Census 2016 - Time to tick NO

Bannasidhe

nomdeboardie wrote: »

So do you think the religion Q is included only satisfy the curiosity of historians & sociologists etc.?

As a Historian I can confirm our interest in the answer is curiosity and any (pseudo) Historian who isn't trying to push some agenda would much prefer people answered honestly. But, having said that, the census is just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle and will be compared to other available information such as attendance at Mass, divorce statistics, BDM records etc etc etc.

So, for example, while future generations might note that Paddy Joe McFlirty declared he was a Roman Catholic in the 2016 census some further research could unearth a record which states he was divorced and here is another record which say he was an unmarried father - genealogist of the future will state that Great Great Great Granddad McFlirty might have claimed to be a Roman Catholic but in reality ... his pants should have been on fire.

Much as many of those who claimed to be illiterate in Census 1911 are now viewed with suspicion*



*Changes to Pension rules c1906 caused a mass contagious outbreak in illiteracy between 1901 and 1911 censuses.

wokingvoter

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Under Catholic they should add a date box and put: "When was the last time you went to mass?"

And under Muslim .....mosque
And under Jewish.......synagogue
Etc etc.....
Then should they put "what was the purpose of the religious ceremony? Was it
A. A wedding
B. A funeral
C. Christmas
D. Easter
E. Please tell me you didn't just go because you wanted too....

feargale

wokingvoter wrote: »

And under Muslim .....mosque
And under Jewish.......synagogue
Etc etc.....
Then should they put "what was the purpose of the religious ceremony? Was it
A. A wedding
B. A funeral
C. Christmas
D. Easter
E. Please tell me you didn't just go because you wanted too....

Ah that's inadequate:
F. Did you do your Easter duty?
G. Did you pay your parish dues? ( with a footnote assuring the respondent that there won't be a word about it to the Revenue Commissioners)
H. Do you have doubts about your faith?
I. Do you commit mortal sins e.g. masturbation?
J. Do you think the Pope is an assoole?

mass_debater

People should respond to this question according to how they feel now about their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Question 12
http://2011.census.ie/The-Census-Form/Each-question-in-detail.109.1.aspx

Mark Hamill

mass_debater wrote: »

People should respond to this question according to how they feel now about their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Question 12
http://2011.census.ie/The-Census-Form/Each-question-in-detail.109.1.aspx

That's for the 2011 census, the next census has an updated more explicit explanation:

"Everyone should answer this question, whether or not they have a religion.
This question is not about frequency of attendance at church or other place of worship. People should answer the question based on how they feel now about their religious beliefs, if any. The question is asking about the person’s current religion or beliefs and not about the religion the person may have been brought up with.
If the person has a religion they can identify that religion by ticking one of the tick box categories, or by writing in a description of your religion or beliefs in the write-in boxes.
If they do not have a religion – they should go to the end of the question and mark the ‘no religion’ box."

http://census.ie/the-census-and-you/each-question-in-detail/

expectationlost

Sir, – Denis O’Donoghue (March 30th) makes an excellent point when he highlights that the census simply asks “Can you speak Irish?”, unlike its more qualitative UK equivalent, which asks how well respondents can speak various languages, with grades from “very well” to “not at all”.
Would the census address some of the criticism of the religion question if a similar scale were included?
This would allow us to appreciate if people were answering the question on the basis of having been raised in a religion but no longer practising it. This would be of considerable use for the planning of services, such as schools, which after all is a key stated intention of the census. – Yours, etc,
ANDREW DOYLE,
Bandon, Co Cork.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/religion-and-the-census-1.2592447

actually think this would be mistake, the number of religious adherents should have nothing to do with state school provision

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

actually think this would be mistake, the number of religious adherents should have nothing to do with state school provision

Well... it could conceivably be used to quantify the probability of a particular religious denomination offering to take up patronage of a new school in an area; if you can target affluent patrons you could reduce the cost of opening the school?
Say there were found to be a large number of ardent Muslims in a particular area, where there was a growing need for a new primary school, and the recently constructed mosque had a large piece of undeveloped land with planning permission attached. Could be a marriage made in Jannah...

Or it could simply be used to establish that areas with high concentrations of devout Catholics are likely to see far greater population growth in the medium term than areas with high concentrations of non-Orthodox Jews

kieranfitz

lazygal wrote: »

My brother had an almighty row with our father during the last census. My dad insisted the brother go down as Catholic even though he has identified as atheist since his teens. My father's reasoning was that those baptised into a faith had to put down that faith on the census. Its a view someone else I know had reinforced by a census enumerator, who when asked said if you're a baptised Catholic you have to tick Catholic on the census.
I think it's a valuable campaign. We'll be identified as no religion for the first time since getting married and have two children to tick the box for now.

This kind of carry on alone probably accounted for a lot of "catholics" during the last census.

Absolam

kieranfitz wrote: »

This kind of carry on alone probably accounted for a lot of "catholics" during the last census.

Yep. Taking into account interfering numerators, misled dads, bossy mammies, scary flatmates, no doorbells, and the fact that most catholics just aren't the proper kind of Catholics, there's probably only three real Catholics in the whole country, and they don't even use schools or fill out Censuses. We can safely ignore them and proceed with The Plan.

pauldla

Michael Nugent

Please share this with anyone relevant who lives in Ireland.

feargale

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Please share this with anyone relevant who lives in Ireland.

Just curious. Looking at that form, where have the Jews and Methodists gone to? They were always numbered separately

Michael Nugent

The top five are the five highest from the previous census.

Apart from 'No religion' which on that basis should be second.

Hotblack Desiato

It operates on the presumption that everyone has a religion though, on that basis "no religion" is the second most popular choice of "religion"

An honest question would be like this - "Do you currently practise a religion? Yes/No If yes..."

Sadly for them, jews and methodists are now down in the statistical noise so don't merit their own entries any more. There would be probably be more write-in atheists (who should, of course, tick "no religion" as atheism is not a religion) than them.

Michael Nugent

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It operates on the presumption that everyone has a religion though, on that basis "no religion" is the second most popular choice of "religion"

An honest question would be like this - "Do you currently practise a religion? Yes/No If yes..."

I agree that would be a better question.

[unnecessarily pedantic mode on]

But technically, even under the existing question, "no religion" isn't the second most popular choice of "religion".

It is the second most popular *answer* to the question "what is your religion."

However, people writing in "atheist" in the box "other religion, if any" *are* making "atheist" a choice of "religion".

[unnecessarily pedantic mode off]

Hotblack Desiato

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree that would be a better question.

[unnecessarily pedantic mode on]

But technically, even under the existing question, "no religion" isn't the second most popular choice of "religion".

It is the second most popular *answer* to the question "what is your religion."

However, people writing in "atheist" in the box "other religion, if any" *are* making "atheist" a choice of "religion".

[unnecessarily pedantic mode off]

Ooh ya got me. Even though I enclosed "religion" in danger quotes.

But on a more interesting note. Did we ever find out who that fecker in the lift was. I bet he posts on here.

Michael Nugent

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But on a more interesting note. Did we ever find out who that fecker in the lift was. I bet he posts on here.

I wonder did he ever get a cup of coffee?

recedite

So Jews and Methodists have been relegated.
But Muslims and Eastern Orthodox have joined the Premier League.

I for one, welcome our new eastern overlords.... :pac:

wokingvoter

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The top five are the five highest from the previous census.

Apart from 'No religion' which on that basis should be second.

That doesn't make any sense at all
The question is simply "What is your religion?"
Atheists are always at pains to remind everybody that atheism is NOT a religion
So how can you expect it to be included in the list of possible religious denominations then?
No religion is the obvious option for an adult who is quite certain that they are , well, not religious.
It's not hidden. It's there in black and white as plain as day.
It doesn't matter how you dress it up, if an adult ticks the box, or allows someone else to tick the box, Catholic or Muslim then that's what they consider themselves to be.
I don't buy the argument "mammy ticked Catholic even when I asked her not too"
Please! If you can't have an adult relationship with your parents, then maybe it's time to start thinking about moving out, or would that mean you'd have to do your own laundry and pay a utility bill?
Either way, if your allowing your parents to tell you what your religious beliefs are then presumably they're still asking you who your going out with and what time your coming back at, so imho you've a bit to go before you can consider yourself an adult .

Absolam

Well... "What is your religious perspective" would allow the same answers (good for data management and consistency) but would allow "No Religion" to have the logical second position (suiting atheists who feel hard done by), I think? Not sure if anyone might think it's too vague and would lead to people ticking Catholic by mistake though...
At the end of the day it might be considered kowtowing to a group that would be unthinkable if the group were Catholics, but still.

wokingvoter

Absolam wrote: »

Well... "What is your religious perspective" would allow the same answers (good for data management and consistency) but would allow "No Religion" to have the logical second position (suiting atheists who feel hard done by), I think? Not sure if anyone might think it's too vague and would lead to people ticking Catholic by mistake though...
At the end of the day it might be considered kowtowing to a group that would be unthinkable if the group were Catholics, but still.

There are only 3 answers to "What is your religious perspective?" imo.
1. I am religious
2. I'm not religious
3. I don't know/care
That won't help the CSO collate data on the increase/decrease in different religious practices though?

Absolam

What is your particular religious perspective then? Or specific religious perspective, maybe? That may invite too much detail from anti-theists though...

volchitsa

wokingvoter wrote: »

There are only 3 answers to "What is your religious perspective?" imo.
1. I am religious
2. I'm not religious
3. I don't know/care
That won't help the CSO collate data on the increase/decrease in different religious practices though?

Why exactly would they need to do that, though?

If a church or a mosque says it needs to build a new church, say, and has the funding to do so, let them ask for planning permission like anybody else and go ahead. What's the problem? Is the CSO going to say Ah no there are already enough churches within a 50 km radius or something?

Choochtown

wokingvoter wrote: »

T
No religion is the obvious option for an adult who is quite certain that they are , well, not religious.
It's not hidden. It's there in black and white as plain as day.


But it is hidden as I've pointed out earlier in this thread.

Question 19 "How do you usually travel to work?" First box to tick "Not at work"
Question 20 is the same format.

Questions 7,9,11,27 are all set out in a similar way with choices and they all end with the white boxes for the "other" option

Only in this highly contentious question is:
(1) The second most common answer put last
(2) There is another option after the fill in squares for "other"
(3) There is a presumption for everyone to tick a religion (eg question 14 doesn't presume everyone can speak Irish. It doesn't ask: "How often do you speak Irish?" and then hide away the "I don't speak it" option after 2 rows of white squares.

Added to this is the crazy decision not to put the question in the explanatory notes at the back. THE most contentious question on the census is not even explained at the back!!!

Instead they used that space to explain question 22: "Do you provide regular unpaid help for a friend..?"
They helpfully explain... "If you provide regular unpaid help ... you should mark box 1 (Yes)"
Glad they cleared that one up. No wonder there was no room to explain the religion question!

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Why exactly would they need to do that, though?
If a church or a mosque says it needs to build a new church, say, and has the funding to do so, let them ask for planning permission like anybody else and go ahead. What's the problem? Is the CSO going to say Ah no there are already enough churches within a 50 km radius or something?

Probably a question better aimed at the CSO in fairness, but didn't a historian point out that the answers are of interest to historians at least? Perhaps the CSO do have some logical use for the question and no one has asked them what it is? No one who's saying on A&A, anyways...

Absolam

Choochtown wrote: »

But it is hidden as I've pointed out earlier in this thread.
Question 19 "How do you usually travel to work?" First box to tick "Not at work"
Question 20 is the same format.
Questions 7,9,11,27 are all set out in a similar way with choices and they all end with the white boxes for the "other" option
Only in this highly contentious question is:
(1) The second most common answer put last
(2) There is another option after the fill in squares for "other"
(3) There is a presumption for everyone to tick a religion (eg question 14 doesn't presume everyone can speak Irish. It doesn't ask: "How often do you speak Irish?" and then hide away the "I don't speak it" option after 2 rows of white squares.
Added to this is the crazy decision not to put the question in the explanatory notes at the back. THE most contentious question on the census is not even explained at the back!!!
Instead they used that space to explain question 22: "Do you provide regular unpaid help for a friend..?"
They helpfully explain... "If you provide regular unpaid help ... you should mark box 1 (Yes)"
Glad they cleared that one up. No wonder there was no room to explain the religion question!

I thought I answered those questions to your satisfaction the last time you asked, but obviously not I recall you'd decided to attack the CSO for negligence instead, but now you're saying they're crazy for providing information about answering the question online (and personally to respondents via the census enumerators) rather than on the form itself... which do you think really? Negligent or crazy? Can't be both...

Choochtown

Absolam wrote: »

I thought I answered those questions to your satisfaction the last time you asked, but obviously not I recall you'd decided to attack the CSO for negligence instead, but now you're saying they're crazy for providing information about answering the question online (and personally to respondents via the census enumerators) rather than on the form itself... which do you think really? Negligent or crazy? Can't be both...

It is indeed both. I posted that it was a "crazy decision"

They are negligent for making such a crazy decision.


Their job is to glean accurate information about the population. In this regard for this question they are negligent.

Absolam

Choochtown wrote: »

It is indeed both. I posted that it was a "crazy decision" They are negligent for making such a crazy decision. Their job is to glean accurate information about the population. In this regard for this question they are negligent.

To what degree do you think providing advice on how to complete the question in person and online but not on the back of the form affects the result, and the usefulness of the result? Do you not think that if someone looks for clarification of a question on the form and doesn't find it, they won't look online, or ask their enumerator?
Only I would think it would need to be a fairly significant degree before you could call it negligent. And since there is only advice on the back of the form for twelve of the forty seven questions, was it a negligently 'crazy decision' not to include advice for 75% of the questions? Is it possible there may be a logic to the questions chosen for explanation you're not aware of; like the logic to the construction of potential answers?

Choochtown

Absolam wrote: »

To what degree do you think providing advice on how to complete the question in person and online but not on the back of the form affects the result, and the usefulness of the result? Do you not think that if someone looks for clarification of a question on the form and doesn't find it, they won't look online, or ask their enumerator?
Only I would think it would need to be a fairly significant degree before you could call it negligent. And since there is only advice on the back of the form for twelve of the forty seven questions, was it a negligently 'crazy decision' not to include advice for 75% of the questions? Is it possible there may be a logic to the questions chosen for explanation you're not aware of; like the logic to the construction of potential answers?

Really? You think a lot of people ask a form-collector for advice?

You think people are going to search online for advice? Explanatory notes are given on the back of the Census form. The fact that the most misleading, contentious question (which when compared to other polls last time out was also the most inaccurate) is not given a space is gross negligence.

Why would anyone look online? There isn't even a link given on the form!

How were the 12 questions that are explained decided then? Randomly? I have already posted an example of how unnecessary one of the explanations is. The amount of differing opinions and interpretations of question 12 surely warrants a few lines at the back of the form.

A survey asks a population (where 53% of the population claim not to be a religious person (Gallup 2011)) "What is your religion?"
There is no explanation given on how to answer the question.
Can you really not see anything wrong with that?

I would love to hear any theories on the logic behind the questions chosen for the explanatory notes.

Anyone?

Akrasia

"What is your religion" is like the question 'When did you stop beating your wife'

'I never beat my wife' does not answer the question, because it doesn't say when you stopped beating your wife. (incidentally, I still beat my wife, I'm actually beating her right now' is an equally non answer for the same reasons, as is 'I don't have a wife')

You can't answer the question if you've never beaten your wife. You can only challenge the question itself.

Asking a question that pre-supposes an answer is poor methodology.

'Are you religious?' followed by 'If Yes, what religion are you' would get the most accurate results.

Incidentally, religion thrives on presupposing that the 'questions' it asks about reality are valid questions.

What is the 'meaning of life' presupposes that there is one meaning to life

'Why are we here' presupposes that there is a transcendent purpose for our lives

'Where did morality come from' presupposes that morality had to 'come from' anywhere instead of just being a concept invented by humans to explain human behaviour and the unwritten 'rules' governing our social interactions.

The census isn't that important in the grand scheme of things (presupposing that there is a grand scheme) but it would be nice if the next census allowed a proper debate on the religion question so that it can better serve statisticians and policy makers of the future.

They have no excuse. This census is a 'no change' census, the next one has to allow reasonable contributions on the question format.

The campaign for reforming census 2021 should start the day after census 2016 is collected,