Census 2016

Mark Hamill

server down wrote: »

1 - despite the claimed oppression here most of these schools have no religious teachers and as much religious teaching as is mandated by law. Basically they are academic.

"Most of these schools have no religious teachers" means some do. "As much religious teaching as is mandated by law" is more than no religious teaching at all. If they are functionally academic then why not just go the full hog and make them completely academic? If it suits the church to have the systems as it is then you can be damn sure they are getting something out of it.

server down wrote: »

2 - the church losing power or ownership may mean that the local authorities merge schools losing whatever academic ethos was there and creating the comprehensive model. The British model sucks.

The ethos of a church run school is a religious one not an academic one, loosing that ethos wont change the academic nature of the school as the academic nature of the school is mandated by the department of education anyway (they set the curriculum).

Replace church run with Coca-Cola run. Imagine we have a school system where most of teachers don't like really coke and they only teach the minimum amount of coke approved propaganda each day? Is that good enough for you? For anyone?

realdanbreen

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The survey Hotblack is talking about was of Catholic parents, so what are you talking about?

Pretty simple really, that almost 50% of atheists did not know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic! Never mind that the fact that 80% of atheists(that's assuming they know what they are supposed to be!) attend church several times a year for funerals, weddings, christenings etc!

Mark Hamill

realdanbreen wrote: »

Pretty simple really, that almost 50% of atheists did not know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic! Never mind that the fact that 80% of atheists(that's assuming they know what they are supposed to be!) attend church several times a year for funerals, weddings, christenings etc!

What survey are you talking about? Hotblacks was specifically of self-proclaimed catholic parents. Do you have a link for the survey you are talking about?

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

PNever mind that the fact that 80% of atheists(that's assuming they know what they are supposed to be!) attend church several times a year for funerals, weddings, christenings etc!

Thanks for ignoring me when I asked this question already today, but to repeat it..... what exactly is the issue (in your mind at least) with atheists attending such ceremonies. Do you even know?

smacl

realdanbreen wrote: »

Never mind that the fact that 80% of atheists(that's assuming they know what they are supposed to be!) attend church several times a year for funerals, weddings, christenings etc!

So about as often as most Catholics these days then? :pac:

Maybe we should be re-purposing these buildings to house the homeless.

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thanks for ignoring me when I asked this question already today, but to repeat it..... what exactly is the issue (in your mind at least) with atheists attending such ceremonies. Do you even know?

Been through all that with you before nozzie but as usual you pretended not to grasp what I said and went off on one talking in riddles in a 10" post.

looksee

Mod: realdanbreen you are not offering anything useful to the discussion, do not post in this thread again. Continuation of your posting style - trolling one-liners - in other threads in this forum will lead to a holiday from the forum.

nozzferrahhtoo

So to summarize the above non exchange there IS no issue with atheists attending such ceremonies.

Nothing about atheist precludes anyone from being culturally involved with a given religion. Attending ceremonies, especially when doing so as a mark of respect to friends and family who ARE part of said religion, is something many atheists entirely can and often do.

I am not sure what definition of "atheism" means you are only a "so called" atheist if you attend a wedding or some such.... but it certainly is not one of the definitions of it I have so far encountered.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So to summarize the above non exchange there IS no issue with atheists attending such ceremonies.

Nothing about atheist precludes anyone from being culturally involved with a given religion. Attending ceremonies, especially when doing so as a mark of respect to friends and family who ARE part of said religion, is something many atheists entirely can and often do.

I am not sure what definition of "atheism" means you are only a "so called" atheist if you attend a wedding or some such.... but it certainly is not one of the definitions of it I have so far encountered.

It seems an odd one. By this logic, a Catholic who attends a wedding in a Protestant church would be a "so called" Catholic.

spacecoyote

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So to summarize the above non exchange there IS no issue with atheists attending such ceremonies.

Nothing about atheist precludes anyone from being culturally involved with a given religion. Attending ceremonies, especially when doing so as a mark of respect to friends and family who ARE part of said religion, is something many atheists entirely can and often do.

I am not sure what definition of "atheism" means you are only a "so called" atheist if you attend a wedding or some such.... but it certainly is not one of the definitions of it I have so far encountered.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. I'm very much an atheist, and all of my family are fully aware of my standing.

But I go to an anniversary mass for my wife's grandfather every year, out of respect for her & her family. I don't say the prayers, or take communion, etc... but I am present in the church.

I'm also Godfather to a niece & a nephew. Again, my family didn't ask me with expectation that I'd give some religious education or upbringing to them. They asked me because they know that I love their children & that I'd care for them at the drop of a hat, if needed.

I don't see any contradiction in this. I think what I'm doing is morally correct & kind, but not from any sort of Christian perspective

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course a census asking what religion people identify with does not tell us ANYTHING about whether they want "the church to have any involvement in running state funded institutions such as schools and hospitals". THAT would be an assumption without basis.

Even if 100% of the population marked that they identify as catholic on the census, that does not mean even ONE person wants the church to have said influence.

I read your post this morning, and I still can't figure out what your point is, as nothing in your post either addresses or contradicts anything in the post you quoted? I can only put it down to this -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are great arguments there too. I like to think, of course, that I present some of them myself.

The baiting was expected, the hubris on the other hand was on a level I've rarely ever witnessed, reminiscent of the claim by a poster here before that if aliens came to earth they would shoot all people who are religious dead. Well of course they would, given the poster invented them, much like the way you imagine your own arguments to be like mana from Heaven.

I suppose the idea of alien genocide that would quicken the elimination of people who are religious appeals to some people, would certainly be an expedient way of taking care of the inconvenient demographic of OAPs and over-55's -

seamus wrote: »

The figures are unspinnable. Catholicism saw an actual, real decline of 28,000 followers per year over the period. Coincidentally there are about 30,000 deaths in Ireland per year, of which 90% are over 55 :pac:

And yet that appears to be exactly what you've done. What is apparent however is the fact that some anti-theists attitudes and their ideas for society really aren't all that different from the people whom they are opposed to and one day hope to subsume within their own ideology. In order for that to happen though, it requires socialists gaining power in Government. We'll all be long dead before there's even a snowflakes chance in hell of that happening.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The assumption that the only part of the population who want the church involved in the running of schools must be either OAPs or people who will never have children.

I never made any such assumption. But you must admit that the pro-RCC demographic's average age is heading towards pensioner.

Because education is provided for by the state, is the obvious answer to that one, the church is providing a service to the state

Actually the state is providing a service to 'the church'. Paying it to provide 'education' and supplying it with a ready supply of malleable young children.

That means that every citizen over the age of 18, whether they're a parent themselves or not, has a say in influencing how our education system is run. You personally aren't obliged to give two sh for their opinion, but the Government does.

Really? When was that referendum which permitted the RCC to take over almost the entirety of the state-funded primary education system?

I was referring to the number of people who didn't even have to turn up on a particular day to voice their discontent, they simply signed an online petition, and after checking, the final figure was just over 103,000, still only a small percentage of the adult population of Ireland. That's the number of people who actually went to the bother of actively registering their discontent online. I doubt all of them were parents either or given that it was a maternity hospital, would ever be pregnant themselves, so their opinion should be discounted... and that's using your logic.

You really need to be a lot clearer about what you're talking about.

I wouldn't try to use an online petition as an indicator one way or the other of actual public opinion, you probably shouldn't either.

Human rights are not subject to the approval of a majority. I shall return to this theme in later posts.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

as someone who doesn't have kids, and has no plans to, i definitely do have a say in how this country is run, and that includes how the education system is run; i would resent any suggestion that it's none of my business.

If you're not a parent it really is none of your business.

I'm not a pregnant person in crisis pregnancy, should I be able to dictate the fate of those who are?

Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others. It's piss-weak at defending the rights of minorities - by definition, it's majority rule - this is why the UN declaration of human rights exists and why the European Charter of Human Rights exists.

We really shouldn't have needed vast numbers of heterosexuals to vote to give homosexuals equal legal rights. It should have been a given.

We really shouldn't be asking a majority of the electorate whether pregnant people can have bodliy autonomy. It should be a given.

We really shouldn't be asking the parents in this country, never mind non-parents, whether the children of non-catholic parents in Ireland should be equally respected pre- and post- admission to our schools. It should be a given.

Hotblack Desiato

server down wrote: »

Strange post. If you clicked catholic as an atheist (and apparently a fairly militant one) are you not part of the problem?

And of course OAPs and people without children get a vote.

Read my post again, carefully. I have never ticked catholic, although according to the CSO I'm perfectly entitled to do so as I was brought up as one.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm not a pregnant person in crisis pregnancy, should I be able to dictate the fate of those who are?

Yes! As a father of two teenage girls I am strongly and vocally pro-choice. Even if I didn't have kids I would be pro-choice. I give money to the Simon community even though I'm a home owner. We all strive to make society better in whatever small ways we can. While effort we go to varies by degrees of separation we have from the individual or group involved, it is still very much there. The OAP with the rosary beads and the morality we consider medieval still gets to vote according to what they believe is right for our society. The alternative is anarchy, which is fine and dandy but you might find you get strong disagreement even in small groups of seemingly like minded people.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

looksee

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If they want to data-mine they have the whole census to work on. It is not unreasonable for proposals to be identifiable as being from people living in Ireland.

wench

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Easily avoided by submitting by email or post instead of the online form.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

The alternative is anarchy, which is fine and dandy but you might find you get strong disagreement even in small groups of seemingly like minded people.

No, the alternative to our crude, majoritarian, outdated 'catholic constitution for a catholic people' is a human rights-based approach.

Minorities should not have to plead with the majority to give them their rights.

magicbastarder

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you're not a parent it really is none of your business.

i am not allowed care about a basic state function - education - in our country if i am not a parent?
wow.

i have three nephews and two nieces. i have multiple good friends with kids. i am damn well going to stick my oar in - where appropriate - in regards to a secular education being available to them.
you talk about democracy being the worst form of government apart from all others. one of those others is where you can only have a say in things which are in your naked self interest.

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah but you shouldn't have the ability to take other people's rights away, even with a democratic majority behind you.

What if de Valera had gone the whole hog and made catholicism the state religion in his constitution proposal? The public at the time probably would have voted for it. Didn't make it right.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I read your post this morning, and I still can't figure out what your point is, as nothing in your post either addresses or contradicts anything in the post you quoted?

Does it have to every time? Sometimes the post of another user can just be a spring board to someone making another point.

What was being discussed in general was the number of people identifying as catholic on the census. Also being discussed was the number of people who want "the church to have any involvement in running state funded institutions such as schools and hospitals".

And I think it was just useful at that juncture to point out that nothing about either number can be assumed from the other.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can only put it down to this -

I have absolutely no idea why you want to drag a post from a completely different topic and thread and launch into an unwarranted, and misrepresentation, personal attack. It is petty, uncalled for, unwarranted, and useless however. Nor have you shown anything actually FALSE in the statement you just quoted from me. The statement as it stands is entirely accurate.

I would personally suggest you stick to the topic of THIS thread, and if you have something to say to me on THAT thread I am all ears for you there.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What was being discussed in general was the number of people identifying as catholic on the census. Also being discussed was the number of people who want "the church to have any involvement in running state funded institutions such as schools and hospitals".

And I think it was just useful at that juncture to point out that nothing about either number can be assumed from the other.

Agreed. For example, it would certainly appear that the majority (73%) of Christian posters on the Christianity forum would rather the church had no influence in running of state institutions such as schools or hospitals. Link. While its a small straw poll on an admittedly eclectic community it does illustrate that just because someone self identifies as religious in now way implies they favour religious involvement in running of schools and hospitals.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah but you shouldn't have the ability to take other people's rights away, even with a democratic majority behind you.

The thing is though that the countries who build human rights institutions and have the best human rights records tend to be democracies. The only other forms of government that protect minorities are those where that minority holds power.

recedite

yeppydeppy wrote: »

I've just emailed information@cso.ie the following:
Dear Sir / Madam,

I've just realised there is to be a census next year.
In the last census the religions were listed:


This, I would suggest generates false information as a lot of people who are filling it out will tick the Roman Catholic option as it is listed first and to them it's like choosing a default option.
Plus option 7. No religion is listed below 6. Other with the spaces to fill in another religion, most people won't even see option 7.

Looks like the "no religion" option is to be trialed in a new position at the top of the page..

CSO wrote:

Agreement to test the two new variants of the religion question in the Pilot, with the ‘No religion’ option placed at
the top of the category list in Form A and the inclusion of “if any” in the wording of the question..

.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.