Census 2016 - Time to tick NO

Hotblack Desiato

RealJohn wrote: »

Sorry to break it to you but if they identify as 'cultural Catholic' then they're perfectly correct to tick the Catholic box.

I never said otherwise.

And, assuming they haven't replaced Catholicism with a different religion, why would an 'ex-Catholic' tick anything other than 'no religion'?

I would agree, but we have reason to believe that many ex-catholics are in fact ticking the catholic box.

Choochtown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not the person trying to come up with any explanation as to why anyone filled out any of the questions inaccurately. The simplest explanation is that they did fill all the questions in accurately, including the question about religion. That's the reason for the percentage being as high as it is.

Of course it was filled out inaccurately.

The Census results had less than 6% identifying as "no religion" leaving 94% who have a religion if you believe that the question was answered accurately.

And yet in a Gallup poll in Ireland in the same year (2011) only 47% described themselves as religious!!!

Those figures are so far apart as to leave no doubt that there is a serious problem with how that question is asked.

Not to mention the people that filled in "Atheist" where they had to write in their religion. It's a bit like filling in "bacon" for a question asking your favourite vegetable!

meeeeh

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who is telling them they are not?

However those whose identity is cultural Catholic or ex-Catholic owe it to themselves and the rest of society to reflect on this question. It has serious implications for a so-called republic which still expects everyone to have a religion (oaths, etc) and still allows religions to run state-funded services and discriminate in the delivery of state-funded services.

But that is wrong. If you have proper separation of state and religion, it should matter f all what you tick under religion. And more importantly it would be wrong to think people are answering who they prefer to run their schools or what ever else when they write down their religion. It is wrong for catholic interest groups to use the statistic but so would be wrong to pressurize people to pick something they are not comfortable with either just because you don't like the influence catholic church has.

If you want to know what school system people want then start the discussion about school systems. (BTW I have some catholic friends where I come from who would be absolutely horrified if non denominational non patronage schools would suddenly go under catholic or any other patronage.) If someone declares themselves as catholic they are not also stating what kind of oath they want to make or the type of education they want. And I as non religious person don't want any patronage and that includes educate together or any other secular patronage. It just helps to segregate kids. I certainly wouldn't want my no religion answer be understood as a thumbs up to continuation of patronage system just more diverse one.

One eyed Jack

Choochtown wrote: »

Of course it was filled out inaccurately.

The Census results had less than 6% identifying as "no religion" leaving 94% who have a religion if you believe that the question was answered accurately.

And yet in a Gallup poll in Ireland in the same year (2011) only 47% described themselves as religious!!!

Those figures are so far apart as to leave no doubt that there is a serious problem with how that question is asked.

Not to mention the people that filled in "Atheist" where they had to write in their religion. It's a bit like filling in "bacon" for a question asking your favourite vegetable!

There's one thing I've learned about people - they're often far more inconsistent than they are consistent, so I would believe that they answered the relevant questions truthfully and to the best of their knowledge in both the Census, and the Gallup poll!

The figures are so far apart as to leave no doubt that the only truth is that people are inconsistent. If you've ever conducted people surveys, I believe everyone should conduct a people survey at least once in their lives to see just how inconsistent while wanting to be truthful people actually are. It's frightening, but funny at the same time (or maybe that's just me).

If a person filled in Atheist where they had to write in their religion, then I wouldn't have much faith in their ability to answer the question any more accurately this time around either. Certainly I'm allowing for a margin of error and possibly misunderstanding the intent of the question, but anything coming close to a 47% margin of error would be the stuff of fantasy tbh.

Hotblack Desiato

meeeeh wrote: »

But that is wrong. If you have proper separation of state and religion, it should matter f all what you tick under religion.

I agree. But unfortunately we are still very far away from a proper separation of churches and state in Ireland. So for the time being, the answers to this question do actually matter.

And more importantly it would be wrong to think people are answering who they prefer to run their schools or what ever else when they write down their religion. It is wrong for catholic interest groups to use the statistic but so would be wrong to pressurize people to pick something they are not comfortable with either just because you don't like the influence catholic church has.

I'm not asking anyone to pick anything they're not comfortable with, but not to lazily tick the default answer out of habit either.

It's absolutely not a question about how we want our schools to be run, but, unfortunately, that is one of the interpretations placed upon it by people in power who should know better.

And I as non religious person don't want any patronage and that includes educate together or any other secular patronage. It just helps to segregate kids. I certainly wouldn't want my no religion answer be understood as a thumbs up to continuation of patronage system just more diverse one.

The last thing I want is further balkanisation of our already balkanised school system. All schools funded by the state should be inclusive not segregated on the grounds of gender and religion.

RealJohn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I would agree, but we have reason to believe that many ex-catholics are in fact ticking the catholic box.

No, you're choosing to believe that. If they really are ex-Catholics, why would they tick Catholic, unless it's how they actually want to be identified?

RealJohn

Choochtown wrote: »

Not to mention the people that filled in "Atheist" where they had to write in their religion. It's a bit like filling in "bacon" for a question asking your favourite vegetable!

Not really. If everyone who filled in 'atheist' meant to say 'no religion', why didn't they say 'no religion'?
Also, depending on how they define atheist, it might be a religious position. If their position is that they simply don't believe in God/a god/multiples gods then that wouldn't not be a religious position but if they believe that no God exists then it would be so it would not be the same as 'no religion'.

meeeeh

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The last thing I want is further balkanisation of our already balkanised school system. All schools funded by the state should be inclusive not segregated on the grounds of gender and religion.

What does balkanisation mean?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

meeeeh

Right so.

feargale

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I never said otherwise.



I would agree, but we have reason to believe that many ex-catholics are in fact ticking the catholic box.

Send them to the bog for re-education like Mao used to do except we have no rice paddies in Ireland. Then they'll know better than to misidentify themselves in future. " You are fot vee say you are, YAW!"

Hotblack Desiato

So you're not interested in a serious discussion then.

Absolam

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which questions are and aren't compulsory? The Act says

"36.—Any person who fails or refuses to provide any requested information in response to a direction from the Director General under section 26 or 27 of this Act pursuant to a requirement made under section 25 of this Act shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 26 being:
"26.—(1) The Director General or an officer of statistics may, pursuant to a requirement made under section 25 of this Act, direct by the delivery of a notice any person—
(a) to complete and return a form, questionnaire or other record in accordance with any instructions contained therein or otherwise communicated to him,"

There don't seem to be any instructions in the questionnaire itself that indicate that any section may not be filled in if the person doesn't wish to do so (ie non compulsory sections); only sections that need not be filled in depending on specific conditions. In fact, the instructions for the religion question specifically say "Everyone should answer this question, whether or not they have a religion.". The NALA step by step guide does not offer any advice that the question is optional either.

Were there separate instructions for enumerators that contradicted the above documents?

Absolam

nomdeboardie wrote: »

I think they probably only prosecute for complete refusal, which would be consistant with the small number nabbed - nothing like the number who appear in the stats as not answering individual questions.
+ This post from last time suggests only a small number of Qs are compulsory.

Does that mean you'll feel compelled to complete the questionnaire if you think you're likely to be prosecuted for not doing it, or you'll feel compelled if you come to the understanding that you are obliged by the legislation, even if you're not likely to be prosecuted? Apocryphally, only 6 people were prosecuted for not filling in the Census in 2011, and 20 in 2006, so if the threat of prosecution is all that's compelling you, the odds seem pretty low?

Dick phelan

What annoys me is not that people tick the box stating they are RC, they may not go to mass or whatever but that doesn't mean they don't consider themselves RC and tbh a campaign to get people to tick a certain box is stupid, people aren't so thick that they won't tick the box they want, If people identify as atheist they will tick that box a campaign is a waste of time. Regardless my issue and the campaign that needs to be started is to stop these stats being used to justify Church involvement in state matters, just because someone ticks the box RC shouldn't be used to suggest those people want Catholic schools or whatever. If you want to use find out what kind of schools people want ask that question not a blanket question about what they identify as and using it to have a say in a range of issues.

feargale

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you're not interested in a serious discussion then.

Post 377 should give you an indication of what I'm prepared to take seriously.

Absolam

Dick phelan wrote: »

Regardless my issue and the campaign that needs to be started is to stop these stats being used to justify Church involvement in state matters, just because someone ticks the box RC shouldn't be used to suggest those people want Catholic schools or whatever. If you want to use find out what kind of schools people want ask that question not a blanket question about what they identify as and using it to have a say in a range of issues.

Do we need a campaign? No one has actually shown when these stats are used to justify Church involvement in state matters, or what the involvement would be.
And oddly enough, when the DoE wants to find out what kind of schools people want they do ask that question via the patronage assessment process, where patrons have to demonstrate to the DoE what support they have for the kind of school they're proposing. In fact, there's nothing in the documentation (that I've seen) to suggest the DoE relies on Census information about religion at all; it seems to rely on Census information for age demographics to determine potential demand for new schools generally, not new schools of a particular religious persuasion.

Cabaal

robp wrote: »

Being offered a religious service is a million miles away having it forced upon ones self. Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion or exposure to any other idea one dislikes.

Last time I went for an operation they decided to automatically put me down as Catholic without even asking me, religious is very often forced onto people.

ezra_pound

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, she puts it in a controversial way, I think it's fair to say.

When she writes of the belief that "little wafers turn into flesh when a preist does a magic spell on them", she must be aware that most Catholics, and the Catholic church, would indignantly deny that they believe that; they would see what she writes as a pejorative parody of Catholic belief. And if she implies, as you suggest, that only those who believe the pejorative parodic version are real Catholics, and the rest should "re-evaluate", then I think the forseeable outcome is that her line of argument is unlikely to win over many self-identifying Catholics.

I think the starting-point here is the fairly well-established reality that people can sustain relatively low-levels of religious practice, and vague or qualified embrace of religious teaching, with not only years but generations of sustained religious identification. This is the norm in Europe; Ireland up to now has been somewhat anomalous, but in the last decade or two we seem to be moving towards this norm.

I think a campaign that says "if you don't wholeheartedly embrace and commit to official church teaching, if you're not a regular massgoer, you shouldn't be identifying as Catholic" is unlikely to succeed - at least, to any great degree. People are likely to bridle at those who are not themselves Catholic trying to lay down the law about who is, and who is not, an authentic Catholic. I think if you're serious about this, you'll want to start not from a preconception about why people should identify as Catholic, but from some emperical investigation about why they do. (And instinctively equating Catholic education with brainwashing does not count as empirical investigation. ) Once you understand what you're dealing with, then your task is to consider "Can I change the way people think about religious identification? How?"

The other possiblity, of course, is to consider trying to chang the way the state responds to religious identification, on the back of a better understanding of what it means. But that would require some empirical investigation into how they currently respond to it which, as Ab has already pointed out, seems to be lacking in the Facebook campaign.

I think you completely misunderstand Catholicism.

Many other Christian religions allow you a lot of scope with what you personally believe. Not so with Catholicism. It's an all or nothing religion. The Pope tells you what to believe and you must bloody well put up with it and believe.

Absolam

ezra_pound wrote: »

I think you completely misunderstand Catholicism.
Many other Christian religions allow you a lot of scope with what you personally believe. Not so with Catholicism. It's an all or nothing religion. The Pope tells you what to believe and you must bloody well put up with it and believe.

I think you misunderstand what Peregrinus is saying. The Census doesn't take account of the scope of peoples personal beliefs, it asks what religion they say they are, based on how they feel about their religious beliefs. Whether they fit anyone else's (your's, the Pope's, Peregrinus's, mine) definition of what it is to be part of that religion makes no difference to how they should answer the question.

ezra_pound

Absolam wrote: »

I think you misunderstand what Peregrinus is saying. The Census doesn't take account of the scope of peoples personal beliefs, it asks what religion they say they are, based on how they feel about their religious beliefs. Whether they fit anyone else's (your's, the Pope's, Peregrinus's, mine) definition of what it is to be part of that religion makes no difference to how they should answer the question.

I appreciate that. The issue is that the people who do so are wrong.

Absolam

ezra_pound wrote: »

I appreciate that. The issue is that the people who do so are wrong.

That very much depends on what you mean by 'wrong'. Though as far as answering the question they've been asked goes, they're quite right.

robp

Handlerzimmer wrote: »

They should add the following queation;

Do you believe in any Gods?

Nope, as religion isn't necessarily theistic.

Choochtown wrote: »

It's very disingenuous to suggest that question 12 is not misleading for people with eg. reading difficulties. The "No religion" option is tucked away at the end after the "other" option and the 20 white boxes to fill in the other. At first glance your choice is Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland, Islam, Presbyterian, Orthodox or other. No wonder non-practicing Catholics automatically tick the first box.

There is no evidence that lapsed Catholic atheistic tick the catholic box while there is no tons of evidence to suggest that many lapsed Catholics identity with Catholicism.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yet people are asked their religion on admission, and this stuff still happens to people who have already specified they don't want it. It happened to me.

And yes freedom of religion means freedom from religion from those who do not wish to be subjected to it, a hospital patient is the definition of a captive audience.

There is no right to not to be exposed to ideas that discomfort you. I don't know how you can say a concious hospitalised person is incapable of free will.

robp

ezra_pound wrote: »

I think you completely misunderstand Catholicism.

Many other Christian religions allow you a lot of scope with what you personally believe. Not so with Catholicism. It's an all or nothing religion. The Pope tells you what to believe and you must bloody well put up with it and believe.

You completely misunderstand the situation. Not accepting key beliefs doesn't make one non Catholic in the eyes of the Pope, it simply makes one a Catholic with aberrant ideas.

pauldla

robp wrote: »

You completely misunderstand the situation. Not accepting key beliefs doesn't make one non Catholic in the eyes of the Pope, it simply makes one a Catholic with aberrant ideas.

Indeed, once a Catholic always a Catholic as far as Mother Church is concerned. Is there any harm, I wonder, in reminding people that that ain't necessarily so?

ezra_pound

robp wrote: »

You completely misunderstand the situation. Not accepting key beliefs doesn't make one non Catholic in the eyes of the Pope, it simply makes one a Catholic with aberrant ideas.

A catholic with aberrant ideas is a heretic. Doctrine is infallibly stated in catechism and in papal bulls and any aberration is heretical.

robp

ezra_pound wrote: »

A catholic with aberrant ideas is a heretic. Doctrine is infallibly stated in catechism and in papal bulls and any aberration is heretical.

Wrong plus that has nothing to do with anything as its unrelated to church membership.

Absolam

ezra_pound wrote: »

A catholic with aberrant ideas is a heretic. Doctrine is infallibly stated in catechism and in papal bulls and any aberration is heretical.

Wrong(ish); a Catholic may have 'aberrant' ideas and not be a heretic, but even so a Catholic heretic is still a Catholic as far as the Church is concerned. As far as they themselves are concerned it's up to them... and it's as far as they themselves are concerned that the Census is questioning.

And on this occasion, at least, the instructions for the Census did point out that it wasn't Mother Church's opinion that was being sought.

robdonn

My mother, being the designated census filler in our home, has marked me as RC in both 2006 and 2011 despite me being openly atheist since 2004. We've argued over it but I am not going to battle the pen out of her hand, so I have been marked down incorrectly twice.

After discussions with both my father and my sister I found that neither of them believe in a god, the former actively despising the RC, yet both are marked as RC because they think that since they were both baptised then they are Catholics.

One household. 4 people. 1 Roman Catholic, yet 4 marked on the census.

Obviously this is just a personal account, not all households are the same, but I would be shocked if it was unique!

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

My mother, being the designated census filler in our home, has marked me as RC in both 2006 and 2011 despite me being openly atheist since 2004. We've argued over it but I am not going to battle the pen out of her hand, so I have been marked down incorrectly twice. After discussions with both my father and my sister I found that neither of them believe in a god, the former actively despising the RC, yet both are marked as RC because they think that since they were both baptised then they are Catholics. One household. 4 people. 1 Roman Catholic, yet 4 marked on the census. Obviously this is just a personal account, not all households are the same, but I would be shocked if it was unique!

You're perfectly entitled to report your mother for falsifying the Census if you feel that strongly about it. If you don't feel that strongly about it... I suppose it's up to you how much you want to be reported accurately in the Census. It's not like you don't have a choice, so I don't think it'd be fair to entirely blame your mum for the Census result when you can do something about it.