Census 2016 Results

Rightwing

__Alex__ wrote: »

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.

Beggars can't be choosers.

__Alex__

Rightwing wrote: »

Beggars can't be choosers.

Or... they can. I lived with my parents in my 20s briefly and put down 'No religion' whilst living with them. I got a biro and I marked 'No religion' using my hand whilst using my eyeballs to decide where on the page to make the mark. The only impediment to my marking no religion was if my eyeballs and hands weren't working. Magic!

Rightwing

__Alex__ wrote: »

Or... they can. I lived with my parents in my 20s briefly and put down 'No religion' whilst living with them. I got a biro and I marked 'No religion' using my hand whilst using my eyeballs to decide where on the page to make the mark. The only impediment to my marking no religion was if my eyeballs and hands weren't working. Magic!

You got lucky.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rightwing

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

These things can't be taken seriously. Religious fanatics do stay constant. But like politics, many people change like their views like the wind, and also write down any shi!e that pops into their heads.

One eyed Jack

VinLieger wrote: »

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.

The word you're actually looking for is 'parenting', and as those children's parents or guardians, they will raise their children as they see fit, instilling in them values and beliefs and world views which are consistent with their own values and beliefs and world views. It's the parents who will decide when their own child is ready to make decisions for themselves, and that would be with regard to what the parents or guardians of those children believe is in their children's best interests.

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?

My wife and I make those sorts of determinations on a daily basis in the best interests of our childs welfare, whether he enjoys them or not is another matter entirely. For example we're lucky that he enjoys going to school, but some days he doesn't. We'll still ensure that he attends school even though he doesn't enjoy it as we are acting in his best interests. We often make decisions as to what sports he will and won't play, what toys he will and won't play with, and what foods he will and won't eat. Again, that is our responsibility as parents.

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.

Now you're assuming you know the vast majority of Irish adults minds? I'm sure I made a point about that already.

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.

I would argue that it's a bit rich your admonishing others for making claims about beliefs that are true above all others, when you're making claims there for which you have no evidence whatsoever, but you'll assume it must be true all the same.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

__Alex__

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The reason people don't officially renounce is most likely because they don't really care if someone considers them a Catholic or not. I know I don't. Doing a big, dramatic renunciation signifies that what these people think really matters to you. Someone wants to say I'm Catholic, fine, doesn't really matter to me and I don't identify as that. Even on the baptism thing, I'm thinking "Says who, the church? Those people I don't respect or care about? Shrug!"

neonsofa

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.

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.

But the question is (correct me if I'm wrong!) What is your religion? A child cannot answer that unless their parent has given them the option to choose their own religion. The religion that has been put upon them by heir parents/family, which as you say is them making a decision for the child whether in their best interest or not, is not "their religion" because as I said, they didn't choose it. Those who's parents chose "no religion" have not had anything attributed to them by their parents choosing that option, they have just said that the child does not yet have a religion of their own, which is correct. My only point is that they are not the same thing- choosing a specific religion and choosing no religion.

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The word you're actually looking for is 'parenting', and as those children's parents or guardians, they will raise their children as they see fit, instilling in them values and beliefs and world views which are consistent with their own values and beliefs and world views. It's the parents who will decide when their own child is ready to make decisions for themselves, and that would be with regard to what the parents or guardians of those children believe is in their children's best interests.

Definition of indoctrination: "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."

Please explain to me how that is different to how parents force the beliefs of the catholic church onto their children.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My wife and I make those sorts of determinations on a daily basis in the best interests of our childs welfare, whether he enjoys them or not is another matter entirely. For example we're lucky that he enjoys going to school, but some days he doesn't. We'll still ensure that he attends school even though he doesn't enjoy it as we are acting in his best interests. We often make decisions as to what sports he will and won't play, what toys he will and won't play with, and what foods he will and won't eat. Again, that is our responsibility as parents.

Yes but the difference is he still has an opinion as to what he would prefer, by restricting the knowledge of other religions by simply not presenting them you are doing something completely different. Basically they know no better through your imposed ignorance on the child.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you're assuming you know the vast majority of Irish adults minds? I'm sure I made a point about that already.

Well going off mass attendance figures its not that much of a large assumption coupled with the result in the marriage referendum that the majority of Irish adults are not practising catholics. You will come back saying well people can practice how they choose and yes if that is the case then the question is entirely useless as it encompasses an all or nothing answer.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would argue that it's a bit rich your admonishing others for making claims about beliefs that are true above all others, when you're making claims there for which you have no evidence whatsoever, but you'll assume it must be true all the same.

Again evidence from the churches own attendance numbers tell a different tale.

You have chosen to tell your child one religion is true above all others without presenting all the facts to them.

What would you think of someone who told their child that Arsenal are the best football team ever in an selfish effort to get their child to support the same team they do?

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

But the question is (correct me if I'm wrong!) What is your religion? A child cannot answer that unless their parent has given them the option to choose their own religion. The religion that has been put upon them by heir parents/family, which as you say is them making a decision for the child whether in their best interest or not, is not "their religion" because as I said, they didn't choose it. Those who's parents chose "no religion" have not had anything attributed to them by their parents choosing that option, they have just said that the child does not yet have a religion of their own, which is correct. My only point is that they are not the same thing- choosing a specific religion and choosing no religion.

Children aren't being asked the question though? It's the householder is answering the questions on the census for those people who are present in the house on the night in question. I do get what you're saying, which is why I said to eviltwin that those parents who are non-religious are also answering for their children, who aren't answering for themselves.

The way you phrase it too, "the child does not yet have a a religion of their own, which is correct", assumes that at some point they will, in the same way as many posters here have made claims that at some point in those children's lives, they won't. There's simply no way of telling which way that could go, seems like wishful thinking to be using that as the basis of an argument for either side of the coin IMO.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Children aren't being asked the question though? It's the householder is answering the questions on the census for those people who are present in the house on the night in question. I do get what you're saying, which is why I said to eviltwin that those parents who are non-religious are also answering for their children, who aren't answering for themselves.

The way you phrase it too, "the child does not yet have a a religion of their own, which is correct", assumes that at some point they will, in the same way as many posters here have made claims that at some point in those children's lives, they won't. There's simply no way of telling which way that could go, seems like wishful thinking to be using that as the basis of an argument for either side of the coin IMO.

I'm aware of how the census works. No need to be obtuse.

They are answering the question with a non answer. They are not attributing anything with their answer. It's basically a no comment answer, until the child can give their own answer.

It doesn't assume anything. They may never, and that's grand, the answer then will still be "no religion" and therefore correct, but as of yet they do not have one so the correct answer is no religion. Because they are children. We can't tell which way it will go but we can tell that the child themselves have not yet made their own decisions as of yet- and therefore have no religion of their own.

Red Kev

VinLieger wrote: »

Problem is its been proven time and again to be a horribly bias and weighted question. The first issue is it asks what is your religion instead of what is your belief system. Secondly the no religion option has massive negative connotations still in Ireland and if you want to choose something else you have to write agnosticism or atheism in instead of having them as a choice which comes back to the issue of asking about religion instead of belief system.

Also there needs to be a followup question to ask if you are actively practicing whatever you choose, the truthful answers to that question for catholics would raise some eyebrows.

I was a Census enumerator in 2011 and the question that I was asked the most for clarification was the religion one. Most people felt there should be a section for "non-practising". Incidentally the response we were told to give was "put down what you feel", there is no official guidance on how to fill that question out. I gave it in as feedback as did everybody in the group, but it's the same question as the last few times.

red ears wrote: »

The 90% figure is down to christenings, weddings, funerals and school places. If the census asked how many people believe and regularly go to mass id say it would be about 20% or 30%.

Figures for Dublin are here: IIRC it's around 33% nationally.

Weekly Mass attendance levels in Dublin are currently put at 20-22 per cent (of the population), while being as low as 2-3 per cent in some working-class parishes.
The Towers Watson report found that between 2008 and 2014 there had been an average annual drop of 3.7 per cent in weekly Mass attendance in Dublin but that this had now slowed.
The two years which saw the greatest decline in attendance were 2009, when the fall was 6.4 per cent, and 2011, when it was 7.4 per cent.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351

One eyed Jack

VinLieger wrote: »

Definition of indoctrination: "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."

Please explain to me how that is different to how parents force the beliefs of the catholic church onto their children.

Well you said I practiced indoctrination, I didn't, so on that basis I suggest you ask someone who does practice indoctrination, as I wouldn't presume to answer for them.

Yes but the difference is he still has an opinion as to what he would prefer, by restricting the knowledge of other religions by simply not presenting them you are doing something completely different. Basically they know no better through your imposed ignorance on the child.

You are aware of the fact that I already mentioned that his mother is non-religious? As it happens, her parents are also non-religious. Many of my childs friends are of other religions and none, and also I have taught him from a very young age about many different world views, religions and philosophies. You assume I imposed ignorance upon him, but that was an assumption based upon your own ignorance of the facts.

Well going off mass attendance figures its not that much of a large assumption coupled with the result in the marriage referendum that the majority of Irish adults are not practising catholics. You will come back saying well people can practice how they choose and yes if that is the case then the question is entirely useless as it encompasses an all or nothing answer.

The question isn't useless at all. It's asking how people identify for themselves, and you're complaining about adults identifying for themselves because you don't agree with how they identify for themselves, yet you argue that children should be allowed to identify for themselves, irrespective of their parents or guardians wishes, because you assume they would identify how you would want them to identify themselves?

I'm lucky I'm sitting down :pac:

You have chosen to tell your child one religion is true above all others without presenting all the facts to them.

Assuming facts without evidence again?

What would you think of someone who told their child that Arsenal are the best football team ever in an selfish effort to get their child to support the same team they do?

I wouldn't assume it's a selfish effort in the first place. That's a different question again though from how I'd view religion, seeing as I have no interest in football but my child does, and neither playing football nor his affiliation with religion have harmed him in any way. Of course people are entitled to argue otherwise, but I'm unlikely to take their argument seriously when it strikes me that their moralistic judgements are no different to those they are opposed to. Thankfully for most people though, the amount of people who see it as their right to pass judgement on other people whose beliefs aren't in league with their own, will always be a minority.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

I'm aware of how the census works. No need to be obtuse.

They are answering the question with a non answer. They are not attributing anything with their answer. It's basically a no comment answer, until the child can give their own answer.

It doesn't assume anything. They may never, and that's grand, the answer then will still be "no religion" and therefore correct, but as of yet they do not have one so the correct answer is no religion. Because they are children. We can't tell which way it will go but we can tell that the child themselves have not yet made their own decisions as of yet- and therefore have no religion of their own.

Suggesting that children be determined to have the capacity to advocate for themselves on the census with regard to their religious affiliation or none, is the very definition of being obtuse, and having no regard whatsoever for parents or guardians right to advocate for their children.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

An Ciarraioch

Indo reports that of the circa 50,000 additional dual citizens, 15,000 were UK nationals - securing their EU status before the referendum?

Samaris

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree on the question regarding practicing/non-practicing. I suspect though that there's a fear that changing the question means that results achieved in censuses after the change will not be directly comparable to those before. It would require another few rounds of censuses just to get back to the point where we have a trend line rather than one data point.

As to whether that's important enough to warrant getting likely-overstatement all the time is debatable. But people who do mass surveys tend to be very leery of changing the phrasing of questions. It may be closer to inertia than deception in terms of why.

conorhal

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Indo reports that of the circa 50,000 additional dual citizens, 15,000 were UK nationals - securing their EU status before the referendum?

I doubt is since the census took place long before the referendum. Personally I think we should dispense with dual citizenship. You can't ride two horses as they say and with a sudden newfound desire to become 'Irish' by a bunch of remoaners that never had an interest in being so before, I find it insulting that citizenship becomes a flag of convenience. To become a citizen of a nation should mean more then not wanting the bother with a visa application. It goes to show how devalued the notion of citizenship has become.

It reminds me of a mates story about a Lithuanian woman he works with who got her citizenship a couple of years ago. She was intitally impressed that the woman felt such a kinship with Ireland that she wanted to participate in it's democracy. She was quickly disabused of that notion when the lady explained that he desire to be 'Irish' was only a product of her love of shopping in New York and how much hasssle getting visas to travel there are for Lithuanians....

One eyed Jack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Didn't the CSO give guidelines as to how people should think about the questions in giving their answers though?

I mean, I wouldn't assume most people are illiterate because they didn't answer a question in the manner in which I would have wanted them to, and were able to capably and competently answer all other questions.

I don't imagine the State, nor the CSO really are attempting to be deliberately deceptive. I believe this was discussed at some length around the time of the census, and the more people insisted upon interpreting the data to suit their already formed opinion, and calling for the questions to be phrased in such a way as they thought would give them the answers they want... well, the more they came off as their motivation being questionable. It certainly wasn't the facts they were seeking, more likely their own version of the truth.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Suggesting that children be determined to have the capacity to advocate for themselves on the census with regard to their religious affiliation or none, is the very definition of being obtuse, and having no regard whatsoever for parents or guardians right to advocate for their children.

How is it being obtuse? The "no religion" option is not an indication of religious affiliation, which is exactly my point. It doesnt attribute a religious identity to a person who did not choose it. My opinion is don't attribute any religion until the person themselves can decide. My personal opinion on how I think it should be completed has no impact on your right to advocate for your child so chill out, I am pointing out that a parent choosing a specific religion and a parent choosing the no religion option are not the same thing. That was my only point.

neonsofa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh I 100% agree. I don't agree with parents baptising babies either, for the very same reason I don't agree with them classing them as a particular religion on the census form. But the thread is about the census and therefore I was only commenting on my opinion on that.

Samaris

conorhal wrote: »

I doubt is since the census took place long before the referendum. Personally I think we should dispense with dual citizenship. You can't ride two horses as they say and with a sudden newfound desire to become 'Irish' by a bunch of remoaners that never had an interest in being so before, I find it insulting that citizenship becomes a flag of convenience. To become a citizen of a nation should mean more then not wanting the bother with a visa application. It goes to show how devalued the notion of citizenship has become.

Except it's always been a thing. If you have parents from two countries, and it's a matter of chance which country they settled in when you were born, especially if they're likely to keep travelling, dual-citizenship for the child makes sense. It makes sense for the non-national parent too, although some choose to take it and some don't. It also covers awkward situations where a marriage splits up and, say, an English parent takes his or her Irish-born child back to England with them. The child should have the right of their parent's birthplace to claim citizenship there, and there shouldn't be a potential legal blockage of the child having to stay in the country they were born a citizen of if the parent that shares said nationality is unsuitable to care for them. It also solves (one) of the issues for people born in disputed or recently-independent/recently taken territories, up to and including places like Northern Ireland.

Overall, it's a sensible solution to a human problem. Removing it will solve very little, but cause a lot of awkwardness in everyday life for those of us who might have parents of two nationalities.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

How is it being obtuse? The "no religion" option is not an indication of religious affiliation, which is exactly my point. It doesnt attribute a religious identity to a person who did not choose it. My opinion is don't attribute any religion until the person themselves can decide. My personal opinion on how I think it should be completed has no impact on your right to advocate for your child so chill out, I am pointing out that a parent choosing a specific religion and a parent choosing the no religion option are not the same thing. That was my only point.

I'm perfectly chilled (it's not like I haven't heard people making the same point you do since I was a child myself), but clearly we have a difference of opinion here and I don't know if that's based upon your misunderstanding of religion, or are you just being obtuse. I assumed at first it was you were being obtuse, but you're telling me it's not, so I can only assume it's the former, given that you've said you didn't need me to explain how the census works.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm perfectly chilled (it's not like I haven't heard people making the same point you do since I was a child myself), but clearly we have a difference of opinion here and I don't know if that's based upon your misunderstanding of religion, or are you just being obtuse. I assumed at first it was you were being obtuse, but you're telling me it's not, so I can only assume it's the former, given that you've said you didn't need me to explain how the census works.

My point was in relation to you stating that a parent choosing a specific religion on the census form was the same as a parent choosing no religion. You were saying that a parent choosing "no religion" was just as much them deciding for child as choosing Catholic was. My point was it is not.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

My point was in relation to you stating that a parent choosing a specific religion on the census form was the same as a parent choosing no religion. You were saying that a parent choosing "no religion" was just as much them deciding for child as choosing Catholic was. My point was it is not.

If they have raised their child with no religion, then I don't see how you're suggesting it's any different to raising a child with religion?

Both are equally valid world views and philosophies and both would have an influence on a child.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

.....according to who?

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think it's quite easy to dispute actually, the child hasn't the foggiest notion of any of that.

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The question isn't useless at all. It's asking how people identify for themselves, and you're complaining about adults identifying for themselves because you don't agree with how they identify for themselves, yet you argue that children should be allowed to identify for themselves, irrespective of their parents or guardians wishes, because you assume they would identify how you would want them to identify themselves?

The question doesn't allow enough scope for people to correctly identify themselves is my problem.

I believe if there were either vastly more listed options OR a secondary question regarding actively practicing the results would paint a very different picture.

I might be wrong but the only reason I can see for anyone wanting to keep it the way it is is because they are afraid of the results it might display. How would more accurate information be a bad thing?

Personally I find the the question and results offensive me as I am lumped into "other" even though I specifically wrote down agnostic. Whats the point in having a write in section if what you put in isn't even considered and published in the results?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thankfully for most people though, the amount of people who see it as their right to pass judgement on other people whose beliefs aren't in league with their own, will always be a minority.

The Catholic Chruch and its members have for quite some time considered it their right and went out of their way to pass judgement on people whose beliefs weren't in league with their own and there was a large point of time where they very much were in the majority its only recently this has changed for the better.

May I ask which way you voted in the marriage referendum?