Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

AerynSun

Ah sure yiz were never dropped on yizzer heads, and yiz aren't langers.

Bannasidhe, you've done a brilliant job on summarising the political history off the RCC and its relationship with the Irish state. It is pure horrible the way the church hierarchy has set about meddling in things that it would have better left alone. Even so - I do make a distinction between the political hub of the RCC - the college of Cardinals and the Pope, and them who are involved in the politics that way over in the Vatican - and the average ordinary Catholic person who would probably have a heart attack if they knew the half of what goes on in those corridors of power.

I think this is also why people who have had a foot anywhere near the door of a leadership position in an average Catholic parish are very quick to distinguish between being 'Catholic' and being 'Roman Catholic' (and by leadership position, I mean anything from sacristan to catechism teacher to prayer group facilitator). The ones who think it's right that Rome aspires to run the world and stick crucifixes in every classroom as a symbol of Catholic power - those be the ones calling themselves 'Roman Catholic'. The ones who think all the politico crap is for the birds - they be calling themselves 'Catholic'. It's a subtle but significant difference in how people construct their religious identity.

It's interesting to see how those two 'sides' in every parish, find ways to live with (or fight with) each other on a weekly basis. From my personal observations (and it's possible I've seen a limited picture, I'm only one person!), the conservative Roman Catholics cast aspersions on other parishioners' religious credentials and try to undermine them and exclude them from teaching a more liberal catechesis, and regularly imply that unless they're 100% adherent to Rome's proclamations, they are as good as demon spawn. The more liberal Catholics usually smile politely, nod their heads and then carry on about their business and try to avoid having to deal with the critics. It's also usually the liberals that are investing enormous amounts of time, energy and personal resources in doing things in the broader community for people who are less well off. The liberals are generally disapproving of the things Rome gets up to... but the average liberal Catholic's justification for staying in the church? Sure, Rome is a long way away.

I'm sure things in Ireland have been quite different from my own experiences - I come from a land far, far away... where Rome is literally as well as figuratively a long way away. The situation in Ireland is very different as far as I can see: certainly the number of church buildings in Dublin alone is a bit of a mind blower for me. Also looking at the numbers of people who were in the priesthood and religious life - and what I've heard is that a lot of that had to do with families' ability to afford to get their sprogs married off. Sure some families would have four or five going into 'ministry'. The kinds of numbers that gave the church...is beyond what my head can get itself around, thinking of the impact that would have on a society, through its family structures being so intricately tied into the church, and then the pure manpower available to run the institutional church. I'm getting a headache just thinking about it!

Thing is... the church survives because at some level it is still meeting the spiritual needs of people who voluntarily participate in the life of their local parish. So how do we find a way to support people in their spirituality, while getting them to appreciate the damage that the formal hierarchical church structures are doing - and get them to act, in order to change the status quo?

As it is, a lot of local Catholics who really don't understand a lot of the politicking that goes on up the line, are feeling very attacked by the average angry anti-Catholic activist that they encounter at work or socially - because they don't understand that the attack isn't on them personally, or on their quest for spiritual enlightenment, but on a corrupt system that is keeping a lot of good people down.

Where to, from here?

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What we are seeing is the Vatican (that bastard off-spring of the Roman Empire) fighting to retain its last bastion in Western Europe and is getting the Irish people to pay for the 'privilege'

Accomplished PR buff as Franky is, I think we're seeing a dying beast in its final throes as goes the Vatican's hold over Europe. Ireland's most important export market is the UK, and England most definitely sees Ireland as a potential ally against an ever more federal Europe. I reckon that local politicians on both sides of the water have had their fill of the men in skirts, and the RCs success at tying Catholicism to an outdated notion of nationalism may well come back to haunt them. Maybe a visit by Franky in the popemobile mk II could buoy things up briefly, but given that Irish people have by and large stopped taking vocations in recent decades suggests to me that it is a done deal. Catholic Ireland might survive in the CSO for a few more years, but the reality has moved on.

Brown Bomber

AerynSun wrote: »

I can tell you it's not idle speculation - those are sound points. I have over a decade of pastoral experience in a Catholic context, and robin's list of reasons is a fair reflection of what I've encountered 'on the ground'. The only trouble for me, is that because so much of people's faith experience is subjective it needs well thought out qualitative criteria to measure: and I don't know that I've seen that done effectively and credibly by any one survey. Still: the variety of surveys that are out there, do give complementary bits of information that contribute useful insights into a conversation about faith and religious identity, and how people make meaning of their beliefs and belonging in a faith community.

I don't doubt your sincerity but this is just anecdotal and is dubious at best.

There is no getting around the fact that a census is far more accurate than any number of sample surveys.

Brown Bomber

AerynSun wrote: »

So what do we do about the ones who understand the theology of transubstantiation and agree wholeheartedly... but have serious objections to other parts of Catholic doctrine? Let's say they understand all of the dogma and doctrine, for having had sound theological and ecclesial education - but just don't agree with some aspects of the teaching, and have no 'voice' in the formal processes and structures who decide what the accepted teachings are. Are THOSE people still Catholic? Or have they excommunicated themselves by being critical thinkers?

These people are as free as all other citizens to self-identify as whatever they consider themselves in the census.

AerynSun

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no getting around the fact that a census is far more accurate than any number of sample surveys.

Neither do I doubt your sincerity. However, it seems to me that you either haven't read, or haven't understood the many points that have been raised on this thread in relation to the census and the veracity of the data contained therein.

Not much point in me re-stating arguments that have already been outlined previously: if you don't want to engage with the points on their own merit, that's okay and that's your choice. But your insistence that the census data is the most accurate measurement of Christianity in Ireland is, in my point of view, an untenable position.

Brown Bomber

AerynSun wrote: »

Neither do I doubt your sincerity. However, it seems to me that you either haven't read, or haven't understood the many points that have been raised on this thread in relation to the census and the veracity of the data contained therein.

Not much point in me re-stating arguments that have already been outlined previously: if you don't want to engage with the points on their own merit, that's okay and that's your choice. But your insistence that the census data is the most accurate measurement of Christianity in Ireland is, in my point of view, an untenable position.

Thank you.

If it's untenable then you should be able to argue against the census with more than anecdotal evidence and sample surveys involving a fraction-of-a-fraction of the entire population.

(i) We don't even know how those involved in the sample surveys answered the census.
(ii) Any man or woman who is baptised maintains the right to self-identify with the religion of their choice even if they are ignorant of it's teachings or behave in a manner contradictory to these teachings.

Do you think that a gay man or woman has no right to consider themselves Catholic?

AerynSun

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If it's untenable then you should be able to argue against the census with more than ...

And there is the issue in a nutshell: you're insisting on a purely quantitative analysis when posters on this thread have done a good job of explaining the qualitative complexities involved in gathering, interpreting and presenting data.

Do you think that a gay man or woman has no right to consider themselves Catholic?

I know a good number of LGBTQ people who self-identify as Catholic, and participate in as many sacraments as they are able to access. Sad reality is that a lot of hetero Catholics aren't very accepting or welcoming, and it takes a rare, brave soul to be openly gay in the average Catholic parish. It takes even braver souls to be openly gay and in a relationship in the average Catholic parish.

lazybones32

What control do you think the Vatican has had - that it failed to exert - over European Affairs in the last 100 years? If the smallest State in the World was any bit as powerful as you suggest, surely it would have taken a more assertive role during the Two World Wars that were fought on European soil and the countless social revolutions that have occurred since?
The Republic has less than 4.5 million people: that's under 1% of the population of the E.U. and less than 0.015% of World population.... I think you overestimate the importance the RCC officially pays to Ireland.

lazybones32

smacl wrote: »

Accomplished PR buff as Franky is, I think we're seeing a dying beast in its final throes as goes the Vatican's hold over Europe. Ireland's most important export market is the UK, and England most definitely sees Ireland as a potential ally against an ever more federal Europe. I reckon that local politicians on both sides of the water have had their fill of the men in skirts, and the RCs success at tying Catholicism to an outdated notion of nationalism may well come back to haunt them. Maybe a visit by Franky in the popemobile mk II could buoy things up briefly, but given that Irish people have by and large stopped taking vocations in recent decades suggests to me that it is a done deal. Catholic Ireland might survive in the CSO for a few more years, but the reality has moved on.

What control do you think the Vatican has had - that it failed to exert - over European Affairs in the last 100 years? If the smallest State in the World was any bit as powerful as you suggest, surely it would have taken a more assertive role during the Two World Wars that were fought on European soil and the countless social revolutions that have occurred since?
The Republic has less than 4.5 million people: that's under 1% of the population of the E.U. and less than 0.015% of World population.... I think you overestimate the importance the RCC officially pays to Ireland.

Brown Bomber

AerynSun wrote: »

And there is the issue in a nutshell: you're insisting on a purely quantitative analysis when posters on this thread have done a good job of explaining the qualitative complexities involved in gathering, interpreting and presenting data.

Complexities?
There are no complexities. You ask every single person in the country to tell you their religious affiliation (if any), allow them to answer freely and then count up the results.

Nothing could be simpler.

AerynSun wrote: »

I know a good number of LGBTQ people who self-identify as Catholic, and participate in as many sacraments as they are able to access. Sad reality is that a lot of hetero Catholics aren't very accepting or welcoming, and it takes a rare, brave soul to be openly gay in the average Catholic parish. It takes even braver souls to be openly gay and in a relationship in the average Catholic parish.

Right, but the point is should these gay peoples selection of Catholics in the census be disregarded? I am arguing that they are just as Catholic as anyone else that considers themselves Catholics.

If you think so too of what relevance is it that X amount of Catholics are in favour of gay marriage?

Pherekydes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Complexities?
There are no complexities. You ask every single person in the country to tell you their religious affiliation (if any), allow them to answer freely and then count up the results.

How many children do you think selected their own religion (or lack of) on the census form?

Brown Bomber

Pherekydes wrote: »

How many children do you think selected their own religion (or lack of) on the census form?

How would you expect me to answer that? And what would be the point of speculating?

Pherekydes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How would you expect me to answer that? And what would be the point of speculating?

There are no complexities, remember?

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't doubt your sincerity but this is just anecdotal and is dubious at best.

There is no getting around the fact that a census is far more accurate than any number of sample surveys.

You're a living marvel of confirmation bias.

If we lived in a country that had sent a letter of homage and fealty to the international vegetarian society, had schools and hospital run by the vegetarians, people felt massive social pressure to have vegetarian weddings and christenings, and the vegetarians generally pumping out ludicrous propaganda utterly unchecked by any other outlet, you'd doubtless likewise dismiss surveys in which large numbers of people reported "yeah, I had a Big Mac last week, but of course I'm still a Cultural Vegetarian" as similar "inaccuracies".

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're a living marvel of confirmation bias.

If we lived in a country that had sent a letter of homage and fealty to the international vegetarian society, had schools and hospital run by the vegetarians, people felt massive social pressure to have vegetarian weddings and christenings, and the vegetarians generally pumping out ludicrous propaganda utterly unchecked by any other outlet, you'd doubtless likewise dismiss surveys in which large numbers of people reported "yeah, I had a Big Mac last week, but of course I'm still a Cultural Vegetarian" as similar "inaccuracies".

Yeah...Terrific...

Do you dispute anything that you actually responded to? Specifically:

• Anecdotal evidence is dubious at best.
• a census is far more accurate than any number of sample surveys.

COYW

As others have correctly pointed out, the census provides us with the answer to this question. It showed that well over 90% of the population is Christian.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you dispute anything that you actually responded to?

Did you actually read any of the replies to your earlier "the census is 100% accurate"-type comments?

Can't say there's much point in anybody replying to this, as it's been answered before and the replies were entirely ignored.

Days 298

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I more or less agree with you but let's be honest your "compromise" is non-existent. You aren't prepared to offer the sizable majority of Christians anything at all beyond no anti-clericalism. You just insist you are right and they are wrong

What is the compromise of fundamentalist Christians? They have fought/moaned against all change that makes the country. I insist equal treatment of all citizens of the Republic of Ireland should be treated equal and not feel out of place. Do you not see whats wrong when for you to feel your culture is included in the Government, others Muslims, Atheists, Jews are excluded.

Is the compromise of Christians to allow non-Christians and atheists to exist and live in their utopia. What is their compromise.

From my point of view. All religion in the state is wrong. Why? Im atheist! You clearly view Christianity as the truth. And have no problem with its display and advertisement by the state. My compromise and it isnt much to ask, keep religion out of Government.

I dont care if Christians make up 9% or 99.9%. The constitution and the belief of the youth and younger generations is that the state should not endow a religion. The pews are not filled with young people no matter what the stats say. They are voting with their feet whether they feel the church is a core influence in the modern Irish persons life.

I want to be treated and feel equal and included in state bodies and speeches. Thats not much to ask for. I applaud the president for not caving to conservative pressure. Does it matter if my "group" is a minority?

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Did you actually read any of the replies to your earlier "the census is 100% accurate"-type comments?

Can't say there's much point in anybody replying to this, as it's been answered before and the replies were entirely ignored.

They weren't ignored. You listed I think 5 issues that you said made the census wrong. I asked you to take each claim of yours one by one, tell me what the actual effect is to the totals and to support your claims with scientific evidence.

I am still waiting.

Brown Bomber

Days 298 wrote: »

What is the compromise of fundamentalist Christians? They have fought/moaned against all change that makes the country. I insist equal treatment of all citizens of the Republic of Ireland should be treated equal and not feel out of place. Do you not see whats wrong when for you to feel your culture is included in the Government, others Muslims, Atheists, Jews are excluded.

Is the compromise of Christians to allow non-Christians and atheists to exist and live in their utopia. What is their compromise.

From my point of view. All religion in the state is wrong. Why? Im atheist! You clearly view Christianity as the truth. And have no problem with its display and advertisement by the state. My compromise and it isnt much to ask, keep religion out of Government.

I dont care if Christians make up 9% or 99.9%. The constitution and the belief of the youth and younger generations is that the state should not endow a religion. The pews are not filled with young people no matter what the stats say. They are voting with their feet whether they feel the church is a core influence in the modern Irish persons life.

I want to be treated and feel equal and included in state bodies and speeches. Thats not much to ask for. I applaud the president for not caving to conservative pressure. Does it matter if my "group" is a minority?

I never said fundamentalist Christians are prepared to compromise. It is a zero-sum game for them with winners and losers and it is apparently is for you too. You won't bend at all from the standard secular ideal. So again, does your John Stewart quote also apply to you? Do you also want "everything your own way"?

Days 298

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I never said fundamentalist Christians are prepared to compromise. It is a zero-sum game for them with winners and losers and it is apparently is for you too. You won't bend at all from the standard secular ideal. So again, does your John Stewart quote also apply to you? Do you also want "everything your own way"?

No I want to be treated equal and that's exactly what the president did. Am I be greedy and selfish to ask for equal treatment? In what way should I bend exactly? Allow myself to be excluded. In what way has the Catholic lobby bended ever?

Lucy8080

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're a living marvel of confirmation bias.

If we lived in a country that had sent a letter of homage and fealty to the international vegetarian society, had schools and hospital run by the vegetarians, people felt massive social pressure to have vegetarian weddings and christenings, and the vegetarians generally pumping out ludicrous propaganda utterly unchecked by any other outlet, you'd doubtless likewise dismiss surveys in which large numbers of people reported "yeah, I had a Big Mac last week, but of course I'm still a Cultural Vegetarian" as similar "inaccuracies".

I think that most Atheists would blush at the above argument.

alaimacerc

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I think that most Atheists would blush at the above argument.

Whereas you're quite happy with Brown Bomber's "la-la-lah, surveys on belief in the population are all wrong because they contradict my prejudices"? Because that's what it's rebutting. (I'm sensing you need pointers as to the course of the debate, given the lack of any actual counter-argument.)

alaimacerc

Days 298 wrote: »

No I want to be treated equal and that's exactly what the president did. Am I be greedy and selfish to ask for equal treatment? In what way should I bend exactly? Allow myself to be excluded. In what way has the Catholic lobby bended ever?

As I said earlier, BB's "argument" is that in an amazingly liberal and generous move, the supposed monoculture has already moved from 100% theocracy. Likely moved too far, given his "the country is still solidly 90% faithfully Catholic" flights of fantasy. Whereas obviously a liberal secular democracy would be "atheist tyranny", hence something has to be conceded from that as an objective in the interests of "moderation". Obviously for this "negotiation" to work as advertised, we need to get some agents provocateur to suggest banning religious practice and instituting state-sponsored atheism.

Essentially it's the same attempt to make the "paradox of liberalism" a rhetorical judo move. Compare with the RCC trying to turn discriminating against women and gays into an issue of the "human rights" of those discriminating, the way that likes of McDowell try to cover moving from a "socially liberal" political party to an embryonic rampantly socially reactionary one, by mumbling "freedom of conscience", and so on.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They weren't ignored. You listed I think 5 issues that you said made the census wrong. I asked you to take each claim of yours one by one, tell me what the actual effect is to the totals and to support your claims with scientific evidence.

I am still waiting.

i.e., you played entry-level deflection and burden-of-proof games. Bush league stuff.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They weren't ignored.

I am still waiting.

alaimacerc

COYW wrote: »

As others have correctly pointed out, the census provides us with the answer to this question. It showed that well over 90% of the population is Christian.

Provided your criterion for "is Christian" consists entirely of "can be cajoled into ticked a particular box on the form". If it were as simple as that, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time, trouble, and firewood in the Reformation and Wars of Religion, no? Neatly detached in its entirety from such minutiae as "practice", "belief", and so on.

expectationlost

isn't it the case that everybody has to be there, ie in the house, when your filling in the census

wench

expectationlost wrote: »

isn't it the case that everybody has to be there, ie in the house, when your filling in the census

No, the main householder can fill it in for everyone.
They are the one signing the bottom of it, and swearing it's accuracy.

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

Whereas you're quite happy with Brown Bomber's "la-la-lah, surveys on belief in the population are all wrong because they contradict my prejudices"? Because that's what it's rebutting. (I'm sensing you need pointers as to the course of the debate, given the lack of any actual counter-argument.)

A) What "prejudices" are you referring to?
You are merely "rebutting" a strawman that you have created.

I never said the surveys are "wrong". I said that they are are flawed in that they only get the opinions of a fraction-of-a-fraction of the population which is then made to represent the whole. A census by definition has no such error, it is the ultimate survey. It is self-evident that a sample survey can never supercede or contradict a census - now matter how much you wish it to be true.