Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Census 2016 - Time to tick NO
Options
Comments
-
I think Peregrinus did already point this out but still, they are:No religious services are stipulated AFAIK.
42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
Parents are Constitutionally entitled to provide religious education for their children in schools recognised or established by the State. So, yes the State must provide for religious education; it's specifically listed as part of this education parents are free to provide in schools established by the State.
So do we have any reason to think any colleges should have Muslim chaplains then?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.0 -
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.
Your brother (and yourself Cabaal) is entitled (and to some views obliged) to report that the census has been completed falsely though, which is an offence under the Statistics Act.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.
On a more practical note, I think if you yourself know that you are unable to convince someone you are not Catholic (or Muslim, Jedi, whatever) sufficiently to be certain that a correct representation will be made for you, surely you have some obligation to your own convictions at least, to make sure you are somewhere on Census night where you will be properly counted? If you don't want to report someone for committing an offence that is, which I know traditionally at least might actually be an attractive prospect with regard to some mothers-in-law.0 -
Your suspicions are well-founded! And of course you’re free to question, challenge or disagree with my opinions on these (or any other) matters. And your questions and challenges and disagreements have at least as much chance of being correct as my views do.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 . . .
The particular cases are Campaign to Separate Church & State -v- Minister for Education [1998] 3 IR 321, and Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] 2 IR 321. Absolam mentioned them in post 94 of this thread, and recedite responded in post 95 noting the vintage of the two cases and wondering “if they would have the same outcome if heard today”. I felt there was a degree of wishful thinking at work there; the simple passage of 20 years doesn’t in itself reduce the authority or precedential value of a Supreme Court judgment, and unless rec (or someone else) is pointing to some cases decided in the interim that suggest the Court has adopted a changed approach, I’m not sure that rec has found much to wonder about. Plus, of course, the Art. 26 reference is beyond review; it binds the Supreme Court.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.
I don’t have links to the judgments, I’m afraid. Googling in search of same I did come across this set of notes on cases dealing with the constitutional treatment of religion in Ireland, including those two cases, and also this paper by Gerry Whyte on the same topic. They might be of some interest.
I agree. On the one hand, it’s obviously not possible that every parent should be presented with their “dream school”, either in terms of theistic or nontheistic educational philosophies, or single-sex versus coeducational education, or Montessori versus Froebel versus Steiner methods, or anything else. On the other hand, the Constitition does lay great stress on the rights of parents to make educational choices for their children, especially with regard to religious and moral education, and the duty of the state to support and facilitate those choices. And, without having thought too deeply about it, my gut feeling is that their must be pretty strong mileage in the argument that, as matters stand, parents who want a Catholic education are unconstitutionally privileged over parents who want a secular or nondenominational education, since I see nothing in the Constitution which says that the state must support the parents’ choices if it’s a choice for Catholic education, but not so much if it’s a different choice.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.
But an argument that I think won’t fly so well is an argument that secular schools should be preferenced or privileged. On the basis that not everybody can get their “dream school”, you can argue that the default should be a secular school, since this is a neutral space as between competing religious/philosophical worldviews. I don’t think that argument has ever been run in in Ireland, and I don’t think that it would find much traction if it were run, given what the Constitution says about both religion and education. But it has been run in the ECHR, in Lautsi, and it got short shrift. As far as the ECHR is concerned, secularity isn’t a position of neutrality between competing religious/philosophical worldviews; it’s just one more member of the set of religious/philosophical worldviews. I’d bet a pint and a chaser that, if the question came up in the Supreme Court, they’d find that analysis quite appealing, and a neat fit with the relevant Constitutional provisions.0 -
I'm not going to quote the above at length. My memories were of an earlier challenge in the 70's. I'll do some digging. I'm interested in my dotage about how a challenge might be mounted. Dev was a vastly overrated wordsmith and it is an amusing pastime for me to try to pick the lock. A sort of sudoku.0
-
I think if adults have a problem that other adults, who care about them and are closely related to them, don't have sufficient respect for them to take seriously their religious identification, that's not really a legal problem, and recourse to a legal analysis or a legal solution wouldn't be really be my first recommendation.Your brother (and yourself Cabaal) is entitled (and to some views obliged) to report that the census has been completed falsely though, which is an offence under the Statistics Act . . .
On the wider note, far be it from me to comment on the family situations of either Lazygal or Cabaal, but I counsel against too much appealing to the "Mammy factor" to suggest that the number of unbelievers in Ireland is significantly understated. I'm sure it's not the intention, but it tends to create the impression that a significant chunk of the Irish unbelieving community are still living at home with Mammy and Daddy, and furthermore are doing so on terms that their families either do not know about, or do not take seriously, their religious identification. This conjures up the impression of the stereotypical unbeliever as a postadolescent slacker who isn't even a household name in his own household.
As I say, I'm sure that's not the intention (and, more to the point, I'm sure that's not the reality) but I have to confess that it is an image that is constantly presented to me by this particular line of argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
I vaguely remember a 1970s case where two professors at Maynooth had themselves laicised, and were thereupon fired by the Trustees of the College (who are the Irish Catholic bishops). They sued, arguing that a requirement to be a cleric a cleric couldn't be imposed in that context without it amounting to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Don't recall the clerics' names, but the defendant was the Trustees of St Patrick's College Maynooth, or something very like that.I'm not going to quote the above at length. My memories were of an earlier challenge in the 70's. I'll do some digging. I'm interested in my dotage about how a challenge might be mounted. Dev was a vastly overrated wordsmith and it is an amusing pastime for me to try to pick the lock. A sort of sudoku.
But you may be thinking of an entirely different case.0 -
Think of it more as my recommendation of last resort; the first being for a person to simply ensure they are somewhere that they can express their preference and know it will be acknowledged on census night. That doesn't seem like it ought to be all that difficult to arrange if they are not a post adolescent slacker, and they feel they need to avoid a family row about their principles.Peregrinus wrote: »I think if adults have a problem that other adults, who care about them and are closely related to them, don't have sufficient respect for them to take seriously their religious identification, that's not really a legal problem, and recourse to a legal analysis or a legal solution wouldn't be really be my first recommendation.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I vaguely remember a 1970s case where two professors at Maynooth had themselves laicised, and were thereupon fired by the Trustees of the College (who are the Irish Catholic bishops). They sued, arguing that a requirement to be a cleric a cleric couldn't be imposed in that context without it amounting to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Don't recall the clerics' names, but the defendant was the Trustees of St Patrick's College Maynooth, or something very like that.
McGrath and Ó Ruairc v Trustees of Maynooth College [1979] ILRM 166?
Some notes here.0 -
-
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.
They do, actually. At least Trinity College asks for religion when enrolling each year. Fairly sure it's only for statistic purposes and if I recall correctly, it's only optional.
Also, on the existence of Muslim prayer rooms, unless they changed it the one in TCD is essentially a spare room that they happened to have in a basement in Goldsmith hall. Again, going from memory so details might be slightly wrong. Conversely, for Christians there's a proper chaplaincy with a bunch of different chaplains for different denominations. Oh, and free food on Tuesdays iirc.0 -
Advertisement
-
There are two limits on the provision of chaplains in a place like Trinity. One is, how many chaplains is the college prepared to pay for? The other is, how many denominations are interested in providing a chaplain? The smaller denominations generally don't want to field a full-time chaplain - the Methodist Chaplain in Trinity, for example, also togs out as one of the Ministers at the Dublin Central Mission in Abbey Street. My guess is that if, e.g, the Jewish or Muslim communities wanted to field a part-time chaplain in TCD, the college and the chaplaincy would accommodate them. But it's not a priority for either of them, given the clerical manpower they have, and the other demands that are made on it.
The Jewish community does in fact have a chaplain for Jewish students, but that's all Jewish students throughout Ireland, not just in TCD. And the man who fills that role is also the congregational rabbi in Terenure, so the actual amount of time he devotes to Jewish students in TCD is probably not such as would justify appointing him even as a part-time chaplain. I imagine if he needed a room in college to meet people or hold a function on some occasion, the chaplaincy would oblige. And it wouldn't amaze me if there was a corresponding figure in the Islamic community, but I don't know that.
There are accredited Humanist Chaplains in Ireland, though I think at the moment only two (both freelancers). I see on the HAI website a recent submission arguing for equal accommodation for Humanist chaplains from those government agencies which fund chaplaincies - the HSE, Universities and Colleges, the Defence Forces, Prisons.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I vaguely remember a 1970s case where two professors at Maynooth had themselves laicised, and were thereupon fired by the Trustees of the College (who are the Irish Catholic bishops). They sued, arguing that a requirement to be a cleric a cleric couldn't be imposed in that context without it amounting to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Don't recall the clerics' names, but the defendant was the Trustees of St Patrick's College Maynooth, or something very like that.
But you may be thinking of an entirely different case.
I'm not sure tbh. I think it was focused on the provision of (or provision for) denominational education. I thought there was one plaintiff. If I find it I will post the conclusions of the court.0 -
The wording of the questions distorts the results and should be changed
This is what the question looked like last time
Firstly, the question is biased. it presumes that people have a religion 'What is your religion'
Secondly,
I remember looking for the 'no religion' option and I couldn't see it straight away, because it was hidden down underneath the 'other' option to write in your own religion.
For most people who don't really care that much, they'll not be actively looking for the no religion option and might either write it in, or tick Catholic.
The correct, unbiased way to ask the question is
1. Do you practise a religion (yes or no)
1.a If Yes, What is your religion0 -
-
-
That's not really an unbiased way, since it assumes that a religion is a matter of practice as opposed to, say, faith, or inheritance, or some other characteristic. It's absolutely not the business of the state to say that a religious identity is valid if expressed through practice, but not valid if expressed in other ways, and the state should not be seeking to ignore religious identifications which depend on, e.g., faith rather than practice.. . . The correct, unbiased way to ask the question is
1. Do you practise a religion (yes or no)
1.a If Yes, What is your religion
I don't really have an issue with asking "What is your religion?", and then offering "no religion" as an option. I can see the technical objection, but isn't really any different from asking "what is your occupation?" and then including "unemployed" in the list of options, or "what is your nationality?" and offering "stateless" as a possible answer. The pedantic objection notwithstanding, it's a familiar form of question and I really don't think people are confused by it.
I take the point, though, that putting "no religion" at the bottom tends to conceal it below the boxes where people can write in a religious description. My suggestion would be that, as all the other options are ordered by size based on the answers given in the previous census, it would be consistent to treat "no religion" in the same way. That would put it second in the list next time around.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »That's not really an unbiased way, since it assumes that a religion is a matter of practice as opposed to, say, faith, or inheritance, or some other characteristic.
Nah it's the correct way.
Whatever about the sentence or wording used the actual question should follow this format
1. Question "Something about your religion/Are you religious/"
Yes
No
1a If Yes then...
What is your religion
You ask the question, get an answer and go into specifics if necessary. I'm sure you could come up with a question that would satisfy the format.0 -
Basically something to this format. Is it the business of the State how often you practice religi...I mean speak Irish?
0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »That's not really an unbiased way, since it assumes that a religion is a matter of practice as opposed to, say, faith, or inheritance, or some other characteristic.
It doesn't assume anything. It asks if people have a religion, Y/N, and then, if Yes, for details of that religion. How is that more biased than assuming that people do have a religion, and only tacking on the possibility of not having one as an afterthought once they've worked their way through all the other possibilities.
To use the "Irish" question Daith has posted, it would mean that that question would begin with "how often do you speak Irish?", followed by the various possibilities, and "Never" as the last question.
You can of course put it that way, but then it's something of a leading question, which for a census is probably not best practice.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was responding to a suggestion that the first question should ask if people practice a religion, and pointing out that this assumes that religion is a matter of practice. Which is a controversial claim, not least on this board where people regularly challenge the number of Catholics reported in the census by arguing that they don't believe this or that Catholic doctrine.It doesn't assume anything. It asks if people have a religion, Y/N, and then, if Yes, for details of that religion.
The census has two questions on Irish because it's measuring two different variables - knowledge of Irish, and use of Irish. I don't see that there are two analogous questions about religion that we need to be asking, and I don't see that the suggested division of the current question into two is going to elicit any more information than the current single question. We'd still end up with information that could be expressed in a pie-chart, one slice of which represents people of "no religion". I'm not sure why anybody thinks that asking two questions to elicit information that we currently elicit with one question is desirable.To use the "Irish" question Daith has posted, it would mean that that question would begin with "how often do you speak Irish?", followed by the various possibilities, and "Never" as the last question.
As noted already, I can see the argument from pedantry. But arguments from pedantry are generally unconvincing. And, if you find that argument persuasive, you're going to have do a similar restructuring into two questions for question 4 ("What is your relationship to Person 1?"), question 10 ("What is your nationality?", question 19 ("How do you usually travel to work, school or college?"), question 20 ("What time do you usually leave home to go to work, school or college?"), question 25 (" What is the highest level of education/training (full-time or part-time) which you have completed to date?"), question H6 (" What is the main type of fuel used by the central heating in your accommodation?"), question H7 ("What type of piped water supply does your accommodation have?") and question H8 ("What type of sewerage facility does your accomodation have?"). Each of these questions is followed by a list of options, one of which is a denial of the assumption implicit in the question. If there's evidence that people are confused by this and that bad data is resulting, let's see it. If there's no such evidence, why would we consider multiplying the number of questions in the census form for no apparent reason?0 -
I'd agree the format of the "Do You Speak Irish" question is probably a good way to go; I'd avoid the 'practice' bit though and keep it as non pejorative as possible, since that seems to be the point?
"Do you profess a religion y/n, if so...' sort of thing? That's seems about the closest you'll get without trying to determine to what degree they might be what they say they are.
My understanding of the reasoning behind the existing question is it offers the possible answers in order of those provided by people in the last census, so really the only issue is whether 'no religion' is a sufficiently large enough portion to be worth excluding entirely at the outset, as non-Irish speakers are.
I'm not sure that how Census questions are asked ought to be based on peoples agendas rather than statistical usability, but I can't see it damaging the information coming from the Census?0 -
I disagree, for the reasons pointed out above. But I am really responding to you to make this point:I'd agree the format of the "Do You Speak Irish" question is probably a good way to go . ..
The various religions offered are listed in the order of popularity from the last census, but the "no religion" box is an exception to that. If it were listed in order of popularity it would come second in the list, which is where I suggest it ought to be. But if you want to mark it out as a valid and meaningful answer but, in distinction to the other valid, meaningful answers, not actually a religion by putting it first I'd be fine with that. At the moment they attempt to do that by putting it last which in principle is equally fine, but it practice means it's a bit "masked" by the write-in box that goes with the second-last answer.My understanding of the reasoning behind the existing question is it offers the possible answers in order of those provided by people in the last census, so really the only issue is whether 'no religion' is a sufficiently large enough portion to be worth excluding entirely at the outset, as non-Irish speakers are.
One unintended by-product of this, though, does occur to me. As you know we have a large number ticking the "no religion" box (268,811) and smaller numbers ticking the "other" box and writing in either "atheist" (3,905) or "agnostic" (3,521). Now, it's obvious that an atheist or agnostic can perfectly validly and accurately record his identity in either of these two ways, and either will result in his being counted in a tot of "unbelievers". Thus, we can't treat the "atheist" and "agnostic" figures as accurate counts of people who, if asked directly, would identify as atheist or agnostic. Nevertheless the figures are not without interest because, as compared with 2006, while the number of people ticking "no religion" has grown at a dramatic rate, the numbers explicitly identify as "agnostic" have grown at a more dramatic rate, and the numbers identifying as "atheist" at a more dramatic rate still.
And what this suggest to me is not only that unbelief is growing, but that it's becoming "harder" or firmer. We know from other evidence that changing a census option from "tick the box" to "write in" has a significant effect on people's willingness to choose that option; having to write in is a barrier, but it's a barrier that a growing proportion of no-religionistas are happy to cross in order to record their identity more explicitly. If a greater proportion of unbelievers are choosing to identify as atheist or agnostic, and take the trouble to write this in, this tells more than just that unbelief is growing; it's also becoming clearer and more assertive in its identity.
And if we move "no religion" to second or first place in the list, or especially if we break it out entirely into a preliminary question, I think the likelihood is that we'll have fewer (or no) no-religionistas ticking the "other" box and then writing in "atheist" or "agnostic". Which means we'll lose the information we currently have about the changing nature of unbelief in Ireland. Which maybe is not a reason to avoid making the change, but we should at least note that that would be a likely consequence of the change.0 -
So including atheist and agnostic as tickeable options would provide more information at the risk of ire from those who quite rightly say these are not religions. The question then really becomes how to phrase the question in order to allow all probable options in order of likelihood, without it inferring non-religious options are religious.Peregrinus wrote: »And if we move "no religion" to second or first place in the list, or especially if we break it out entirely into a preliminary question, I think the likelihood is that we'll have fewer (or no) no-religionistas ticking the "other" box and then writing in "atheist" or "agnostic". Which means we'll lose the information we currently have about the changing nature of unbelief in Ireland. Which maybe is not a reason to avoid making the change, but we should at least note that that would be a likely consequence of the change.
How about 'What is your preferred perspective on religous belief'?
Or "How do you identify your point of view on religion"?0 -
For census purposes, the state has no interest in sub-classifications of unbelief. The fact that we have any "atheist" and "agnostic" identifications at all is an accidental outcome of the way the question is currently laid out. If they do lay it out differently in the future, capturing "atheist" and "agnostic" identifications is not going to be one of the objectives of the change.So including atheist and agnostic as tickeable options would provide more information at the risk of ire from those who quite rightly say these are not religions. The question then really becomes how to phrase the question in order to allow all probable options in order of likelihood, without it inferring non-religious options are religious.
Plus, it's tricky. You don't want people faced with a list of options and then feeling conflicted because they could validly tick two or more. (You can have no religion, and be both atheist and agnostic.) Already the religion question is one with a high non-response rate; they won't want to make changes which might magnify that.
I think the objection there is that the reader is going to look at the questions and go "wha'?"How about 'What is your preferred perspective on religous belief'?
Or "How do you identify your point of view on religion"?
"What is your religion" is a readily understandable question, and if somebody has no religion, and "no religion" is one of the options offered, I really struggle to think that many people are confused, and don't know how they ought to answer the question.
I appreciate that "no religion" is not actually a religion, but as pointed out above there are many other questions on the census where this approach is taken - "no relationship" is not a relationship, "no nationality" is not a nationality, etc. If it doesn't seem to be causing any problem, then demanding that the question be restructured (in a more complex way) looks like sacrificing utility to pedantry.
Unless there's some evidence that this way of structuring these questions is causing a problem that results in degraded data, I don't see why you would think of making any change.0 -
But having captured it, is there any reason to not continue capturing it? As you said, it provides data on how 'un'belief is changing, which is as worthwhile as data on how belief is changing. For census purposes, there's no reason for the state to have any less interest in sub-classifications of unbelief than it does in sub-classifications of belief, if you were to look at it that way?Peregrinus wrote: »For census purposes, the state has no interest in sub-classifications of unbelief. The fact that we have any "atheist" and "agnostic" identifications at all is an accidental outcome of the way the question is currently laid out. If they do lay it out differently in the future, capturing "atheist" and "agnostic" identifications is not going to be one of the objectives of the change.
True, and it's not like similar hair-splits of religions are analagous. But if people already choose to identify as 'agnostic' 'atheist' or 'no religion' and those splits are being reported as they are now, then why not codify them, just as if a new religious view started being statistically significant?Peregrinus wrote: »Plus, it's tricky. You don't want people faced with a list of options and then feeling conflicted because they could validly tick two or more. (You can have no religion, and be both atheist and agnostic.) Already the religion question is one with a high non-response rate; they won't want to make changes which might magnify that.
True. But then if the reader is prepared to go to the trouble of entering their religion as 'lapsed roman catholic' like 1,279 people did, there's apaprently a fair bit of thought going into this here and there....Peregrinus wrote: »I think the objection there is that the reader is going to look at the questions and go "wha'?"
Again true. I can see why people might object to it though, and I'm wondering can the objection be overcome without compromising the data (and incurring other objections). As it might be with the nationality or relationship questions, all things being equal.Peregrinus wrote: »"What is your religion" is a readily understandable question, and if somebody has no religion, and "no religion" is one of the options offered, I really struggle to think that many people are confused, and don't know how they ought to answer the question.0 -
There’s no reason not to continue capturing it. But . . .But having captured it, is there any reason to not continue capturing it? As you said, it provides data on how 'un'belief is changing, which is as worthwhile as data on how belief is changing. For census purposes, there's no reason for the state to have any less interest in sub-classifications of unbelief than it does in sub-classifications of belief, if you were to look at it that way?
. . . (A) That’s unlikely to be the outcome of any changes. It’s an accident, not a feature, that the current question works to capture it, and as it wasn’t an objective they had designing the current question it’s unlikely to be an objective in any redesign. Plus . . .
. . . (B) If, by happy accident, any restructured question also captures it, it won’t be quite the same combination of incentive and circumstances, and information we got under the 2006 and 2011 censuses won’t be meaningfully comparable with the information we get under the 2016 census. And since the meaning I have noted crucially depended on comparison between different censuses, that’s a loss.
I suspect the current rate at which non-believers identify by filling out the “other” box is significantly influenced by the fact that they come across that option before they come to the “no religion” box. Once that ceases to be true (and if there are no other changes) I think you’ll have much lower proportions of unbelievers identifying in this way.
As for whether identifying sub-classifications of unbelief should be an object of the census, obviously it’s of interest to obsessives and tragics such as myself and yourself and a few other denizens of this board. But I doubt they care about it very much in the Central Statistics Office or in Merrion Street. The breakdown of believers as between Catholics, Protestants, established religions versus new religions, etc, is interesting and relevant in terms of, e.g. projecting future demand for schools, cross-referencing with ethnicity and place of origin data to build up a rounded picture of cultural and demographic diversity, etc. I don’t see that the distinctions between agnostic atheists and atheist agnostics are quite so useful.
Plus, the religious labels can mostly be mapped one-to-one to actual functioning communities. You can argue about whether everybody who identifies as Catholic or Jewish really has a strong connection with the Catholic or Jewish communities, but there is no corresponding argument to be had about atheism or agnosticism. The result is that we know much, much less about what identification as “atheist” means than we do about what identification as “Catholic” means. Which, again, points to it not being something the state would find it interesting to collect via the census.
I think it would be good to have better information about varieties of unbelief in Ireland. How many people consider themselves humanist, for example, or are drawn to humanism? For any given definition of atheism, how many people who consider themselves atheist would accept that definition, or agree that it applies to them? How many people who reject the label “atheist” would in fact come within that definition? But I seriously doubt that the census is either an appropriate or an effective place to gather that kind of qualitative information.
For the reason just given. Basically, for the purposes for which information is collected via the census, that’s not considered to be interesting information.True, and it's not like similar hair-splits of religions are analagous. But if people already choose to identify as 'agnostic' 'atheist' or 'no religion' and those splits are being reported as they are now, then why not codify them, just as if a new religious view started being statistically significant?
By a small number of people, though. The overwhelming bulk of unbelievers don’t attempt to sub-classify their unbelief, and that fact that the question doesn’t require or invite them to do so is one of the few objections to the present form of the question which has not been voiced on this board, so I don’t get any sense that the non-religious community feel that they are not being studied enough in the census.True. But then if the reader is prepared to go to the trouble of entering their religion as 'lapsed roman catholic' like 1,279 people did, there's apparently a fair bit of thought going into this here and there....
I don’t think we can overcome the objection (with or without compromising the data) until we first of all know exactly what the objection is. And if the objection is simply “’no religion’ is not a religion” my view is, that’s not a problem, until it’s shown to be a problem. Is there any reason to think that the non-religious have difficulty in recording their non-religiousness under the current form of the question? Without that, the objection from pedantry is trivial, and there is no case for even risking a reduction in the quality of the data that we are currently getting by making any change to overcome it.Again true. I can see why people might object to it though, and I'm wondering can the objection be overcome without compromising the data (and incurring other objections). As it might be with the nationality or relationship questions, all things being equal.0 -
which is funny, because that's exactly what we're discussing : one could expect quite a large difference in the useful exploitation of census results of numbers of practicing Catholics, say, vs cultural Catholics.Peregrinus wrote: »I was responding to a suggestion that the first question should ask if people practice a religion, and pointing out that this assumes that religion is a matter of practice. Which is a controversial claim, not least on this board where people regularly challenge the number of Catholics reported in the census by arguing that they don't believe this or that Catholic doctrine.
The census has two questions on Irish because it's measuring two different variables - knowledge of Irish, and use of Irish. I don't see that there are two analogous questions about religion that we need to be asking, and I don't see that the suggested division of the current question into two is going to elicit any more information than the current single question. We'd still end up with information that could be expressed in a pie-chart, one slice of which represents people of "no religion". I'm not sure why anybody thinks that asking two questions to elicit information that we currently elicit with one question is desirable.
At the very least, it's quite useful to know which question people think they are answering - and as it's currently expressed I think the confusion is greater than if it were less leading. I think that's deliberate.
It's not at all an argument from pedantry, but from consistency. People need to grasp the detail of what they're being asked as quickly and easily as possible, and pointless variations on question structure lead to inaccurate answers.As noted already, I can see the argument from pedantry. But arguments from pedantry are generally unconvincing. And, if you find that argument persuasive, you're going to have do a similar restructuring into two questions for question 4 ("What is your relationship to Person 1?"), question 10 ("What is your nationality?", question 19 ("How do you usually travel to work, school or college?"), question 20 ("What time do you usually leave home to go to work, school or college?"), question 25 (" What is the highest level of education/training (full-time or part-time) which you have completed to date?"), question H6 (" What is the main type of fuel used by the central heating in your accommodation?"), question H7 ("What type of piped water supply does your accommodation have?") and question H8 ("What type of sewerage facility does your accomodation have?"). Each of these questions is followed by a list of options, one of which is a denial of the assumption implicit in the question. If there's evidence that people are confused by this and that bad data is resulting, let's see it. If there's no such evidence, why would we consider multiplying the number of questions in the census form for no apparent reason?
As I say I don't think that's a coincidence in this case.
(BTW. Are there houses with no sewerage facility? That must be a tiny number. Nothing like "no religion"!)0 -
Well, we need to be clear here about what we’re trying to do.which is funny, because that's exactly what we're discussing : one could expect quite a large difference in the useful exploitation of census results of numbers of practicing Catholics, say, vs cultural Catholics.
Currently, as regards religion the census only attempts to elicit information about one variable: religious identity. As I suggested already, the information they are looking for can be presented as a pie-chart, with one slice of the pie representing those of no religion.
In principle, to elicit information about one variable, you should only need one question. If you find yourself asking two questions or more, you’re overcomplicating matters, and you need to think again.
Earlier proposals in this thread to break this down into two questions, basically of the form “Do you have a religion? If so, what is it?” seem to me to be misguided. They’re going to elicit exactly the same information as the current one question. And, as I have said before, I don’t see any argument other than an argument from pedantry in favour of this. I’ll reconsider that view if somebody produces evidence that people are so confused by the current question that they don’t know that the way to indicate that they have no religion is to tick the “no religion” box.
What you’re suggesting now is that, in fact, we should be seeking to elicit information about more than one variable. Fair enough; if in fact we are to elicit information about two variables then one question may or may not be biased, but it’s certainly insufficient. But note that “Do you have a religion? If so, what is it?” still wouldn’t elicit information about two variables, just about one.
We can’t frame our two questions unless we’re clear about what two variables we are measuring. And we can’t expect the census to include those two questions without making a good case as to why, for census purposes, collecting information on those two variables is relevant.
You suggest that the two variables should be “practicing Catholics” and “cultural Catholics”. A number of questions leap at once to mind. First, what do we mean by “cultural Catholics”? It’s a term normally employed somewhat pejoratively, which makes me doubt that it’s the kind of thing they want in the census. Second, why “practising Catholics”, as opposed to, say, “believing Catholics”? Thirdly, do you mean “practising” in terms of participating in worship, or practising in terms of making ethical choices consistently with the teachings of the religion concerned? Or some other sense of “practising” And, whatever your answer is, why is that particular kind of practice the one the state needs information about? Thirdly, why the focus on Catholicism? Your categories of “practising” versus “cultural” aren’t equally applicable to all religious identities - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, unbeliever, Atheist, Agnostic . Are you proposing different variables for different identities? Or are you just not interested in a better understanding of any identity other than Catholic? And, fourthly, leaving aside the curiosity of tragics like ourselves, what is the public interest which justifies gathering this data through the census?
That’s your inner conspiracy theorist speaking, vol.At the very least, it's quite useful to know which question people think they are answering - and as it's currently expressed I think the confusion is greater than if it were less leading. I think that's deliberate.
I have repeated asked for evidence that the present form of the question leads to confusion; nobody has produced any.
The form of the religious question, as already pointed out, is exactly the same as the form of several other questions on the census form; do you find them deliberately confusing too? Or do you think that the census form designers are deliberately causing confusion by using a form of question which isn’t confusing?
Finally, I note that the NI, Scottish, English, Australian and New Zealand census questions on religion all ask a question in form of “what religion . . . ?” and then offer a range of options, one of which is “no religion”. Do you think they are all deliberately engendering confusion? Or is it just an amazing coincidence that the Irish census authorities, bent on creating confusion, decided to use the exact same form of question as is used by other census authorities who just want to collect information. Googling hasn’t found me any national census with a question on religion which doesn’t take this form. Why do you think that might be?
My point exactly. The form of the religion question is entirely consistent the form of other census questions that seek to elicit information about only one variable. Which is as it should be.It's not at all an argument from pedantry, but from consistency. People need to grasp the detail of what they're being asked as quickly and easily as possible, and pointless variations on question structure lead to inaccurate answers.
There are 3,555 of them, apparently, which is almost exactly the same as the number of self-identified agnostics in the country. Coincidence?(BTW. Are there houses with no sewerage facility? That must be a tiny number. Nothing like "no religion"!)0 -
Advertisement
-
It gets messy because the whole religious arena is woolly and poorly defined.Peregrinus wrote: »I was responding to a suggestion that the first question should ask if people practice a religion, and pointing out that this assumes that religion is a matter of practice. Which is a controversial claim, not least on this board where people regularly challenge the number of Catholics reported in the census by arguing that they don't believe this or that Catholic doctrine.
When someone
If you are a non practising catholic this means you are no longer following the doctrines of the faith, and it's not really appropriate to tick the catholic box. If you're not a practising catholic but still have faith in some generic of specific christian god, then that's why the 'other' box was invented.
If someone considers himself a catholic but doesn't consider himself a practising catholic, then he/she will think about what box applies most to him and the result will be more accurate compared to the 'what religion are you' question that includes everyone who believes and everyone who was indoctrinated in the past and no longer believes/practises.
The reason to split it, is because 'begging the question' is a fallacy, and there shouldn't be fallacious questions on the national census form.The census has two questions on Irish because it's measuring two different variables - knowledge of Irish, and use of Irish. I don't see that there are two analogous questions about religion that we need to be asking, and I don't see that the suggested division of the current question into two is going to elicit any more information than the current single question. We'd still end up with information that could be expressed in a pie-chart, one slice of which represents people of "no religion". I'm not sure why anybody thinks that asking two questions to elicit information that we currently elicit with one question is desirable.
Also, what's the point in a question about religion, if it doesn't capture what people actually believe about religion. Religion is fundamentally, a belief system. We already capture information about people's ethnicity on a separate section. The question about religion is clearly meant to be one about attitude or belief.
Because there are reasonable presumptions, and there are unreasonable ones.As noted already, I can see the argument from pedantry. But arguments from pedantry are generally unconvincing. And, if you find that argument persuasive, you're going to have do a similar restructuring into two questions for question 4 ("What is your relationship to Person 1?"), question 10 ("What is your nationality?", question 19 ("How do you usually travel to work, school or college?"), question 20 ("What time do you usually leave home to go to work, school or college?"), question 25 (" What is the highest level of education/training (full-time or part-time) which you have completed to date?"), question H6 (" What is the main type of fuel used by the central heating in your accommodation?"), question H7 ("What type of piped water supply does your accommodation have?") and question H8 ("What type of sewerage facility does your accomodation have?"). Each of these questions is followed by a list of options, one of which is a denial of the assumption implicit in the question. If there's evidence that people are confused by this and that bad data is resulting, let's see it. If there's no such evidence, why would we consider multiplying the number of questions in the census form for no apparent reason?
I think in your argument against being overly pedantic, you've strayed into the realm of being overly pedantic yourself.0
Advertisement