Census 2016 - Time to tick NO

Hotblack Desiato

I'll take that as an inability to argue the points raised. The rich and powerful are always keen to depend on the courts to reinforce their privilege.

La Fenetre

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'll take that as an inability to argue the points raised. The rich and powerful are always keen to depend on the courts to reinforce their privilege.

I'm none of things. Atheist.ie makes legal challenges and submissions all the time.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'll take that as an inability to argue the points raised. The rich and powerful are always keen to depend on the courts to reinforce their privilege.

The argument I'd put forward is that if you claim something is illegal you have a recourse; law. Whether or not the rich and powerful use them, the only arbiters of the complaint you've put forward, illegality, are the Courts. The fact that no one has succeeded in pursuing that recourse to a conclusion you'd like, despite the supposed plethora of individuals incensed by the activity in question, is reasonably indicative that the Courts are not likely to agree with your assessment of the legality of the action.

As for the merits (or lack thereof) of the individual points, try:

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

For starters the state is illegally using taxpayers' money to fund religious instruction in schools, and third level chaplains, in violation of Article 44.2 of the Constitution.

As regards Chaplains, the Supreme Court (with all due deference to your own legal opinion) found such payments were not endowments of religion, so were legal, in Campaign to Separate Church and State V Minister for Education, 1998.
As regards funding religious instruction, the Constitution obliges the State to provide for education, and explicitly includes in education " religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education". So, not so much illegal, as legally obliged I would have said.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

the next subsection 'The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.'
is violated by allowing 96% of primary schools to be religious run and to discriminate on the grounds of religion in both enrolment and hiring staff.

Firstly, if as you say the school is religious run, you cannot then argue the State is the one making the impositions; the religious are. And the Constitution guarantees the right of religious institutions to manage their own affairs, and maintain institutions (44.2.5).
Additionally, the Supreme Court has already found religious selection in hiring staff to be Constitutional in "Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill, 1996"; therefore being quite specifically not illegal.

So not so much an inability to argue the points raised... more an unwillingness to have to point out that if you're presenting the point that something is illegal, you ought to check whether or not the Courts have offered a conclusion first? Pretending that the Courts are only a venue for the rich and powerful to settle disputes of legality is frankly a cop-out.

recedite

Absolam, your legalistic arguments in support of religious discrimination and indoctrination are based on the notion that the churches involved are independent of the state, and therefore entitled to run their own private affairs.
At the same time, your arguments in support of continued state funding are based on the notion that chaplains, teachers, schools etc.. are "services provided for by the state".

Would you admit that both arguments cannot be right at the same time, or do you believe that the state is obliged to provide religious services?

BTW I note that the cases you quote date back to 1996 and 1998. I wonder if they would have the same outcome if heard today.

Does anybody know if there are any Islamic chaplains employed by the state yet?

Peregrinus

Rec - I think you're not spotting the distinction between someone providing a service, and someone providing for a service.

A can provide for a service by arranging for B (or for any of B, C, D or E) to provide the service.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Absolam, your legalistic arguments in support of religious discrimination and indoctrination are based on the notion that the churches involved are independent of the state, and therefore entitled to run their own private affairs.

Well my legalistic arguments are entirely in reply to Hotblacks notions of illegality, to be fair. Though they're not in support of religious discrimination and indoctrination, they're to point out that what Hotblack asserts is illegal has been determined to be legal by the Supreme Court.

recedite wrote: »

At the same time, your arguments in support of continued state funding are based on the notion that chaplains, teachers, schools etc.. are "services provided for by the state".
Would you admit that both arguments cannot be right at the same time, or do you believe that the state is obliged to provide religious services?

Well, as Peregrinus has pointed out already, there's a difference between providing for services, and providing services. I'm certain the State is obliged by the Constitution to provide for stipulated services, if it helps though.

recedite wrote: »

BTW I note that the cases you quote date back to 1996 and 1998. I wonder if they would have the same outcome if heard today.

Since the Constitutional provisions haven't changed in the meantime, there's no real reason to think they wouldn't is there?

recedite wrote: »

Does anybody know if there are any Islamic chaplains employed by the state yet?

Does anyone know what percentage of third level students in any given college are Muslims? And if that college has chaplains employed by the State?

Mr. CooL ICE

Jaketherake wrote: »

To me, being an Athiest is my choice. It doesnt mean I get to ram it down others throats at every opportunity.
Im athiest. But I think i'll tick Catholic for the whole family because at this stage im nearly ashamed to be an athiest.
Athiesm being preached to me is nearly as bad as Catholicism being preached.

Heh. Exact same line of argument was trotted out by many a low post count poster before the SSM referendum.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

I'm certainly not offering an opinion on what it is to be Catholic (at the moment). Only that there's no reason your opinion on what it is to be Catholic should have any bearing on whether someone else should choose to call themselves Catholic if they wish.

But this isn't my opinion on what being a Catholic is: this is what the RCC professes and confesses. Isn't the RCC allowed to decide its own dogmas that its members subscribe to?

Fleawuss

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rec - I think you're not spotting the distinction between someone providing a service, and someone providing for a service.

A can provide for a service by arranging for B (or for any of B, C, D or E) to provide the service.

A fine distinction but a little tenuous to excuse the state from its duty to provide for the education of all its citizens and its role in ensuring the service for which it has provided is actually delivered in a fit for purpose manner.

I'm rusty on my case law but I think a constitutional challenge was taken previously and failed. The fine distinction is probably the hope of religious, politicians and the Dept of Finance mandarins to avoid facing the reality of the issue. They will not face it on moral or principled grounds; they will face it on case law grounds or mass political pressure grounds. The can will be kicked down the road until a toe is badly stubbed.

What religious contributors here need to realize is that the RCC has two crises: a crisis of the ending of the willing suspension of disbelief by many people (not the end of faith because there was not very much of that IMHO) and a crisis of the end of its moral authority ( brought about by its own hypocrisy and cynicism). As long as it hides behind property rights as a means of trying to desperately control primary education and exercise some sort of social influence through communion and confirmation it continues to destroy any chance it has to regain any moral authority. But it will fight for denominational education to the end I think: it is a life or death struggle for it.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

But this isn't my opinion on what being a Catholic is: this is what the RCC professes and confesses. Isn't the RCC allowed to decide its own dogmas that its members subscribe to?

What the Catholic Church professes and confesses is not what it is to be a Catholic though. You won't find a member of the Magisterium who'll tell you that a person baptised and confirmed in the Catholic Church who doesn't believe in virgin imoregnation by the Holy Spirit, the incarnation, transubstantiation, the hypo static Union, the assumption into heaven, confession, resurrection etc etc isn't a Catholic nonetheless if they say they are. They may be in various states of communion, even entirely excommunicated, but they're still Catholic as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. So as I said.... there's no reason your opinion on what it is to be Catholic should have any bearing on whether someone else should choose to call themselves Catholic if they wish.

Fleawuss wrote: »

A fine distinction but a little tenuous to excuse the state from its duty to provide for the education of all its citizens and its role in ensuring the service for which it has provided is actually delivered in a fit for purpose manner.

Where exactly is that duty set out?

Fleawuss wrote: »

I'm rusty on my case law but I think a constitutional challenge was taken previously and failed. The fine distinction is probably the hope of religious, politicians and the Dept of Finance mandarins to avoid facing the reality of the issue. They will not face it on moral or principled grounds; they will face it on case law grounds or mass political pressure grounds. The can will be kicked down the road until a toe is badly stubbed.

The reality of the situation is the State has specific obligations which it is meeting; that others imagine fine distinctions isn't really the States fault, it's those who are exercising their imaginations. That someone feels the State should have other moral or principled obligations is a matter of opinion; the reality of your opinions are yours to force your elected representative to face.

Fleawuss wrote: »

What religious contributors here need to realize is that the RCC has two crises: a crisis of the ending of the willing suspension of disbelief by many people (not the end of faith because there was not very much of that IMHO) and a crisis of the end of its moral authority ( brought about by its own hypocrisy and cynicism). As long as it hides behind property rights as a means of trying to desperately control primary education and exercise some sort of social influence through communion and confirmation it continues to destroy any chance it has to regain any moral authority. But it will fight for denominational education to the end I think: it is a life or death struggle for it.

So when you say 'hides behind property rights', what exactly do you think you mean? Should those who own property just hand it over to people who think they should own it instead? Because if that's your suggestion there's a couple of houses on Howth Head I think I deserve more than the current owners, so I'd like to get on a leap on them when the government abolishes property rights.

expectationlost

La Fenetre wrote: »

I'm none of things. Atheist.ie makes legal challenges and submissions all the time.

im not aware of them making about legal challenges

Hotblack Desiato

La Fenetre wrote: »

I'm none of things. Atheist.ie makes legal challenges and submissions all the time.

They simply don't have the resources to fund a parent to take a case to the Supreme Court

In any case it's perhaps a bit much to expect radical change to come from the most conservative part of the Irish 'secular' establishment - its senior judiciary? Who all took religious oaths to obtain office, remember?

An ECHR case would be likely to succeed but you have to have gone all the way in Ireland first. Meanwhile your child who was a 5 year old back when all this started is now choosing a university course

Look at what happened with David Norris. Every court in the land threw his case out, and the State defended it strongly all the way - the right for the state to regulate which consenting adults you can have sex with! After ten years he won his case in Europe. It took another ten years to actually change the law here.

Change is needed in education here - and it needs to happen through political action, legislative change, and constitutional change if necessary.

Peregrinus

Fleawuss wrote: »

A fine distinction but a little tenuous to excuse the state from its duty to provide for the education of all its citizens and its role in ensuring the service for which it has provided is actually delivered in a fit for purpose manner.

The “fine distinction” is in the Constitution, Fleawuss, so if you’re seriously interested in the possibility of a legal challenge to the current arrangements ( as opposed to merely fantasising about one) you need to pay attention to it.

Art. 42 starts by acknowledging that “the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family” (complete with capital ‘F’) and it “guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide . . . for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children”. It goes on to say that parents are “free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State”.

It then goes on to make three further statements:

- “The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.”

- “The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.”

- “ The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.”

This fairly clearly puts parents in the driving seat as regards educational choices, and explicitly as regards choices about religious and moral education. While the State can provide schools directly “where the public good requires it”, it’s not generally obliged to do so; it can “provide for” education by supporting or recognising schools, rather than providing them directly, or by any combination of direct provision and recognition/support. If anything, the Constitution seems to treat support for, supplementing, etc schools as the default, and direct provision as an alternative “where the public good requires it”. To the extent that the State does provide schools, it can’t oblige parents to send their children to those schools. And, to the extent that it does provide schools, it must do so with “due regard” to the rights of parents in the matter of religious and moral formation. Which I think creates an obstacle to any policy of providing secular or non-religious schools, at the same time withdrawing support for religious schools.

I think that provides some extremely useful material for anyone wanting to mount a case say that under the current arrangements the state is failing to have due regard to the rights of parents who want a non-Catholic or non-religious education for their children. But it provides no support at all for a case arguing that the state should only provide or recognise schools which offer a secular, or non-religious, or non-denominational education.

Fleawuss wrote: »

I'm rusty on my case law but I think a constitutional challenge was taken previously and failed. The fine distinction is probably the hope of religious, politicians and the Dept of Finance mandarins to avoid facing the reality of the issue.

The reality is that if you want to persuade the state to stop supporting religious schools, you’ll have to persuade parents to stop choosing them. There’s no court action which will bring about that result. As long as any appreciable number of parents seek religious schools, Art 42 makes it very difficult for the State not to provide for religious schools.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

An ECHR case would be likely to succeed . . . .

Depends on how you frame the case, I guess. But I'm not sure that the decided cases of the ECHR give much ground for hope.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Does anyone know what percentage of third level students in any given college are Muslims? And if that college has chaplains employed by the State?

SFAIK none of the colleges employ a paid Muslim chaplain. Most of them provide a prayer room for the use of Muslim students.

The Trinity College chaplaincy offers its services to all members of the College Community, and will endeavour where desired to put people in touch with representatives of their faith groups outside college.

So far as I know there are also no paid Muslim chaplains in Irish hospitals or prisons but, again, the hospital/prison chaplaincy will (a) offer its services to all, and (b) endeavour to put people in touch with external ministers, if desired.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK none of the colleges employ a paid Muslim chaplain.

Well, gosh, now there's a surprise!

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK none of the colleges employ a paid Muslim chaplain.

Not surprised,

Most of them provide a prayer room for the use of Muslim students.

Curious, is it a specific prayer room for only them or is it just a all purpose prayer room that they are now simply allowed to use?

magicbastarder

apologies if it's already been asked, but have the CSO been asked to provide the advice the census takers are told to give when asked by punters, in relation to choice of religion?

looksee

This is what the CSO says

Religion is an important demographic variable and will be analysed closely along with other demographic variables in the context of diversity including nationality, ethnicity, and foreign languages. The religions listed have been chosen to cover the most frequent responses given in the 2006 census. This question does not refer to frequency of attendance at church. People should respond to this question according to how they feel now about their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

My emphasis.

_Brian

Surely it's up to each household to complete the form as they feel they should.
Why should there be a drive to manipulate the result just to satisfy the objections of what as of the last result is still a minority.

The result has wen changing with time which is typical I'm sure with the general slow change of society.

Thinking that manipulating the result of the census will somehow instantly change the position of the RC church in Ireland, it's just bizzar to expect that.

Society is already changing, maybe the pace doesn't satisfy all parties, but surely the public are entitled to fill their Census as they see fit and not how some FaceBook protest pushes, this would worry me more than people marking RC on the form.

robindch

_Brian wrote: »

Surely it's up to each household to complete the form as they feel they should.

One would hope that each household would fill out the form in fashion consistent with every other household, with a view to producing accurate and reliable statistics about what people's views actually are.

lazygal

_Brian wrote: »

Surely it's up to each household to complete the form as they feel they should.
Why should there be a drive to manipulate the result just to satisfy the objections of what as of the last result is still a minority.

The result has wen changing with time which is typical I'm sure with the general slow change of society.

Thinking that manipulating the result of the census will somehow instantly change the position of the RC church in Ireland, it's just bizzar to expect that.

Society is already changing, maybe the pace doesn't satisfy all parties, but surely the public are entitled to fill their Census as they see fit and not how some FaceBook protest pushes, this would worry me more than people marking RC on the form.

The problem with this is what arises when an adult, such as my father, fills out the form having ignored the wishes of another adult in the household. My brother is not catholic. He would never identify as catholic on any other forms. He's an adult, capable of identifying his own religion or non religion or whatever. Why should people think they can put down someone's faith as catholic because of a ceremony when the person was an infant?
It is the opposite of manipulating the census to encourage people to ask whether they are ticking the correct box for ALL questions, one of which is whether they are really a catholic or any other religion listed.

Pherekydes

lazygal wrote: »

The problem with this is what arises when an adult, such as my father, fills out the form having ignored the wishes of another adult in the household. My brother is not catholic. He would never identify as catholic on any other forms. He's an adult, capable of identifying his own religion or non religion or whatever. Why should people think they can put down someone's faith as catholic because of a ceremony when the person was an infant?
It is the opposite of manipulating the census to encourage people to ask whether they are ticking the correct box for ALL questions, one of which is whether they are really a catholic or any other religion listed.

The apologists would never see this as manipulating the result.

kylith

_Brian wrote: »

Surely it's up to each household to complete the form as they feel they should.
Why should there be a drive to manipulate the result just to satisfy the objections of what as of the last result is still a minority.

The result has wen changing with time which is typical I'm sure with the general slow change of society.

Thinking that manipulating the result of the census will somehow instantly change the position of the RC church in Ireland, it's just bizzar to expect that.

Society is already changing, maybe the pace doesn't satisfy all parties, but surely the public are entitled to fill their Census as they see fit and not how some FaceBook protest pushes, this would worry me more than people marking RC on the form.

There you have it folks: asking people to think seriously about their religious affiliations so as to ensure that the census forms are filled out as accurately as possible is 'manipulation' now.

I would argue that it's the telling people to put 'Catholic' down because, sure didn't you make your confirmation 30 years ago? is the manipulation.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

The problem with this is what arises when an adult, such as my father, fills out the form having ignored the wishes of another adult in the household. My brother is not catholic. He would never identify as catholic on any other forms. He's an adult, capable of identifying his own religion or non religion or whatever. Why should people think they can put down someone's faith as catholic because of a ceremony when the person was an infant?

Exactly this,
If on census night if I was in my wife's parents house they would mark me as a catholic, if I was in my parents house they'd be a 50/50 chance they'd mark me as a catholic

But I've not considered myself a catholic since I was around 12,

Both partys would mark me as catholic because I was baptised,

I suppose you could make the argument that if I could defect from the catholic chuirch (ala count me out) then I could atleast go some way towards making things much much clearer to them but since the catholic church closed the loop hole I have to "hope" they listen to me when I say I don't believe in the catholic church and what it stands for.

Kiwi in IE

Cabaal wrote: »

Exactly this,
If on census night if I was in my wife's parents house they would mark me as a catholic, if I was in my parents house they'd be a 50/50 chance they'd mark me as a catholic

But I've not considered myself a catholic since I was around 12,

Both partys would mark me as catholic because I was baptised,

I suppose you could make the argument that if I could defect from the catholic chuirch (ala count me out) then I could atleast go some way towards making things much much clearer to them but since the catholic church closed the loop hole I have to "hope" they listen to me when I say I don't believe in the catholic church and what it stands for.

I know that nobody would ever have their family member charged with such a thing, but that is falsifying a legal document! I hadn't thought of that, had better ensure Little Kiwi is not staying with relatives on census night.

magicbastarder

CSO wrote:

This question does not refer to frequency of attendance at church. People should respond to this question according to how they feel now about their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

what's the poxing point in asking this question so? if you're divorcing it from any issue of provision of services; be it schools, medical ethos, etc., what benefit is it to anyone?
not that i agree that the answer should affect provision of services in any way, anyway.

are we asked to describe where we sit on the political spectrum? that'd be a more useful answer than the religious one.

Peregrinus

Well, it's of obvious benefit to advocates for the interests of atheists, agnostics and unbeleivers, who make frequent reference to the census data to demonstrate the substantial growth of these viewpoints in Ireland. Is that a bad thing, in your view?

The UK census authority, the Office of National Statistics, asks a similar question in its census, and they helpfully publish the results of a consultation they conduct before each census about what questions they ask and whether they should make any changes in the form of the questions from previous years. The question on religion is valued by all stakeholder groups (central government, local government, voluntary agencies, advocacy groups) and, in so far as there's any demand for change, it's a demand for greater particularity - i.e. people want more information on religion, not less.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rec - I think you're not spotting the distinction between someone providing a service, and someone providing for a service.

I'm well aware of the difference, which is why I specifically said "services provided for by the state".
IMO the state is obliged to provide for free primary education, including "moral" education but no religious services. Those sub-contractors who supply the education have chosen to provide religious education as their preferred form (or substitute for) moral education. Whereas an ethics class would be more appropriate for the purposes of satisfying this specific constitutional imperative.
Separately, if parents wish to provide private religious education, the state cannot compel them to avail of the state education.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm certain the State is obliged by the Constitution to provide for stipulated services, if it helps though.

No religious services are stipulated AFAIK.

Absolam wrote: »

Does anyone know what percentage of third level students in any given college are Muslims? And if that college has chaplains employed by the State?

Colleges don't ask your religion, quite rightly. The census could give a guide to the general population, which would be reflected to some extent at third level. But there are also quite a few middle eastern students who pay handsomely to attend Irish universities, especially medical related courses.

Fleawuss

Peregrinus wrote: »

The “fine distinction” is in the Constitution, Fleawuss, so if you’re seriously interested in the possibility of a legal challenge to the current arrangements ( as opposed to merely fantasising about one) you need to pay attention to it.

Art. 42 starts by acknowledging that “the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family” (complete with capital ‘F’) and it “guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide . . . for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children”. It goes on to say that parents are “free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State”.

It then goes on to make three further statements:

- “The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.”

- “The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.”

- “ The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.”

This fairly clearly puts parents in the driving seat as regards educational choices, and explicitly as regards choices about religious and moral education. While the State can provide schools directly “where the public good requires it”, it’s not generally obliged to do so; it can “provide for” education by supporting or recognising schools, rather than providing them directly, or by any combination of direct provision and recognition/support. If anything, the Constitution seems to treat support for, supplementing, etc schools as the default, and direct provision as an alternative “where the public good requires it”. To the extent that the State does provide schools, it can’t oblige parents to send their children to those schools. And, to the extent that it does provide schools, it must do so with “due regard” to the rights of parents in the matter of religious and moral formation. Which I think creates an obstacle to any policy of providing secular or non-religious schools, at the same time withdrawing support for religious schools.

I think that provides some extremely useful material for anyone wanting to mount a case say that under the current arrangements the state is failing to have due regard to the rights of parents who want a non-Catholic or non-religious education for their children. But it provides no support at all for a case arguing that the state should only provide or recognise schools which offer a secular, or non-religious, or non-denominational education.


The reality is that if you want to persuade the state to stop supporting religious schools, you’ll have to persuade parents to stop choosing them. There’s no court action which will bring about that result. As long as any appreciable number of parents seek religious schools, Art 42 makes it very difficult for the State not to provide for religious schools.

One disadvantage I have is access via phone. I have already noted that I believed a case has failed on constitutional grounds. I've discovered over the years that you can pay large amounts of money to get some very polished legal opinion which turns out to be just that: a polished and expensive opinion, fantasy even, which is set to naught by the judgement handed down. Unless you are a Justice of the Supreme Court you will understand that I have to treat your contribution on your interpretation of the constitution with caution. I doubt dear Peregrinus if you are whiling away a boring morning on the bench by doing a little nixer on Boards. If you have access to the judgement previously handed down, say via the Law Library, could you post a link that hoi polloi could access? I used to have paper copies of some of these things but the years have taken their toll.

From a quick read of your post I think the State has constitutionally several roles but I need to excavate my Bunreacht and get to a large screen and a keyboard. I may have missed some post but the issue of compulsion seems to be on the other foot: a non religious parent does not have the option of avoiding a school under religious control or indeed a curriculum itself distorted by religious thinking.