Census 2016 Results

ongarboy

Mint Sauce wrote: »

One thing I don't get about the Census is, if you are away on Census night, then none of your results count.

One of the aims of the Census apparently, is to plan for the future, as an example they ask how you get to work, do you have the internet, etc. I guess this is too see what kind of infrastructure planning is needed.

But last Census night I was out of the country, and was marked so. So my form pretty much want back, with no input from me. Surely if enough people were marked so, would that not affect overall results.

I could be wrong but I thought there was a section to say that if you are normally resident in your actual home address (even if you weren't there on Census night), that is where you will be counted as living and that all the other questions (how you commute, speak irish, religion you practice etc) would still need to be filled out so that they would be associated with you as a resident of your home town/village wherever etc and therefore still counted?

darjeeling

eviltwin wrote: »

I think there are a lot of children too young to know any better included in those figures. I assume most adults are accurate in their answers but you can't guarantee that for a child. It would be interesting to see the religious breakdown by age. I'd hazard a guess the No Religion is overwhelmingly under 40.

Close enough to two thirds of non-religious are sub-40, going by census report fig 8.3.



And by getting approx numbers from the graph, & using the reported numbers for people in each age group, & the total no. of people of no religion, I reckon 15% of 20-40 year olds declared 'no religion', and 7% of under 10s (presumably children of younger, no-religion parents).

URL="https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/census-2016-summary-results-part-1-full.pdf"]Link to report pdf[/URL

Akrasia

Very interesting graph, but we shouldn't forget that the census question was a leading question. Many people who were adults before the good friday agreement in 1998 will be mentally ingrained that regardless of belief in god, being a cultural catholic is an important distinction to being a protestant.

There are a lot of middle aged atheists who say they are catholic because they're catholic atheists instead of protestant atheists.

We could comfortably double the figures for non religious people in Ireland and still be underestimating how many people have no belief in god.

Religion is dying out in Ireland. We need to make sure that we push forward with the secularisation of our society. People are still perfectly entitled to their religious views, but they have no place in our politics and legislation

It's always entertaining watching the same crowd of Irish culture and Irish independence hating West Brits go nuts "interpreting" how Irish people self-define on the religion and Irish language questions.

All that fine atheist consensus they have with a handful of like-minded sorts on some obscure corner of the internet given a rude awakening at each census. Long may it continue.

murpho999

Deleted User wrote: »

It's always entertaining watching the same crowd of Irish culture and Irish independence hating West Brits go nuts "interpreting" how Irish people self-define on the religion and Irish language questions.

All that fine atheist consensus they have with a handful of like-minded sorts on some obscure corner of the internet given a rude awakening at each census. Long may it continue.

Are you trying to say that atheists are west brits?

Can't an atheist be truly Irish?

Do you think you have to be a catholic to be Irish?

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Are you trying to say that atheists are west brits?

The self-declared spokesperson of Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent, fresh from decades of condemning republican violence only, certainly is.

Atheist Ireland label Rising killers undemocratic

Mrs OBumble

freshpopcorn wrote: »

.
When I speak to teachers about kids and Communion/Confrontation. Their doesn't seem to be a lot more opting out of these ceremonies even tough theirs no issues with them doing it and it wouldn't effect their place in the school if they did.

No issues? Yeah, right.

Kids aren't stupid. No irish kid becomes atheist until after their confirmation money is banked.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

I think there are a lot of children too young to know any better included in those figures. I assume most adults are accurate in their answers but you can't guarantee that for a child. It would be interesting to see the religious breakdown by age. I'd hazard a guess the No Religion is overwhelmingly under 40.

But that's exactly why their parents, or the householder at least, answers for them, because they aren't old enough to answer for themselves. In that case, then it doesn't need to be guaranteed for a child, because their parents are answering for them, the same way the parents of non-religious children are answering for their children, whom I could equally say don't know any better.

I'd look at the census statistics as a whole though rather than pulling out headline statistics like some in the national media are doing, and of course on that basis it's only natural to expect a drop in the numbers of Irish Catholics when Irish Catholics are having less children. Expressed as percentages though, the 10% rise in the number of people who identify as non-religious is of course going to be rising, particularly when between 20 - 40 is about the age people would be having children in the 5 years since the last census.

It's nothing for anyone religious or non-religious to be getting excited about really.

One eyed Jack

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But a catholic school may be the only school in the area, therefore you have no real choice only to enroll your child in it, so high demand for catholic schools is another very misleading statistic. Anyway if they're catholic schools, why doesn't the catholic church fund them?

The Church being made up of not just the Hierarchy, but also the Congregation, I'd say the number of Irish Catholics contributions towards Revenue in their taxes, more than covers not just the funding provided for the education of not just Irish Catholic children, but plenty more besides!

Ah I rarely ever believe line 'couldn't be removed/done/changed etc etc by government even if they wanted to', and I don't just mean in a religious context. The government isn't all powerful, but they have the power to do a hell of a lot once the will is there, sadly populism and inaction are the preferred options because the less you rock the boat the better your re-election chances. When a government says "we can't" they generally mean "shut up, I don't want to".

It has nothing to do with Government HG, it's written in the Irish Constitution, and would require a referendum to change it. There's no real demand for change in this regard though as most people are more concerned with getting their children into schools that are consistent with their values and world views. That's why there's not much is going to change with regard to the numbers of children enrolling in schools with a Catholic ethos.

reason vs religion

Deleted User wrote: »

The self-declared spokesperson of Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent, fresh from decades of condemning republican violence only, certainly is.

Atheist Ireland label Rising killers undemocratic

Why does having a contrary opinion on some aspect of Irish history, albeit a formative one, based in this case on Nugent's professed pacifism, make one a West Brit? (This is a largely rhetorical question. A response from you would provide only entertainment.)

Nugent, btw, is an officially-declared spokesperson of the organisation Atheist Ireland.

As for the Irish language, there's a strong connection between atheism and valuing truth. In these days of limited Church control, there's little sacraficed by going along with the crowd. But the atheist doesn't, gaining little else but the intellectual satisfaction of believing they know the truth. When it comes to the Irish language, there's a an unacknowledged truth that Irish is a failed language. Few can speak it anywhere near fluently and not many more would like to. The former claim is corroborated by a census result showing <2% speak the language on a daily basis. Yet many times that figure unashamedly claim to be able to speak the language when they know they don't, helped by a purposely-tendentious question. (There is another question on the census that asks one to rate their standard if they possess another language.) We go on teaching it for next to no gain (and with opportunity cost), never seeking improvement. To an atheist, the similarities between the avoidance of the truth regarding religion and the Irish language are striking and detestable.

RDM_83 again

Deleted User wrote: »

It's always entertaining watching the same crowd of Irish culture and Irish independence hating West Brits go nuts "interpreting" how Irish people self-define on the religion and Irish language questions.

All that fine atheist consensus they have with a handful of like-minded sorts on some obscure corner of the internet given a rude awakening at each census. Long may it continue.

The stupid thing is about arguing against the answer people give to the religion question is that the same people are completely ok with self-identification being all thats required for everything else.
The Church says your Catholic if your baptized etc, nothing to do with if you go to mass regularly or vote the way your bishop says
The people say they are Catholic by self identification.

Why is Catholicism the only thing that its ok to contradict peoples self identification off?

reason vs religion

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The stupid thing is about arguing against the answer people give to the religion question is that the same people are completely ok with self-identification being all thats required for everything else.
The Church says your Catholic if your baptized etc, nothing to do with if you go to mass regularly or vote the way your bishop says
The people say they are Catholic by self identification.

Why is Catholicism the only thing that its ok to contradict peoples self identification off?

Wonderful grammar, punctuation and spelling there!

I am a trans* ally, and it's true I have always accepted without question the gender identity one self-identifies with. But that needn't be so. If there were some lad's-lad who transparently claimed to be a woman so as to be able to use women's toilets and perv on the women inside, I would reject his claim. As a general rule, I would reject his self-declared identity if it is substantially inconsistent with aspects of his lifestyle. Similarly, I reject self-identification as Catholic when it is contradicted by a lifestyle of not going to church, etc.

RDM_83 again

reason vs religion wrote: »

Wonderful grammar, punctuation and spelling there!

I am a trans* ally, and it's true I have always accepted without question the gender identity one self-identifies with. But that needn't be so. If there were some lad's-lad who transparently claimed to be a woman so as to be able to use women's toilets and perv on the women inside, I would reject his claim. As a general rule, I would reject his self-declared identity if it is substantially inconsistent with aspects of his lifestyle. Similarly, I reject self-identification as Catholic when it is contradicted by a lifestyle of not going to church, etc.

Did you argue against the fairly recent legal changes then if you hold that opinion since what your talking about now rests solely on self identification

Anyway the Church itself says they are Catholics if they have been baptized, the people self-identify as Catholics.
Even if somebody is Excommunicated they are considered Catholics, and that takes way more than not going to mass or a bit of pre-marital sex

reason vs religion

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Did you argue against the fairly recent legal changes then if you hold that opinion since what your talking about now rests solely on self identification

Anyway the Church itself says they are Catholics if they have been baptized, the people self-identify as Catholics.
Even if somebody is Excommunicated they are considered Catholics, and that takes way more than not going to mass or a bit of pre-marital sex

I'd be interested in knowing what you are referring to. One can be prosecuted for entering public bathrooms of the wrong gender with nefarious intent, and I'm sure a demonstration of consistency of one's self-identified gender would be a requirement of the defence.

Those who consider themselves Catholic only on the basis of Church doctrine that holds baptism is everlasting are likely in a tiny minority. (And arguably, because justification for that doctrine comes from faith, they are in some way devoted to the Church anyway.) Nor does the State acknowledge that principle. It can be reliably assumed, then, that practically no one is ticking the Catholic box on the census because the Church says that's what they are. Nice try!

Wheeliebin30

Someone said on another thread there was more Muslims born than native irish.

Surely that's not true?

MRnotlob606

I don't believe the number of Irish speakers has fallen. The way the question on Irish is worded is very vague.

An Ciarraioch

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Someone said on another thread there was more Muslims born than native irish.

Surely that's not true?

Considering the number only rose by 14,000 in five years, I think we can safely declare that to be false.

An Ciarraioch

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I don't believe the number of Irish speakers has fallen. The way the question on Irish is worded is very vague.

No harm if people are simply being more honest, however the question of people can be encouraged to speak it then takes on new force.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that's exactly why their parents, or the householder at least, answers for them, because they aren't old enough to answer for themselves. In that case, then it doesn't need to be guaranteed for a child, because their parents are answering for them, the same way the parents of non-religious children are answering for their children, whom I could equally say don't know any better.
.

It'd be my opinion that if they are not old enough to answer that question for themselves then they are not old enough to decide upon a religion for themselves so they should therefore remain "without a religion" until they are in a position to choose one for themselves and identify themselves as such. Choosing no religion just means they don't have one as of yet. Choosing a religion is placing one upon them when, as you say when they don't know any better. Whereas "no religion" is as they are upon birth til they are old enough to choose or one is placed upon them by parents.

Akrasia

The statistics on 'atheist' or 'catholic' children are useful when we come to the debate about school patronage. The whole argument for having catholic schools is to respect the wishes of the parents, and catholic parents should have the right to send their kids to catholic schools.

Now we're seeing a sharp rise in the percentage of children of atheist or non catholic parents. The catholic advocacy groups are being confronted by their own logic. There should be fewer catholic schools and more secular schools because there are fewer catholic 'children' and more 'secular' children.

I personally believe that all schools should be secular because the state has absolutely no business in indoctrinating children into any 'faith' and the state's duty to educate children should not overlap with any church's desire to indoctrinate them. If catholic parents and the catholic church want to teach their kids about their religion, they should make their own arrangements and fund them themselves.

JayRoc

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's always entertaining watching the same crowd of Irish culture and Irish independence hating West Brits go nuts "interpreting" how Irish people self-define on the religion and Irish language questions

I take huge exception to that.

I'm an active republican and a lifelong atheist. I know many people like me.

True Irish republicanism is secular and non-sectarian, thankfully.

And the fact that many Irish people have a daft habit of identifying themselves as religious when they are patently anything but, is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears.

Rightwing

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Someone said on another thread there was more Muslims born than native irish.

Surely that's not true?

I doubt it very much, but their numbers will soar.

The more educated we become (Western/Japanese society), the less children we have, and the less impact religion has on our lives. For Muslims, this doesn't apply.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

It'd be my opinion that if they are not old enough to answer that question for themselves then they are not old enough to decide upon a religion for themselves so they should therefore remain "without a religion" until they are in a position to choose one for themselves and identify themselves as such. Choosing no religion just means they don't have one as of yet. Choosing a religion is placing one upon them when, as you say when they don't know any better. Whereas "no religion" is as they are upon birth til they are old enough to choose or one is placed upon them by parents.

But this was my point to both BabyCheeses and eviltwin - parents or guardians of children make all sorts of decisions in advocating for their children's welfare, so it stands to reason that religion or non-religion wouldn't be any different. For example my wife and I have raised our child as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, in the Roman Catholic faith, so when my wife as the householder was filling out the census that night, she ticked no religion for herself, and Roman Catholic for myself and our child.

This stuff really isn't rocket science, and to see people tripping over themselves to suggest that people misunderstand the question and that people aren't really Catholic unless they do such and such, or they shouldn't answer for their children because their children don't know any better (I know eviltwin would never have meant it to be insulting, but that's only because I know eviltwin's form, anyone else and I would have gone through them for a shortcut!), it just comes across as incredibly patronising, as if to suggest that not only do children not know their own minds, but the vast majority of adults don't know their own minds either, and only those who answered atheist or non-religious, not only do they know their own minds, but they know everyone else's minds too!

That kind of thinking takes an arrogance that most people simply aren't capable of.

__Alex__

I don't have an issue with parents putting down their young children in their religion. But I think from the teen years on, the children should get a say. They are plenty old enough at that stage. And you know that doesn't happen in many cases. I know when I was seventeen, my father put me down as Catholic on the census form even though I had decided at that stage that I was athiest. I was about to sit the Leaving Cert and well capable of deciding for myself what my stance on religion was. :mad:

Rightwing

__Alex__ wrote: »

I don't have an issue with parents putting down their young children in their religion. But I think from the teen years on, the children should get a say. They are plenty old enough at that stage. And you know that doesn't happen in many cases. I know when I was seventeen, my father put me down as Catholic on the census form even though I had decided at that stage that I was athiest. I was about to sit the Leaving Cert and well capable of deciding for myself what my stance on religion was. :mad:

You will have your own say when you have your own roof over your head. Until then, I'm afraid it's the dad's way or the highway.

languagenerd

muckwarrior wrote: »

I think part of the problem is the way the question is asked. AFAIR it says something like "Can you speak Irish". Technically I could answer yes to that due to the fact I know how to tell someone "I like ice-cream". However, if they asked "Are you fluent in Irish" or "Could you hold a conversation in Irish" then my answer would be a resounding no!

There is a follow-up question for Irish asking how frequently you use it (though again, saying "daily" could mean you say the same 2 sentences every day and can't say anything else!).

I think the using-a-foreign-language-at-home section is badly worded too. There's nothing to differentiate between families who speak only Polish/Chinese/Spanish at home (and English just at school and work) and people who are native English speakers but occasionally speak a bit of French with a relative/housemate/friend.

For example, my grandfather is from another EU country and has been in Ireland for over 50 years (fluent English speaker, always spoke English to his wife/kids), but I know enough of his native language to speak it with him on occasion, and as a family we'd often throw in a word or two of that language while speaking English. But the census then puts me in the same category as more recently arrived families who all speak their native language 100% of the time at home and whose children may need help with English at school. And there are plenty of other types of situation in between (bilingual households, generational language shifts, multilingual houseshares, couples who just like learning languages together etc). That doesn't help with future planning at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But this was my point to both BabyCheeses and eviltwin - parents or guardians of children make all sorts of decisions in advocating for their children's welfare, so it stands to reason that religion or non-religion wouldn't be any different. For example my wife and I have raised our child as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, in the Roman Catholic faith, so when my wife as the householder was filling out the census that night, she ticked no religion for herself, and Roman Catholic for myself and our child.

It actually stands to reason it should be completely different as you are teaching them to believe in something instead of presenting them with all the available options and allowing them to make their own choice when they feel ready. There's a word for that its called indoctrination.

Do you also dictate to your child what sports they choose to enjoy playing, what toys they choose to enjoy over others and what foods the choose to like eating?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This stuff really isn't rocket science, and to see people tripping over themselves to suggest that people misunderstand the question and that people aren't really Catholic unless they do such and such, or they shouldn't answer for their children because their children don't know any better (I know eviltwin would never have meant it to be insulting, but that's only because I know eviltwin's form, anyone else and I would have gone through them for a shortcut!), it just comes across as incredibly patronising, as if to suggest that not only do children not know their own minds, but the vast majority of adults don't know their own minds either, and only those who answered atheist or non-religious, not only do they know their own minds, but they know everyone else's minds too!

That kind of thinking takes an arrogance that most people simply aren't capable of.

The vast majority of Irish adults if given the option would choose Non-Practising Catholic over Practicising Catholic if given the choice which would give us a far more accurate picture of the status of the church in this country.


I would argue that people who make a choice to teach their kids that one system of belief is the "true" one over all the others out there instead of presenting a child with all the information and allowing them make a decision when they feel they are ready takes a massive level of arrogance that unfortunately quite a lot of people, yourself included, seem capable of.

osarusan

languagenerd wrote: »

I think the using-a-foreign-language-at-home section is badly worded too. There's nothing to differentiate between families who speak only Polish/Chinese/Spanish at home (and English just at school and work) and people who are native English speakers but occasionally speak a bit of French with a relative/housemate/friend.

Absolutely. When filling it out I noticed there was no option for the way languages are used in our family.

__Alex__

Rightwing wrote: »

You will have your own say when you have your own roof over your head. Until then, I'm afraid it's the dad's way or the highway.

Nonsense. An adult living with their parents would fill it out how they please. The "roof over your head" nonsense is a crock of shit.