Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Doctor DooM

GarIT wrote: »

I would highly doubt it is as wrong as people claim though, what are the chances that each time there was an error it was always a religious person filling in a religion for everyone else. There are 84% Catholics in this country, just not devout or practising.

I personally know 2 people who had their religion filled in incorrectly on purpose by their mother.

Benny_Cake

GarIT wrote: »

I don't have figures on it but based on contraception use I would say it is likely there is less than 5% Catholics in Ireland.

Only if you accept that the use of artificial contraception means that someone is no longer a Catholic, which is not a position that the Catholic Church takes. Whether they are a good Catholic or not is an entirely different question.

A census is always going to be a blunt instrument. Arguing over the figures misses the point - the issue to address is what those figures will be used for. If the education system needs to be reformed, then it shouldn't matter whether this country is 84% Catholic or 5% Catholic - it should be reformed anyway.

CramCycle

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I personally know 2 people who had their religion filled in incorrectly on purpose by their mother.

I know several also, some due to their mother, 5 due to the fact that their flatmate put them all down as Catholic when the Census lady came round as they hadn't filled it out completely, and he was the only one there and presumed that they were all Catholic.
That said, it may happen the other way where a member of the household hates the RCC and fills it out as everyone in the house is either non religious or a different religion for some reason, even if their partner is a Catholic. I don't know if it has happened but that doesn't mean it hasn't.

Penn

GarIT wrote: »

I would highly doubt it is as wrong as people claim though, what are the chances that each time there was an error it was always a religious person filling in a religion for everyone else. There are 84% Catholics in this country, just not devout or practising.

After convincing my mother to put me down as No Religion (and seeing her do it), my father later that night tried to change me to Roman Catholic (I noticed it the next morning and changed it back). And my father wouldn't even be hugely religious himself.

I agree about people putting themselves down as Roman Catholic despite being along the spectrum of a la carte Catholicism. But there's also people who were put down as something against their will.

Penn

CramCycle wrote: »

I know several also, some due to their mother, 5 due to the fact that their flatmate put them all down as Catholic when the Census lady came round as they hadn't filled it out completely, and he was the only one there and presumed that they were all Catholic.
That said, it may happen the other way where a member of the household hates the RCC and fills it out as everyone in the house is either non religious or a different religion for some reason, even if their partner is a Catholic. I don't know if it has happened but that doesn't mean it hasn't.

Exactly. It could have happened the other way too. That's the point. The Census has flaws which means it can't be used to produce exact results

smacl

Benny_Cake wrote: »

A census is always going to be a blunt instrument. Arguing over the figures misses the point - the issue to address is what those figures will be used for. If the education system needs to be reformed, then it shouldn't matter whether this country is 84% Catholic or 5% Catholic - it should be reformed anyway.

Exactly. And the Dept of Education should be gathering more precise information on what type of education the populace is looking for. One would think a web site, where you can express or change your preferences based on entering your PPS number / Passport number or whatever else would be reasonably efficient and cost effective.

The national census is simply not fit for this purpose.

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

Exactly. And the Dept of Education should be gathering more precise information on what type of education the populace is looking for. One would think a web site, where you can express or change your preferences based on entering your PPS number / Passport number or whatever else would be reasonably efficient and cost effective.

While I agree in principle, the fact of the matter is that Ireland still does not have a completely computer literate population and this form of data collection has a huge bias in it. We are excluding those without a certain set of skills or the ability to travel to a place where someone with those skills could act on their behalf, which even if they could, they may not feel comfortable being completely honest with a person, even if they are a stranger.

I Heart Internet

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Exactly. It could have happened the other way too. That's the point. The Census has flaws which means it can't be used to produce exact results

The purpose of a census is to gather as much data as possible as accurately as possible - policy makers certainly don't think of it as producing exact results. We could insist on every individual completing their own census form, but really, is this going to help? How many very elderly, sick, uninformed, stubborn, careless people would just not fill it out. How would children fill it out? The "Head of the Household" completing it all is used for a reason - it has it's own drawbacks - but I'm sure the CSO would say that the census methodology is as good as they can do. It's a balancing act between getting the data in and spending millions chasing people who can't be arsed.

I Heart Internet

smacl wrote: »

Exactly. And the Dept of Education should be gathering more precise information on what type of education the populace is looking for. One would think a web site, where you can express or change your preferences based on entering your PPS number / Passport number or whatever else would be reasonably efficient and cost effective.

Isn't this precisely what Minister Quinn introduced on a trial basis for certain "pinch-point" communities? The data is out there somewhere. Recall that there was a lot of apathy with lower than expected participation. A lot of people are just happy with the status-quo.

Regardless, the approach in these communities is to approach current patrons (in many cases the local RCC Bishop) to try and talk him into relinquishing patronage of one of the primary schools in the area. I've said it before that I think, assuming a Bishop is open to this, when push-comes-to-shove and a school community is told - "Right, St Patrick's, you'll become the Ivana Bacik Academy and anyone wishing to continue in a school with a RCC ethos can move to St. Mary's," there will be some kick-back.

Penn

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The purpose of a census is to gather as much data as possible as accurately as possible - policy makers certainly don't think of it as producing exact results. We could insist on every individual completing their own census form, but really, is this going to help? How many very elderly, sick, uninformed, stubborn, careless people would just not fill it out. How would children fill it out? The "Head of the Household" completing it all is used for a reason - it has it's own drawbacks - but I'm sure the CSO would say that the census methodology is as good as they can do. It's a balancing act between getting the data in and spending millions chasing people who can't be arsed.

Apologies, I meant the results shouldn't be considered by people to be exact, as some people in this thread have tried to claim.

I Heart Internet

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Apologies, I meant the results shouldn't be considered by people to be exact, as some people in this thread have tried to claim.

Absolutely. A census is a best shot at getting nationwide, "complete" data. Some errors on either side (+ and -) can cancel out but anyone who uses the data (should) know that it's not an exact science. It's the best that can be done (without excessive cost).

CramCycle

I Heart Internet wrote: »

"Right, St Patrick's, you'll become the Ivana Bacik Academy and anyone wishing to continue in a school with a RCC ethos can move to St. Mary's," there will be some kick-back.

Most likely positive as parents don't have to get their child christened at a young age, they can wait until the child is old enough to decide for themselves. Alleiviating the stress of an event that they may not fully believe in and in my case, if it were me, feeling ashamed that I have signed my child up to an organisation that I would be ashamed to be a member of just because no other source of education is available in the area.

............
As a join onto the OPs question, other than for historical reasons, ie it might be interesting to know looking back, is there any other reason this data is collected. Is it actually used for funding purposes? If I knew that the data collected for this question was not used for any policy making decisions or to influence party policy decisions, or give credence to undemocratic and unelected organisations when they voice their opinion, I probably would mind less.
The unfortunate point is that I think it at the very least might influence policy which makes no sense. As has been clearly shown in both this thread and the wider media, the RCC is worlds apart from the opinions of the general populace of Ireland

eyescreamcone

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Absolutely. A census is a best shot at getting nationwide, "complete" data. Some errors on either side (+ and -) can cancel out but anyone who uses the data (should) know that it's not an exact science. It's the best that can be done (without excessive cost).

There are major concers re the religion question on the census forms.

The question should be
(a) Are you a member of a religion? Yes/No
(b) if yes, tick which one (list major religions in alphabetical order)

Not "what is your religion?"
And put Roman Catholic top of the list of religions to be ticked.
And put "None" down at the end of a list of religions.
WTF!!!

The census should be unbiased in it's source for answers - however, with regard to the religion question it is not.

maguic24

Penncil Dick wrote: »

After convincing my mother to put me down as No Religion (and seeing her do it), my father later that night tried to change me to Roman Catholic (I noticed it the next morning and changed it back). And my father wouldn't even be hugely religious himself.

I agree about people putting themselves down as Roman Catholic despite being along the spectrum of a la carte Catholicism. But there's also people who were put down as something against their will.

My mam puts me down as roman catholic as well, even though I'm agnostic and have barely went to mass since I left home at 17. I still get things sent to my home address as it's constant. I work in Dublin but move around a bit and changing the address all the time is a bit awks.

I think I was a roman catholic last year according to the census, same thing happens to my bf who is an atheist, so I wouldn't trust census results.

Penn

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Only if you accept that the use of artificial contraception means that someone is no longer a Catholic, which is not a position that the Catholic Church takes. Whether they are a good Catholic or not is an entirely different question.

In fairness, the position the Catholic Church takes is that once you're baptised, you're always a Catholic regardless of what you do or believe. That's part of the problem, they don't want to lose numbers because then they have less power.

Bannasidhe

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Exactly. It could have happened the other way too. That's the point. The Census has flaws which means it can't be used to produce exact results

I already admitted I tick 'No Religion' for my mother and have been doing so since the 1980s. I also filled at least two of her census returns as Gaeilge - she hasn't a focal and never checks it so I could tick any old box I feel like. .

I also do the odd bit of genealogical research which requires me to look at census returns for various countries - errors abound.

I have seen 'Hannah' rendered as Johanna/Johannah/Hanora (Birth cert says Hannah).

Gaten as Gaton/Gattin/Gatin.

Nicknames given instead of Forename as appears on birth cert - e.g a 'Betty' whose actual name was Mary Bridget, a 'Cissie' who was really Nora (or Norah or Hanora).

Guesses made as to actual name based on nicknames - a 'Teddy' who appeared on one census as Edward and on another as Theodore but was actually named Patrick.

My great-grandfather appears to have been a Roman Catholic according to the Irish census... he converted to Anglicism but his wife disapproved of that and she filled out the form. However, on the US Federal census of 1930 he is down as Anglican - he filled that one out himself.

Not to mention the outbreak of illiteracy between the 1901 and 1911 census which I previously referred to...

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

While I agree in principle, the fact of the matter is that Ireland still does not have a completely computer literate population and this form of data collection has a huge bias in it. We are excluding those without a certain set of skills or the ability to travel to a place where someone with those skills could act on their behalf, which even if they could, they may not feel comfortable being completely honest with a person, even if they are a stranger.

True, but the strata of population which this primarily applies to, i.e. parents with children of school going age and those planning on having kids at some point in the future, tend to be predominantly computer literate at a basic level. You can always back it up with a paper form from the local post office where required.

smacl

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Isn't this precisely what Minister Quinn introduced on a trial basis for certain "pinch-point" communities? The data is out there somewhere. Recall that there was a lot of apathy with lower than expected participation. A lot of people are just happy with the status-quo.

My understanding was that there is a big demand out there for more educate together style multi-denominational schools, hence the announcement of the new ET secondary schools going forward.

Regardless, the approach in these communities is to approach current patrons (in many cases the local RCC Bishop) to try and talk him into relinquishing patronage of one of the primary schools in the area. I've said it before that I think, assuming a Bishop is open to this, when push-comes-to-shove and a school community is told - "Right, St Patrick's, you'll become the Ivana Bacik Academy and anyone wishing to continue in a school with a RCC ethos can move to St. Mary's," there will be some kick-back.

I'm at a loss to see why the Bishop should have the final say in a publicly funded primary school, unless of course that is what the local population wants. This doesn't appear to be the case, as most multi-denominational educate together primary schools are oversubscribed. It is also worth remembering that many Catholic children also already attend these schools, as their parents value the ethos and often have less than favourable memories of their own school days under the nuns or brothers.

I Heart Internet

smacl wrote: »

My understanding was that there is a big demand out there for more educate together style multi-denominational schools, hence the announcement of the new ET secondary schools going forward.

I'm sorry I can't find a link to the results but my understanding that these surveys (there was maybe 10-20 of them in areas that were perceived to be particularly problematic...e.g. large towns with e.g. 5 RCC national schools) shoawed a) a startling degree of apathy (only a minortiy actually completed them b) of those who did complete them, a reasonable (but not overwhelming) desire for change c) Of those that wanted new patrons in local schools they strongly favoured Educate Together - who would see to have done a very good job and are well regarded.

smacl wrote: »

I'm at a loss to see why the Bishop should have the final say in a publicly funded primary school, unless of course that is what the local population wants.

The bishops are typically the Patrons (a distinct legal title, not just an honorary one) of many national schools in their dioceses. They are acting as representatives of the various RCC communities (parishes) whose schools they are. That's why they are consulted and the buck stops with them.

smacl wrote: »

This doesn't appear to be the case, as most multi-denominational educate together primary schools are oversubscribed..

The fact that most of these schools are over-subscribed does not automatically indicate that RCC communities do not want to retain their RCC ethos schools. An ET school may be oversubscribed by 50 children - that does not mean that the local RCC national school with 250 children should change its ethos (even if it were a numbers game, which it is not).

smacl wrote: »

It is also worth remembering that many Catholic children also already attend these schools, as their parents value the ethos and often have less than favourable memories of their own school days under the nuns or brothers.

So you agree that ethos has a role in the running of schools? I do too. And many parents actively want to send their children to their local school with a RCC ethos.

smacl

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So you agree that ethos has a role in the running of schools? I do too. And many parents actively want to send their children to their local school with a RCC ethos.

I don't doubt that at all, and they are very well catered for in this regard. I'm not aware of many cases where parents go looking for a local school with an RCC ethos and all they can get is an ET school. Even if they did, the ET school would not discriminate against them based on their religion. The reverse is not true, and there are many discussions on here about atheist families who've felt obliged to baptise their kids just to get them into the local school.

Given the apathy you describe in your previous post, it seems apparent that very many Catholics don't have strong feeling about the ethos of the school one way or the other, which seems perfectly reasonable once the child is happy and receiving a decent education.

eyescreamcone

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So you agree that ethos has a role in the running of schools? I do too. And many parents actively want to send their children to their local school with a RCC ethos.

I don't.

The RCC use this "ethos" bullsh!t to cover up religious and sexual discrimination in schools.

The sooner we remove the RCC from schools and hospitals the better.

I Heart Internet

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I don't.

The RCC use this "ethos" bullsh!t to cover up religious and sexual discrimination in schools.

The sooner we remove the RCC from schools and hospitals the better.

That should be:

"The sooner we remove the RCC from their schools and their hospitals the better."

More accurately reflects the thrust of what you're calling for. Has been the calling-card of dictators for a long time.

smacl

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That should be:

"The sooner we remove the RCC from their schools and their hospitals the better."

More accurately reflects the thrust of what you're calling for. Has been the calling-card of dictators for a long time.

Not really true. While the RCC may own much of the property, but the state funds them to run these institutions on behalf on the citizenship.

Bannasidhe

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That should be:

"The sooner we remove the RCC from their schools and their hospitals the better."

More accurately reflects the thrust of what you're calling for. Has been the calling-card of dictators for a long time.

Oh step away from the hyperbole.

95% of Irish schools are under the control of the RCC.

Is 95% of the Irish population Roman Catholic - No it isn't.

Even if we take the highly disputed census figures as accurate we get 90% Christian - do you think Presbyterians. Methodists, Quakers want their children raised in a school with a Roman Catholic 'ethos'? No, the bloody well don't! Neither do Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Jews etc etc.

If they are THEIR schools and THEIR hospitals - let them pay for them, fund them, maintain them and not take money from ALL taxpayers while at the same time refusing to cater to those who do not share their ethos.

I think you may need to reassess what you think the word 'Dictator' means and then apologise for your inference that those who do not agree with you are akin to dictators.

I Heart Internet

smacl wrote: »

Not really true. While the RCC may own much of the property, but the state funds them to run these institutions on behalf on the citizenship.

Not your fault smacl, but this discussion is just going around in circles. There was a discussion yesterday on the "ownership" of schools. People want to pretend that catholic communities don't own catholic ethos schools (which are publicly funded). That's fine, but it simply isn't true. If the state "owned" RCC schools they would simply tell the RCC how to run them (ethos, admissions, etc) - they don't. The state funds these schools - that's huge and very important - but it's not ownership.

eyescreamcone

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That should be:

"The sooner we remove the RCC from their schools and their hospitals the better."

More accurately reflects the thrust of what you're calling for. Has been the calling-card of dictators for a long time.

No greater dictator than those in the RCC - I can't remember any priest or bishop getting many votes in a general election.


How about we start with refusing to pay primary school teachers for the time they spend doing the work of a dishonourable organisation?

Or charge the RCC by the hour for the teacher's time wasted on religious "education"?

It would probably be a waste of time invoicing them, as they still haven't paid up the money they owe for the child abuse cases.

But they mean well all the same :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Not your fault smacl, but this discussion is just going around in circles. There was a discussion yesterday on the "ownership" of schools. People want to pretend that catholic communities don't own catholic ethos schools (which are publicly funded). That's fine, but it simply isn't true. If the state "owned" RCC schools they would simply tell the RCC how to run them (ethos, admissions, etc) - they don't. The state funds these schools - that's huge and very important - but it's not ownership.

How long do you think these schools would last if State funding were withdrawn?

What happened to the State built and owned schools in every townland that came under the control of the RCC?

I Heart Internet

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh step away from the hyperbole.

95% of Irish schools are under the control of the RCC.

Is 95% of the Irish population Roman Catholic - No it isn't.

Even if we take the highly disputed census figures as accurate we get 90% Christian - do you think Presbyterians. Methodists, Quakers want their children raised in a school with a Roman Catholic 'ethos'? No, the bloody well don't! Neither do Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Jews etc etc.

To start with, 95% schools /= 95% of school places so there is not necessarily a discrepency between 95% of schools and 90% christian. That's a small point though - and indulging in the "numbers game", which I don't like.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If they are THEIR schools and THEIR hospitals - let them pay for them, fund them, maintain them and not take money from ALL taxpayers while at the same time refusing to cater to those who do not share their ethos.

I am a RCC and my taxes go to fund some things that I don't agree with. In fact, forget about religion, my taxes are used to fund stuff I just simply don't like or would do differently. We are all in the same boat there.

The state is obliged to educate all its children. It pays private schools (including RCC schools) to do this. The state educates its children by proxy. For better or for worse, that's a fact. There is a school of thought on here that says that because there is a lack of choice for some people, we must reduce choice for others to compensate, when raising the standard and choice for everyone is the answer.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think you may need to reassess what you think the word 'Dictator' means and then apologise for your inference that those who do not agree with you are akin to dictators.

That wasn't my inference, that was what you took from my statement. Dictators (Mao, Stalin, et al) have all sought to crush peoples freedom and assume state control of everything.....one size fits all education for all of the worker bees.

eyescreamcone

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That wasn't my inference, that was what you took from my statement. Dictators (Mao, Stalin, et al) have all sought to crush peoples freedom and assume state control of everything.....one size fits all education for all of the worker bees.

Ahem!
There are none so blind as those who will not see.


"No Dougal, we're not fascists...fascists dress in black and tell people what to do. Wheras priests...!!!"
Fr. T. Crilly

I Heart Internet

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Ahem!
There are none so blind as those who will not see.


"No Dougal, we're not fascists...fascists dress in black and tell people what to do. Wheras priests...!!!"
Fr. T. Crilly

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think you're trying to suggest that I believe in a one-size-fits all education, or that I believe that everyone should receive a catholic education. You couldn't be more wrong. I believe in choice for everyone when it comes to educating their children.

No one should have to send their child to a school whose ethos or practices they don't share or they disagree with (unless they actually don't mind that and want to send them anyway - again, choice). But neither should religious communities be forbidden from educating their children, as many would like to see here.