Increase in people identifying as having No Religion

eeguy

magicbastarder wrote: »

'what is your level of education' would be considered a fair question, with a perfectly logical answer being 'none'.

University of life or school of hard knocks?

infogiver

magicbastarder wrote: »

the census is not a 'behaviours and attitudes' survey; it almost by definition cannot deal in nuance, and cannot deal with non-binary questions about religion without becoming a morass.

I'm giggling here because I'm imagining a kind of reverse Spanish Inquisition where if you tick the Catholic box a bunch of pro secularists will burst in the kitchen door immediately with the torture equipment in a big suitcase:
"When were you last at confession?"
"When is ascension Sunday?"
"Sing Tantum Ergo!All of it!!!"

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I disagree. The census doesn't show that that the majority reject much Catholic dogma or that they would like to see greater separation of church and state, but nor does it show or attempt to show the contrary. It offers no information at all on that subject. As such, I don't think it can be said to be biassed one way or the other.

Biased is probably the wrong word as to some it could suggest intention. The principal reason that questions tend not to change on the census is because to introduce change affects the potential to compare data from one survey to the next, which is seen as of paramount important to statisticians keen to investigate trends. The problem here is that being a Catholic in the 60s or 70s has very different implications from being a Catholic today, where the former was indicative of broad support for the Catholic church and adherence to Catholic dogma whereas the latter is primarily a personal choice that carries no such baggage. As such the comparative value of the data is flawed, as we're not really comparing like with like, yet the results fail to highlight this. Rather than saying the question is biased, I'd say the CSO are over invested in not changing questions as to do so fecks up their natty little graphs. As a result of this, I'd say by not revising the census we're missing a rare opportunity to measure the actual state of religiosity and secularism in this country. TBH, I couldn't care less about how many people identify as atheist or Catholic as these are personal subjective choices. I would be interested in knowing how many people would identify as secularist as this is a useful statistic for how we mould society moving forward. Looking at the controversy surrounding the likes of the NMH, the citizens assembly, and attitudes towards LGBT equality, there would appear to be a sea change Irish behaviour that the census is entirely failing to capture.

smacl

infogiver wrote: »

I'm giggling here because I'm imagining a kind of reverse Spanish Inquisition where if you tick the Catholic box a bunch of pro secularists will burst in the kitchen door immediately with the torture equipment in a big suitcase"

Really? So far as I can tell, at least as many Catholics are also secularists as not. If we're talking about torturing people for not adhering to the right religious dogma, going to be very hard to outdo the Vatican

infogiver

smacl wrote: »

Really? So far as I can tell, at least as many Catholics are also secularists as not. If we're talking about torturing people for not adhering to the right religious dogma, going to be very hard to outdo the Vatican

I think your taking me too seriously altogether

iguana

....... wrote: »

Is it not a legal requirement to go to school in this country until you are 15 or so?

No. It's a legal requirement for children to receive a minimum level of education. How the child receives that minimum education is up to the parents.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

What public policy is served by gathering this information? What is it needed for? And, if there is a public policy objective here in gathering this information, is the census the best place to achieve it?

The RCC and our good friends, the Ionanists, use this information to justify their continued control of a significant amount of state-funded services - mostly schools and hospitals - the two refuges of the uninformed + the gullible and the sick + the receptive.

The question "What religion are you" consists of two questions "Do you have a religion?" and, "If yes, what is your religion?" By careful conflation of two questions into one, and by ordering of choices to leave the main religions listed first with "none" at the end, the CSO is tilting the odds slightly, but noticeably, in favour of the RCC's political aims. In any case, the CSO provides no information regarding what the question actually means in the first place - and it could be legitimately interpreted as "What religion were you born into?", "What religion claims you?", "What religion do you primarily feel you belong to", "What religion do you practice?", "What religion do you believe that selecting here will improve something?" and no doubt a few more.

We know that this tilt is happening because - for example - of the decline of what might be termed religious morality as defined by the RCC, by the decline in the number of weddings in RCC premises, by the often-observed collapse in the numbers attending church and the virtual disappearance of any priests younger than sixty years old.

The relative stability of the figures provided by the census suggests that these figures themselves are the ones which are wildly outlying, and therefore predictably inaccurate.

robindch

infogiver wrote: »

I think your taking me too seriously altogether

If you don't want to be taken seriously, you might wish to consider posting, not in A+A where posters usually aim to be interesting, humorous or both, but here.

magicbastarder

he made a joke, someone took it seriously, so he mentioned 'it was just a joke', and gets a warning?

what is this, the spanish inquisition?

beauf

I wasn't expecting that....

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

The RCC and our good friends, the Ionanists, use this information to justify their continued control of a significant amount of state-funded services - mostly schools and hospitals - the two refuges of the uninformed + the gullible and the sick + the receptive.

I don't think you can object to the gathering of data on the basis that someone is going to misuse the data. That's a dangerous road to go down. Your objection should be to the misuse of the data.

As for the suggestion that the decline in Catholic practice should be accompanied by a decline in Catholic identification and isn't, and therefore the identification figure must be wrong, no. You're basing that on an unevidenced and unexamined assumption that Catholic identity rests on Catholic practice, and you're ignoring abundant evidence from other countries that this need not be so, and frequently is not so. A substantial gap between denominational identification and denominational practice is common, and can persist for generations. The fact that we see such a gap emerging in Ireland does nothing to suggest that the denominational identification figures in Ireland are wrong. It suggests, rather, that Ireland is moving towards what is normal for secularised western societies.

You may not like the fact that Catholic identity does not conform to your preconceptions about what it should be, but the purpose of the census is not to confirm your worldview, and when you find the evidence challenges your worldview the proper response is not to try and skew the evidence until it confirms your worldview, but to reevaluate your worldview.

beauf

robindch wrote: »

...justify their continued control of a significant amount of state-funded services ...

Those are Govt decisions. They don't have to align themselves with any particular religion. That they do suggests there is other influence in the boards and the Govt themselves.

Its interesting to see the make up the boards in this situation.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/i-cant-remain-a-member-of-a-board-that-is-so-blind-dr-peter-boylan-resigns-from-national-maternity-hospital-board-35659149.html

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

he made a joke, someone took it seriously, so he mentioned 'it was just a joke', and gets a warning?

Not a warning, just a finger-wag which - in retrospect - was misplaced given the post history :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

Imagine making Ruth Coppinger look like the rational one in a debate - well, Michael "Walking Kerryman Joke" Healy-Rae did just that on The Last Word on Tuesday, regurgitating the same old Catholic majoritarian arguments over the enforcement of Catholic prayers in the Dail.

Pherekydes

"This is a Catholic country..."

Professional gob****e.

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

[...] Michael "Walking Kerryman Joke" Healy-Rae did just that on The Last Word on Tuesday, regurgitating the same old Catholic majoritarian arguments [...]

The two Healy-Rae's showed up at a family funeral two weeks ago in Kerry, kyaps in hand, sombre look on the faces, younger guy first to check the lay of the land, then older brother to convey their condolences and press the live flesh.

We wasted no time in directing them to Popette who detained each clown for for fifteen minutes each on the evils of abortion and the gheys.

It was the least we could have done.

beauf

Politics is populist. That ain't changing.