have young people living under their parents roof assert their (lack of) beliefs? Just look at the demographic on Boards.ie - young and hugely non-religious - how many of these posters will have mammy ticking the catholic box for them?

Yes. The different angles that we will be individually addressing are:

Please don’t tick a religion you don’t actually practice.
Please don’t tick your childhood religion out of habit.
Please don’t let someone else fill in your answer.
Please don’t write in ‘Atheist’. It’s not a religion.
Please don’t write in anything that’s not a religion.
Please don’t ignore the question. Answer it honestly.
If you’re not religious, please tick the no religion box.

Michael Nugent

Wicknight wrote: »

Not the best name in the world given that "godless" has negative meaning for a lot of people, even those who would not practice a religion.

seamus wrote: »

I do feel that declaring oneself an atheist these days, in some places is on a par to admitting to homosexuality in the eighties. People seem to be OK with, "I'm not very religious", but tense up at, "I'm atheist actually".

That’s a very good analogy. If you look at figures in America where people are asked if they would vote for an atheist as President, atheist candidates are now approximately where gay candidates were in the 1980s, where black candidates were in the 1960s, and where women candidates were in the 1940s.

One important reason why women, black people and gay people are no longer subject to the same level of prejudice, and why more gay people are comfortable in being out, is that they have had groups campaigning to raise awareness while using the labels women, black and gay.

Like our name (Atheist Ireland) we’re trying to label our campaigns (Teach, Don’t Preach, Honest to Godless) with short snappy slogans that are memorable, that capture the essence of what we are doing, and that can be easily cited in articles etc.

And we want to incorporate words like atheist and godless, so that the words gradually become associated with positive initiatives. That is how you break down irrational prejudices about such concepts, not by retreating from using the words.

However, if you feel that you would rather not support the campaign because of the slogan, please encourage people to tick the no religion box in your own preferred way between now and 10 April. There is room for many different approaches.

Michael Nugent

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

By non-practising Catholics do you mean precisely that or atheists from Catholic families/backgrounds? I mean if someone believes in Jesus, Mary etc but doesn't go to church I still think they should tick a Christian box whereas atheists from christian families should be choosing the ''no religion'' option.

This is a very important issue, though it is not the focus of our campaign.

There is no box for 'Christian' although you could write it in under 'Other Religion'. It's not an organised denomination in the context of the type of information that the Census should be looking for, but it would be more accurate for such people write in 'Christian' than tick 'Roman Catholic.'

Actually, the whole question is structured very badly. 'What is your religion?' is quite ambiguous. A proper Census question would ask something more like 'Are you a member of a religious denomination? If so, which one?'.

drkpower

robindch wrote: »

I'd go with this:

+1

MichaelNugent wrote:

And we want to incorporate words like atheist and godless, so that the words gradually become associated with positive initiatives. That is how you break down irrational prejudices about such concepts, not by retreating from using the words.

Very good; but the importance of a large census figure for 'no religon' cannot be underestimated. Perhaps you can choose a different campaign to break down irrational prejudices about various words and not risk prejudicing this campaign with an approach that might be seen as divisive. Yours is a very short-sighted approach, sadly.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And we want to incorporate words like atheist and godless, so that the words gradually become associated with positive initiatives. That is how you break down irrational prejudices about such concepts, not by retreating from using the words.

You're then trying to do two things with this campaign -- encourage people to tick 'no religion' and to induce positive associations with the word 'godless'. Both are worthwhile objectives, but you're not going to achieve either with this campaign -- you're splitting your message and confusing people about what you want.

The careless irreligious who are, or should be, the target of this campaign, are unlikely to want to be associated with being 'godless' any more than they want to be associated with being 'faithless'. You'll achieve much more by appealing to a very simple sense of personal honesty, than by dragging them into an implied identity/epistemological argument regarding gnostic atheism (what the census doesn't measure, unless people put 'atheist' down as their religion, which is another argument) or a state of default irreligion (what they actually are, and importantly, what people see themselves as). In summary, half of the ad is asking them to accept an implied statement concerning their religion, when the other half of the ad is asking them to do the opposite.

I strongly advise you to stick to a single objective and do it unambiguously.

Zombrex

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think anyone who sees godless as such a terrible thing is unlikely to listen to this campaign anyhow

Not sure about that to be honest. I think the people this campaign are targeting are those who are not religious but feel social pressure (or family pressure) to remain cultural Catholics. Thinking that they are declaring themselves Godless by following this campaign may be a leap too far from them.

I think those who are happy with the term "Godless" already tick the no religion box anyway.:)

[EDIT] I see Seamus has made this point already [/EDIT]

Bottle_of_Smoke

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There is no box for 'Christian' although you could write it in under 'Other Religion'. It's not an organised denomination in the context of the type of information that the Census should be looking for, but it would be more accurate for such people write in 'Christian' than tick 'Roman Catholic.'

seamus wrote: »

"Christian" isn't a religion though any more than "atheist" is. If you consider the purpose of the census, then it makes sense that anyone who is not part of a religious denomination (i.e. doesn't practise it) is honest and ticks the "no religion" box instead of ticking a slot which doesn't accurately reflect their religious outlook.

Some great points in your posts there lads I'll reply properly this evening. Have to do some work!

Just regarding the ticking ''a Christian box'' I should have said ''one of the Christian boxes'' ie Roman Catholic/Protestant/Presbyterian etc

Mark Hamill

Michael Nugent wrote: »

One important reason why women, black people and gay people are no longer subject to the same level of prejudice, and why more gay people are comfortable in being out, is that they have had groups campaigning to raise awareness while using the labels women, black and gay.

We should totally have Atheist Pride marches, where we can hand out "A for a Day" badges and burn our baptism certs

Michael Nugent

drkpower wrote: »

Yours is a very short-sighted approach, sadly.

Long-sighted, surely?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We should totally have Atheist Pride marches, where we can hand out "A for a Day" badges and burn our baptism certs

Since the Gay Pride folks adopted the mark of Noah's covenant with God (the rainbow) Atheist Pride could always adopt the mark of Abraham's covenant.

drkpower

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Long-sighted, surely?

No, short-sighted.

I presume Atheist Ireland know that 'No religon' =/= 'Godlessness'. In respect of this campaign, why alientate/antagonise/discourage (or risk doing so) those who believe in God (or some kind of spirit), yet who do not consider themselves to have any affiliation to religon?

This really needs a re-think or AI are likely to be partially responsible for yet another underestimate of those who consider themselves to have no religon.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Since the Gay Pride folks adopted the mark of Noah's covenant with God (the rainbow) Atheist Pride could always adopt the mark of Abraham's covenant.

I'm not familiar with Abraham's covenant. It's nothing to do with killing your brother is it?
Personally Id choose the Ark of the Covenant. Actually, wait no.... can't find it among all of those boxes.

liamw

robindch wrote: »

I'd go with this:

Please, for the love of god, change the logo to this ^^

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

Since the Gay Pride folks adopted the mark of Noah's covenant with God (the rainbow) Atheist Pride could always adopt the mark of Abraham's covenant.

I'm not familiar with Abraham's covenant. It's nothing to do with killing your brother is it?
Personally Id choose the Ark of the Covenant. Actually, wait no.... can't find it among all of those boxes.

Circumcision.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Since the Gay Pride folks adopted the mark of Noah's covenant with God (the rainbow) Atheist Pride could always adopt the mark of Abraham's covenant.

I personally prefer the crocoduck, it's ingenious.:pac:

Jimmy Garlic

Zillah

That doesn't mean we're not smarter.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Since the Gay Pride folks adopted the mark of Noah's covenant with God (the rainbow) Atheist Pride could always adopt the mark of Abraham's covenant.

That reminds me of the Simpsons bit where Castro says America isn't that bad, they named a street after him in San Fransisco to be told by an aid what it is full of

God: Humans aren't all bad, I gave them the rainbow after all

Angel: [whispers in ear]

God: They do WHAT with it!

Mark Hamill

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

We may not be smarter, but at least we can spell "appear".

PeterIanStaker

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We should totally have Atheist Pride marches, where we can hand out "A for a Day" badges and burn our baptism certs

Now there's a good idea!

Mr. smart

Robindch is spot on.
Reclaim labels some other time. Census don't come around to often, focusing on getting people to not idly put down Catholic should be the only priority.
I think having a higher amount of people stating no religion is so important that i've had to stop lurking to write this.
Really hope you alter you advertising campaighn Micheal.

fergalr

This campaign makes an association between ticking 'no religion' and being 'godless'.

That will discourage the non-religious believers from ticking the 'no religion' box.
There are probably a lot of people who aren't really religious, but might say they believe in something - or at least would hesitate to describe themselves as 'godless'.

By having a campaign about this, you are inviting people to counter-campaign. By calling the campaign 'godless', you make it very easy for people to spin ticking 'no religion' as a militant atheist position.

The finer subtleties (The detailed sentences on the website 'Please don't X') are not going to make it through to anyone who wouldn't tick the box anyway.



On a separate note, other interesting questions, on the census survey design are:

* Why is the question phrased as 'what is your religion' - surely 'Do you have a religion?', followed by 'What is it?'; or 'If you have a religion, please indicate it' would be a much less biased phrasing? Looks like very bad survey design as it stands.

* Why is 'no religion' at the bottom of the list, if it is the second most popular answer? People in votes, polls etc tick the options near the start of the list disproportionally often.

strobe

Sorry Michael, I'm with the majority here. I think it's more important to ensure the number of non-religious is represented accurately than it is to change peoples perception about the words 'atheist' or 'godless'. By all means continue campaigning to change the perception people have in this regard, but like Robin said, trying to do so in the same campaign as the census one runs the risk of 'splitting the vote' needlessly and turning people off ticking the 'no religion' option.

But maybe I'm wrong.

CiaranMT

Would also weigh in on the side of Robin etc, here.

Your hope to change people's views of words like 'godless' and their connotations in a couple of months is a bit optimistic, to say the least.

Actually....




How about sticking an exclamation mark after 'Godless' in the logo?

Would achieve your sense of tongue in cheek, non?

EDIT: Hasty mock-up:

Tin Foil Hat

fergalr wrote: »

This campaign makes an association between ticking 'no religion' and being 'godless'.

That will discourage the non-religious believers from ticking the 'no religion' box.
There are probably a lot of people who aren't really religious, but might say they believe in something - or at least would hesitate to describe themselves as 'godless'.

By having a campaign about this, you are inviting people to counter-campaign. By calling the campaign 'godless', you make it very easy for people to spin ticking 'no religion' as a militant atheist position.

The finer subtleties (The detailed sentences on the website 'Please don't X') are not going to make it through to anyone who wouldn't tick the box anyway.

+1 for all of the above. Use of the word 'Godless' will inevitably alienate a great many people might otherwise react very positively to this campaign. Anger at the catholic church might never reach current levels again. It would be a shame to miss out on this opportunity for want of a little tact.

fergalr wrote: »

On a separate note, other interesting questions, on the census survey design are:

* Why is the question phrased as 'what is your religion' - surely 'Do you have a religion?', followed by 'What is it?'; or 'If you have a religion, please indicate it' would be a much less biased phrasing? Looks like very bad survey design as it stands.

* Why is 'no religion' at the bottom of the list, if it is the second most popular answer? People in votes, polls etc tick the options near the start of the list disproportionally often.

As far as I am aware the CSO admit that the Religion Question, as it appears on the census, is biased against those who are of no religion. However, they do not want to change it for fear of losing continuity from census to census.
Reading between the lines, I strongly suspect that those who make this decision are, like many people in Irish public life, more than happy to see their own religion, Catholicism, over-represented in every aspect of our policies and culture.

It would obviously make much more sense to format the question as follows:-

Are you a practising member of any religion
YES [] NO[]
If your answer is yes then tick one of the following fairy stories
A...
B...
C...
D...
.
.

Truley

I have to agree with the other posters, the term 'godless' has negative connotations and will alienate the very people you should be appealing to. The question isn't about personal beliefs it's about religious organisation. You want to emcompass the huge proportion of the population who identify as spiritual or non-denominational. Godless shouldn't come into it, 'churchless' maybe.

Also, the phrase doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. For some reason I read it as 'Goodless' at first :P I really hope yee take some of the poster's suggestions on board.

Mr. smart

The more I think about it, the more of a disaster this is.
Imagine if the census used the term "godless" instead "no religion". Atheist Ireland would be in uproar over it.
Yet you actively choose (and spend money on) the term in a marketing campaign
The "target market" of campaign should be people who just tick Catholic without really thinking. Having been one of these people not long ago I can assure you the word godless is not something that really floats my boat.
Screw "breaking down irrational prejudices about concepts" I just want some cold hard figures. So the next time the church is trying to force some nonsense on society we can turn around and say theres an awful lot of us that think your full of s*%t.

Dr. Loon

robindch wrote: »

I'm with Wicknight on this one -- this, I hope, will be a fairly high-profile campaign, so it's got to be (a) as simple as possible and (b) as inoffensive as possible. Quite apart from the questionable grammar (I don't think it works as a play on words), there are too many words in the ad.

I'd go with this:

This is the better logo and "campaign". Godless = BAD.

8kvscdpglqnyr4

I have to agree with all the above comments.

While I think the idea of the campaign is a great one and well done to all involved, I think the title of the campaign is a poor one.

It's not just about the "Godless" ... it's about people who believe in God but who do not subscribe to religion (or people who want to distance themselves from the Catholic Church given the recent abuse cases). There are lots of people who want to distance themselves from organised religion at the moment in Ireland.

I haven't clicked the "Like" button on the Facebook page yet ... I couldn't bring myself to "Like" the page because of the title of the campaign.

Scofflaw

Can I add my usual census-time appeal for people to swallow their objections to writing in "Atheist" or "Agnostic" under "Other Religion" and just do it?

As far as the census is concerned, that is the only way to indicate that you are an atheist or agnostic rather than just not really religious. There are no ins and outs to the argument, and writing it in that box will not make atheism or agnosticism a religion. Really - it's quite safe, and it's the only way you can get it to show up on the CSO.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Stercus Accidit

Would that not skew the census results? You are putting yourself down as religious, raising the percentage of people in the country considered to be adherants to a religion.

I am not overly concerned that I am considered an athiest or an agnostic, I would be far happier to be counted among the "non religious".

Can you elaborate Scoflaw on your reasoning so I understand your point a little better?

Thanks.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote: »

Can I add my usual census-time appeal for people to swallow their objections to writing in "Atheist" or "Agnostic" under "Other Religion" and just do it?

As far as the census is concerned, that is the only way to indicate that you are an atheist or agnostic rather than just not really religious. There are no ins and outs to the argument, and writing it in that box will not make atheism or agnosticism a religion. Really - it's quite safe, and it's the only way you can get it to show up on the CSO.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's what I did four years ago, however I've come around to the other way of thinking...

Here are the results from the last census... are people who put down 'atheist' (or agnostic) included in 'No Religion'? You would think so, but without clarification I wouldn't be sure.

The reality is No Religion suggests exactly what I wish government to take into account when formulating policy.
I don't need to expressly be an atheist - and risk falling out of the No Religion figure - for this to be obvious.

Tis and interesting one.

Dades

Update:

I found the full census results from 2006 - and they do list both agnostics and atheists (separate to 'No religions'). Which, to me, means that if you put down either, the likelihood is that your voice will count toward a secular society as much as if you chose no religion.

I can't help but think though, for the sake of simplicity, and to guard against post-census stat distortion by the likes of Iona, that it would be better if everyone sang from the same hymn-sheet, as it were...

PDF link here.

Michael Nugent

I’m going to think about the various points raised here, and discuss them with my colleagues, before I respond again.

For context, based on the overall internet feedback on day one, about ten times more people like the campaign than dislike it.

That said, I am always open to ideas for improving what we do.

mikhail

Dades wrote: »

Update:

I found the full census results from 2006...

Are there really 540 people who can't spell "lapsed"?

Scofflaw

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Would that not skew the census results? You are putting yourself down as religious, raising the percentage of people in the country considered to be adherants to a religion.

I am not overly concerned that I am considered an athiest or an agnostic, I would be far happier to be counted among the "non religious".

Can you elaborate Scoflaw on your reasoning so I understand your point a little better?

Thanks.

At the CSO level, you will be classified as 'other religion' in the summary statistics if you put 'Atheist' or 'Agnostic', and 'no religion' if you tick that only.

In the detailed statistics, you'll appear as 'Atheist' or 'Agnostic' only if you put that in under 'Other Religion'.

The question, then, is which of those is more use?

When people are citing the numbers of non-religious in Ireland, they often just cite the summary figure, and by ending up under 'other stated religions' you reduce that figure.

On the other hand, if anyone wants to know the actual number of atheists or agnostics in the country - as opposed to those who don't consider themselves religious but wouldn't consider themselves atheists or agnostics either - the only way to get that figure is by people writing themselves in as one of those things, even if by doing so they end up under 'other stated religions' in the summary figures.

Anyone with a bit of interest in the number of non-religious can easily add the atheists and agnostics back to the 'no religion' figure, but the reverse is not true - you cannot get the number of atheists and agnostics from the 'no religion' figure, because it includes all sorts of other things. And having no religion does not imply, for the same reasons, any particular objection to religion being foisted on you.

Essentially, therefore, it's a question of whether atheists and agnostics get recognised, or are distinguishable, as particular groups or not. If we want to show up on the official statistics, this is the only way to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

mikhail wrote: »

Are there really 540 people who can't spell "lapsed"?

Just one - and he/she works for the CSO.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote: »

At the CSO level, you will be classified as 'other religion' in the summary statistics if you put 'Atheist' or 'Agnostic', and 'no religion' if you tick that only...

Essentially, therefore, it's a question of whether atheists and agnostics get recognised, or are distinguishable, as particular groups or not. If we want to show up on the official statistics, this is the only way to do so.

Scofflaw (welcome back!), do we not then run the risk that some lazy lawmaker is going to simply grab the "No religion" figure when someone calls for the relevant statistics? Or am I being paranoid here?

Also, given the time we've spent here i A&A reiterating how atheism is not a religion, it seems contrary to put it down in a space where we know is will be, at CSO level at least, classed as a religion. :pac:

Michael Nugent

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially, therefore, it's a question of whether atheists and agnostics get recognised, or are distinguishable, as particular groups or not. If we want to show up on the official statistics, this is the only way to do so.

Whatever we do will be unsatisfactory because the question is so poorly and ambiguously phrased. Ultimately we need to get the question changed to something that can accurately reflect reality.

The CSO did have a public consultation period in 2008 about the questions for the 2011 census, but the closing date for submissions was before Atheist Ireland was founded so we didn't get to contribute. We will next time.

Stercus Accidit

I'm certainly of two minds about this now, I am worried that deists and people who are 'spiritual' (bleugh :pac:) are included in non-religious, and as such would rather confirm my lack of any sort of beliefs as 'athiest' or 'agnostic' as suggested by Scoflaw.

I then consider that non-religious would mean non-affiliated, and as such would be secular politically, rather than alligning myself with a group and becoming an 'athiest' or 'agnostic', neither of which I consider myself before someone who simply rejects religion itself. Atheism and agnosticism being arbitrary deifinitions based on a particular god/fairy/supreme being relating to some outside superstions. As such, non-religious not only suits me as a definition, it is the secular choice as I see it and far more in line with how I want the census to interpret my stance.