So my ma doesn't believe in god.....

MagicMarker

Peregrinus wrote: »

Therefore (c) above is what they care about, and the census question is phrased accordingly.

No it's not, it asks what religion you are, not what religious community you identify with. Its phrasing is pretty clear.

gbee

No Religion.
Non Religious [meaning not following anything]
Multi Denominational
My Own Business

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can’t rely on the census to give an accurate picture of what people believe [...]

The function of the census is not to list the nation's supernatural beliefs.

On the contrary, the census tells people how many people self-identify with the given religions. And these statistics are used by organizations like the church in order to legitimize their claim to speak on their behalf.

Peregrinus

MagicMarker wrote: »

No it's not, it asks what religion you are, not what religious community you identify with. Its phrasing is pretty clear.

Asking what religion you are is not asking you what you believe. Nor is it asking you how you live. It is asking you how you identify yourself in religious terms.

It may be that there are some people - Protestants, for example, and as this discussion shows at least some atheists and agnostics - who identify themselves in religious terms on the basis of what they believe, but this is not a universal characteristic of all religions. Somebody who tells you that he is Jewish, for example, is telling you little or nothing about what he believes; if you want to know that you'll have to ask him further questions.

Thus the census does not measure religious belief, and does not pretend to. It may be that some people's answer to this question is affected by religious belief, but that is a matter for them. Nothing in the census forms suggests to people that they should answer this question by reference only to their religious beliefs.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

The function of the census is not to list the nation's supernatural beliefs.

On the contrary, the census tells people how many people self-identify with the given religions. And these statistics are used by organizations like the church in order to legitimize their claim to speak on their behalf.

And to an extent that's fair enough. I don't think we can ignore the reality that people choose to identify as Catholics, or disregard their self-identification on the basis that it isn't made by reference to the criteria that we, the elite, think they should have used.

I think myself that self-identification on the census form is often a fairly weak kind of identification. If I were a policymaker I would pay some attention to it, but not a lot. I certainly wouldn't assume that everbody who identifies as Catholic passionately supports everything that every Catholic bishop says on any matter of public concern.

But on the other hand I'm going to accept that their self-identification may have some implciations that are relevant to public policy. If lots of people identify as Catholic and comparatively few as Jewish or as nonbelievers, I'm going to expect, for instance, that the demand for places in Catholic schoools is likely to be stronger than the demand for places in Jewish schools or secular schools. (Whether and to what extent the state should meet that demand is of course another question.)

Jesus Wept

Hate this country. :-/

MagicMarker

Hmmm, the census also asks what age I am. Should the answer be what age I feel or what age I actually am?

I'm 27 but don't feel 27, I actually identify myself more with 25 year olds.

Peregrinus

MagicMarker wrote: »

Hmmm, the census also asks what age I am. Should the answer be what age I feel or what age I actually am?

I'm 27 but don't feel 27, I actually identify myself more with 25 year olds.

Mutton dressed as lamb?:)

nkay1985

I find the issue of religion in the census interesting. Let's say the question is "What religion are you?". I answer "No religion", my friend answers "Atheist" and one of you guys answer "Non-religious". In my hypothetical situation, these three individuals all have the same (non) beliefs, yet have answered the question three different ways. Will all three get grouped together as the one answer?

Or will this be a multiple choice question with the most common answers listed, including "No religion" and "Other, please specify:", does anybody know?

Galvasean

nkay1985 wrote: »

I find the issue of religion in the census interesting. Let's say the question is "What religion are you?". I answer "No religion", my friend answers "Atheist" and one of you guys answer "Non-religious". In my hypothetical situation, these three individuals all have the same (non) beliefs, yet have answered the question three different ways. Will all three get grouped together as the one answer?

Or will this be a multiple choice question with the most common answers listed, including "No religion" and "Other, please specify:", does anybody know?

We had a massive argument about this on here before. Apparently if you want to not count as being religious just tick 'no religion'. Ticking the 'other' box and writing 'atheist' gets you lumped in with the 'other religions' category. And we all know atheist is not a religion.

Galvasean

Was looking at the census website:
http://www.google.ie/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://media.teamxbox.com/dailyposts/spider-man3_venom.jpg&sa=X&ei=692ITfygLs25hAeRo9y5DQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNE0PUsCjY6M2JeG9XuVxjVezHRtVA
If you look at question 12 it clearly says under the 'Other' category 'write in your RELIGION.
Emphasis theirs. So they are definately not looking for atheists to tick the 'Other' box. Atheists definately go in the 'No religion' box.

nkay1985

Galvasean wrote: »

Was looking at the census website:
http://www.google.ie/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://media.teamxbox.com/dailyposts/spider-man3_venom.jpg&sa=X&ei=692ITfygLs25hAeRo9y5DQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNE0PUsCjY6M2JeG9XuVxjVezHRtVA
If you look at question 12 it clearly says under the 'Other' category 'write in your RELIGION.
Emphasis theirs. So they are definately not looking for atheists to tick the 'Other' box. Atheists definately go in the 'No religion' box.

Was that lonk meant to be something to do with the census website? Or were you using it to illustrate the venom you spit when speaking about this? :P

See I agree wtih your thinking and would automatically tick 'No Religion' but I have a feeling some people might fall prey to the 'Other' box.

Galvasean

nkay1985 wrote: »

Was that lonk meant to be something to do with the census website? Or were you using it to illustrate the venom you spit when speaking about this? :P

Amazing what happens when you are not careful with your clip board...
This is the actual link i meant to post:
http://census.ie/The-Census-Form/Each-question-in-detail.109.1.aspx

I agree that we do lose some to the other box. I recall looking at the details of the last census and sure enough a small minority wrote down 'Atheist' as their religion. It's quite annoying when David Quinn types then go on to use that small number in a 'look how few atheists there are!' way.

Nollog

I just think you guys are trying to attack other religions as usual.
Also, you're confusing practicing catholic with catholic.

Some people out there don't go to church or follow the rules of their religion, but still consider themselves in that religion.
It's up to them how they rationalise that, not you.

Improbable

/\/ollog wrote: »

I just think you guys are trying to attack other religions as usual.
Also, you're confusing practicing catholic with catholic.

Some people out there don't go to church or follow the rules of their religion, but still consider themselves in that religion.
It's up to them how they rationalise that, not you.

It's not about attacking religion, it's about getting accurate census data so that the government can make a better informed decision about public policy with regards to the effect that religion has on such decisions as in the case of education and whatnot.

As to practicing vs. non-practicing members of a faith, if it's up to each individual to decide what religion they belong to, regardless of whether they are practicing or non-practicing, then is it not the case that those who are non-practicing are catholic in name only and not catholic in any practical sense? And wouldn't using practicalities be better for making practical decisions?

Peregrinus

Improbable wrote: »

As to practicing vs. non-practicing members of a faith, if it's up to each individual to decide what religion they belong to, regardless of whether they are practicing or non-practicing, then is it not the case that those who are non-practicing are catholic in name only and not catholic in any practical sense? And wouldn't using practicalities be better for making practical decisions?

But we know that large numbers of nominal Catholics who do not practice their faith (in the sense of going to mass themselves) do want their children to go to Catholic schools, and indeed want them to participate in sacramental preparation in the schools, etc. And they may want other encounters with/participation in church life in ways that may or may not be of relevance to public policy.

Whether we think that this is a good thing or a bad thing, a hypocritical thing or an inconsistent thing, is not the point. It's a real thing; that's all that concerns the state.

It's true, of course, that not everyone who puts "Catholic" on the census wants to send their child to a Catholic school. But it's also true that the number of parents who want to send their child to a Catholic school vastly exceeds the number of parents who go to mass every week. The suggestion that only those who go to mass every week are "Catholic" in a way that is of relevance to public policy is just nonsense.

We're relatively fortunate in the Republic in that, when we think of ways in which religious identification might be of relevance to public policy, educational preferences are the first thing that leaps to mind. We don't have to look too far to find societies in which religious identification has a much wider, and sometimes dangerous, relevance.

We may or may not like the implications of religious identification , but we certainly don't improve our response to it by putting our hands over our ears and singing "la, la, la" in a desparate attempt to ignore, or not to know about, people's religious identification. Yet reframing the census question so that it asked about people's religious beliefs or their practice rather than their indentifications would be precisely that.

Ireland is not alone here. I think most pluralist democracies seek religious identification information in the census, and they do so by inviting people to self-identify without taking any a priori stance about what is a "proper" basis for self-identification.

Doctor DooM

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's true, of course, that not everyone who puts "Catholic" on the census wants to send their child to a Catholic school. But it's also true that the number of parents who want to send their child to a Catholic school vastly exceeds the number of parents who go to mass every week.

I know it's not your main point here but I think this is misrepresenting the situation somewhat- those people want their child sent to a good school, it just so happens that the vasy majority are controlled by the Roman Catholic Church.

robindch

Doctor DooM wrote: »

those people want their child sent to a good school, it just so happens that the vasy majority are controlled by the Roman Catholic Church.

There was an interesting report released two years ago, I think, in the UK which concurred with this -- schools which are controlled by religious organizations really do get better results.

However, when analysed carefully, it seems that they achieved this by excluding, on religious grounds, people who had low academic results -- so they ended up with only the clever kids.

Grinding the numbers further, another, more recent, report suggested that even when they selected the clever people, the clever kids didn't perform as well equivalent groupings of clever kids who'd been sent to schools which didn't pretend that irrational nonsense is true.

Nollog

Improbable wrote: »

It's not about attacking religion, it's about getting accurate census data so that the government can make a better informed decision about public policy with regards to the effect that religion has on such decisions as in the case of education and whatnot.

As to practicing vs. non-practicing members of a faith, if it's up to each individual to decide what religion they belong to, regardless of whether they are practicing or non-practicing, then is it not the case that those who are non-practicing are catholic in name only and not catholic in any practical sense? And wouldn't using practicalities be better for making practical decisions?

Because you want their crucifixes out of your school, right?

Trouble with that is how do you put it down on a census form?
Do you attend church on the sabbath?
-Doesn't apply to some religions, so how do you word it?
And why should it be based on what people do, religion is about what people think, believe and feel.
Some religions don't ask you to sit in a church, some ask you to get bitten by snakes, some ask you for money so they can give you a stress test.
It's too varied to ask about practice, and irrelevant to the thought process of religious people.

I'd personally scrap the question altogether and ask something like "Do you believe the state should acknowledge organised religion?"
I'd hope there'd be a resounding No to that question.