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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Census 2016 Results

13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,793 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,806 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,022 ✭✭✭conorhal


    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....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    .....according to who?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,425 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    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?


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,425 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I think it's quite easy to dispute actually, the child hasn't the foggiest notion of any of that.

    Agreed, children are not being taught what it means to be a catholic they are simply taught how to be one and learn prayers and teachings off by rote without any clue to what they mean.

    The argument being made against showing them all religions is that they would be unable to parse this information adequately yet how do the same people expect them to be able to adequately understand things like transubstantiation and other quite complex teachings that the catholic church throws at them from a very young age


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    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.

    They are absolutely both valid world views. I am not claiming otherwise. I personally don't agree with baptising kids when they haven't chosen that, I think it's unfair, but many people do and there is no right or wrong, just what we personally think is best. But that wasn't my point.

    The difference regarding parents choosing between those options on the census is that one is attributing a religious identity to that person and one is saying that at this point in time they do not have one so you cannot select on their behalf. You claimed that they are the same in terms of choosing on behalf of the child and making the decision for them.

    Choosing the Catholic option is choosing their religion on their behalf. Absolutely the parents choice to make. But selecting the no religion option is actively not choosing something for them

    They are two separate things. My opinion on one being the better, more fair thing to do is irrelevant to the point I was making. Choosing "no religion" is purely telling it as it is, they haven't chosen their religion yet, they are without a religion of their own choosing. Choosing a specific religion is choosing their religious identity on their behalf.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,425 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    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.

    Because by raising the child with no religion you are leaving it as it came into the world, by baptising it and raising it in a specific religion you are making what ultimately in my opinion is an incredibly personal choice for your child that also is in my opinion taken far to lightly by the majority of parents today, in fairness to you from your discussions here I do not believe the same accusation could be leveled at you but fundamentally I still disagree with what i see as forcing a specific religion upon a child.

    If you want to raise the child using the morals and ethics that the church teaches its just as easy to do without getting religion involved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Because by raising the child with no religion you are leaving it as it came into the world, by baptising it and raising it in a specific religion you are making what ultimately in my opinion is an incredibly personal choice for your child that also is in my opinion taken far to lightly by the majority of parents today, in fairness to you from your discussions here I do not believe the same accusation could be leveled at you but fundamentally I still disagree with what i see as forcing a specific religion upon a child.

    If you want to raise the child using the morals and ethics that the church teaches its just as easy to do without getting religion involved.

    You summed up my point better than my attempt. No religion is anything from not decided yet, raised catholic but dont believe, to I don't believe in anything and never have. Choosing Catholic is making a single choice for them. Choosing a religious identity. So they are not the same.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,599 ✭✭✭ScrubsfanChris


    marcbrophy wrote: »
    Personally, I think of number of No Religon is about 3 of 4 times too low.
    It's easily closer to 40%

    Source: I said, didn't I!
    There should be a category for lapses catholics or something.
    Other than funerals/weddings, my parents haven't been to mass in over 10 years yet still tick catholic on the form.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Well, I was baptised Roman Catholic but have not been a part of the church in any way since the 1990s so for the past 15 or so years I've put myself down as No Religion.

    Just because I was baptised does that mean that I must declare myself a Catholic. F that!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    You can also claim that they are "fans of the beatles" because you play them yellow submarine every night. That doesn't mean they will want to be identified as a Beatles fan just cause you are- the horror :pac:
    If asked their favourite band on a form, you would quite rightly (im assuming but maybe I'm wrong?) say "none" until they can express their desires/passions/beliefs for themselves. But yet when it comes to religion parents pick it for them and see no issue.

    Not disagreeing with your actual point though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It's a terrible analogy to be honest, although perhaps apt in another argument completely about the meaning of being a citizen.

    Could you choose for your daughters to be Israeli citizens?

    What does it mean to be a Catholic?
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The only thing that matters is the census I'm afraid. I could put down I'm Roman Catholic without having been baptised.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,609 ✭✭✭blue note


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Because by raising the child with no religion you are leaving it as it came into the world, by baptising it and raising it in a specific religion you are making what ultimately in my opinion is an incredibly personal choice for your child that also is in my opinion taken far to lightly by the majority of parents today, in fairness to you from your discussions here I do not believe the same accusation could be leveled at you but fundamentally I still disagree with what i see as forcing a specific religion upon a child.

    If you want to raise the child using the morals and ethics that the church teaches its just as easy to do without getting religion involved.

    I know a lot of people have this view and that's fine, but I don't agree with it. I think if you bring a child up in a religion they can properly experience what it's like. Whereas if you bring them up teaching them about different religions or no religion they just have an outside knowledge of it, but no actual experience of it. As they grow older they can decide that religion is or isn't for them and they can decide to change religion if they wish. But without the experience I don't think many would bother.

    I grew up as a Catholic (I even chose to be an alter boy in primary school) and as I grew older I stopped going to mass. Now I go for the usual - weddings / funerals, Christmas, Easter and anniversary masses and the like. I wouldn't have any strong religious beliefs. But I am grateful that I was given the opportunity to experience a religion properly so that I can make an informed decision not to engage in it now. I think if I had kids I'd try to get involved again so that they could have that same experience and choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    blue note wrote: »
    I know a lot of people have this view and that's fine, but I don't agree with it. I think if you bring a child up in a religion they can properly experience what it's like. Whereas if you bring them up teaching them about different religions or no religion they just have an outside knowledge of it, but no actual experience of it. As they grow older they can decide that religion is or isn't for them and they can decide to change religion if they wish. But without the experience I don't think many would bother.

    I grew up as a Catholic (I even chose to be an alter boy in primary school) and as I grew older I stopped going to mass. Now I go for the usual - weddings / funerals, Christmas, Easter and anniversary masses and the like. I wouldn't have any strong religious beliefs. But I am grateful that I was given the opportunity to experience a religion properly so that I can make an informed decision not to engage in it now. I think if I had kids I'd try to get involved again so that they could have that same experience and choice.

    So if the religion of the parents happens to be one where TV isn't allowed, birthday parties aren't allowed, meat isn't allowed etc. it is fair that the kids are raised that way because they got to experience religion after all? What about religions where people are ostracised by family after leaving the religion? The kids should be thankful they got to taste what religion is like?

    I get what you're saying that you enjoyed that culture when you were growing up and it's a small part of your identity now which was nice in hindsight but I really wouldn't agree that all kids should be raised with religion just because you happened to enjoy the certain aspects of catholicism that you experienced.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    blue note wrote: »
    I know a lot of people have this view and that's fine, but I don't agree with it. I think if you bring a child up in a religion they can properly experience what it's like. Whereas if you bring them up teaching them about different religions or no religion they just have an outside knowledge of it, but no actual experience of it. As they grow older they can decide that religion is or isn't for them and they can decide to change religion if they wish. But without the experience I don't think many would bother.

    I grew up as a Catholic (I even chose to be an alter boy in primary school) and as I grew older I stopped going to mass. Now I go for the usual - weddings / funerals, Christmas, Easter and anniversary masses and the like. I wouldn't have any strong religious beliefs. But I am grateful that I was given the opportunity to experience a religion properly so that I can make an informed decision not to engage in it now. I think if I had kids I'd try to get involved again so that they could have that same experience and choice.

    You think you have to practice a religion before you can make an informed decision on it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Because by raising the child with no religion you are leaving it as it came into the world, by baptising it and raising it in a specific religion you are making what ultimately in my opinion is an incredibly personal choice for your child that also is in my opinion taken far to lightly by the majority of parents today, in fairness to you from your discussions here I do not believe the same accusation could be leveled at you but fundamentally I still disagree with what i see as forcing a specific religion upon a child.

    If you want to raise the child using the morals and ethics that the church teaches its just as easy to do without getting religion involved.


    I can understand where you're coming from, but I wouldn't see it as forcing a specific religion on a child. I see it as welcoming my child into the Church I belong to, and I see it as instructing him in my faith, and bringing him up in my faith, fostering his spiritual development. You may perceive this to be unfair on my child, but it's actually as much my responsibility as it is my right as the child's parent -

    ARTICLE 42

    1 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.


    Personally, I wouldn't pass judgement upon you either if you choose to raise your child differently and as you see fit, as is your right and your responsibility. However, this is something that I and my wife agreed on long before we had any children, and I don't see it as any different to raising our child as a boy, in order that one day he will become a man. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how there are people who for their own reasons believe it is unfair on children to enforce as they see it - gender identities and gender roles, etc. These too are often argued to be social constructs, and if I listened to everyone who had an issue with everyone else's parenting, I'd eventually end up with allowing the child to raise himself without any influence from us as his parents or anyone who in any way might influence our child in their own world views.

    That's how ridiculous and redundant the argument is to me personally anyway for people who would like to tell me that somehow I'm being unfair to my own child because they see one aspect in isolation as problematic or unfair on the child. Their misunderstanding really isn't something I should have to answer for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    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!


    All I'm saying is if the catholic church wishes to maintain control of such a large number of primary schools then they should fund them, seems reasonable enough to me.

    Ps, I don't personally believe any child has a religion, their parents may do alright, but not a child.

    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.

    I'm not being smart but what exactly is in the Constitution, which explicitly states that the state must fund catholic education? I'm not saying it's not in there (nothing would surprise me about the Irish Constitution at this stage), I just don't know exactly where myself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


    The church took away the option to leave the church. People can't opt out anymore.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,425 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    neonsofa wrote: »
    The church took away the option to leave the church. People can't opt out anymore.

    Yup theres no way to remove your name from their records anymore


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    neonsofa wrote: »
    The church took away the option to leave the church. People can't opt out anymore.

    I wouldn't worry too much that, I don't consider the catholic church a legitimate organisation, in fact I honestly class them as a dangerous cult that has committed awful atrocities in this country. So their claim over me or anybody else who doesn't wish to be associated with them is also completely illegitimate from my point of view. And if you think about even asking them for permission to leave isn't a great idea because it legitimizes their claim.

    Don't even worry about it, just proclaim yourself non-catholic (either privately or publicly, whatever you fancy), and it's done, happy days.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,476 ✭✭✭neonsofa


    I wouldn't worry too much that, I don't consider the catholic church a legitimate organisation, in fact I honestly class them as a dangerous cult that has committed awful atrocities in this country. So their claim over me or anybody else who doesn't wish to be associated with them is also completely illegitimate from my point of view. And if you think about even asking them for permission to leave isn't a great idea because it legitimizes their claim.

    Don't even worry about it, just proclaim yourself non-catholic (either privately or publicly, whatever you fancy), and it's done, happy days.

    Oh I don't worry! All hocus pocus to me, I was just responding to the poster who says that until people officially remove themselves they remain Catholic. People can't opt out officially.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    neonsofa wrote: »
    Oh I don't worry! All hocus pocus to me, I was just responding to the poster who says that until people officially remove themselves they remain Catholic. People can't opt out officially.

    Ah no I get what you're saying alright.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭__Alex__


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Disagree. For anyone who now identifies as athiest, the only choice is 'No religion', at least until such time as they decide to ask who actually practises.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Ah, well here is the crux of the issue. People who no longer consider themselves Catholic don't care what the RC church thinks. They want to think I'm still a member of their club? Let them knock themselves out. I'm not though. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Can that number of Brazilians be correct

    They've been coming to Ireland for 'study' for the past 10 years.

    The Indians who are being 'invtited' to study will go the way of the Brazilians​I predict

    An interesting thing with the Indians is that they're bringing their families with them as well


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    imme wrote: »
    Can that number of Brazilians be correct

    They've been coming to Ireland for 'study' for the past 10 years.

    The Indians who are being 'invtited' to study will go the way of the Brazilians​I predict

    An interesting thing with the Indians is that they're bringing their families with them as well

    Relax. Brazilians are only 0.28% of the population and Indians less again. Diversity is a good thing any way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Diversity is a good thing any way.

    No, they were a sh*t band.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I can understand where you're coming from, but I wouldn't see it as forcing a specific religion on a child. I see it as welcoming my child into the Church I belong to, and I see it as instructing him in my faith, and bringing him up in my faith, fostering his spiritual development. You may perceive this to be unfair on my child, but it's actually as much my responsibility as it is my right as the child's parent -
    Faith is defined as belief without evidence, so by instructing your child in your belief without evidence, you're not educating them, you're passing on superstitions.

    It is harmful to a persons development to give them a bad education. If I was a teacher who taught children that they shouldn't wash their hands because germs aren't the cause of illness (something lots of alternative medicines teach) then you would be doing harm to your students that takes work to undo. By 'passing on your faith' in something that has no evidence, you are misleading your children and miss-educating them.

    Your children will hopefully overcome this setback, but the cost will be years of confusion and self doubt and needless angst about whether or not they're right for rejecting the superstitions of their parents.

    Personally, I wouldn't pass judgement upon you either if you choose to raise your child differently and as you see fit, as is your right and your responsibility. However, this is something that I and my wife agreed on long before we had any children, and I don't see it as any different to raising our child as a boy, in order that one day he will become a man. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how there are people who for their own reasons believe it is unfair on children to enforce as they see it - gender identities and gender roles, etc. These too are often argued to be social constructs, and if I listened to everyone who had an issue with everyone else's parenting, I'd eventually end up with allowing the child to raise himself without any influence from us as his parents or anyone who in any way might influence our child in their own world views.

    That's how ridiculous and redundant the argument is to me personally anyway for people who would like to tell me that somehow I'm being unfair to my own child because they see one aspect in isolation as problematic or unfair on the child. Their misunderstanding really isn't something I should have to answer for.[/QUOTE]


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭nkav86


    Late to the conversation, but I was chatting to my mam at that time about the census and the catholic yay/nay question was mentioned.

    She was horrified that I didn't mark myself catholic, 'You can't put that down, you're catholic like me, you were raised that way' I'm thinking, mother not one sinner in our family has ever gone to church willingly (without an occasion or pressure from my granny) on one Sunday, of our ENTIRE lives....including YOU! Get a grip!

    It baffled me she thought that way, it's just so ingrained in people of a certain time, no matter how 'active' in the religion they are or not.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    neonsofa wrote: »
    The church took away the option to leave the church. People can't opt out anymore.

    Yes they did, and it's disgusting.:mad:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭__Alex__


    nkav86 wrote: »
    It baffled me she thought that way, it's just so ingrained in people of a certain time, no matter how 'active' in the religion they are or not.

    One of my friends is married to Welshman and lives in South Wales, where the Catholic population is tiny and there are no dedicated Catholic schools in her locality. It's much more a Methodist and Church of Wales area and, really, most people don't even care about those religions.

    Her parents cannot wrap their head around the fact that her two children won't be having Communion or any of the other Catholic sacrements. Her first child is baptised as a Catholic but that's as far as they are taking it.

    The main thing my friend's parents can't understand is that the children won't feel like they are missing out. My friend lives in an area where barely anyone has Communion, why would they feel like they were missing out? To her parents, anyone not getting the Catholic sacraments is missing out and will feel a big hole in their lives. They can't envisage another way of life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Yeah, I find it strange that my mother would consider us a part of a religion we never really practiced outside of presents at Christmas and chocolate eggs at Easter or saying we were Irish speakers but neither of us could talk to the other in a language other than English.

    When a person says they are a part of a religion I have this mad idea that they might actually follow it. When someone tells me they speak English I also assume that they might speak English instead of looking at me confused when I try to talk to them.

    Why don't you speak to your mother about it? The issue seems to be with her.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭__Alex__


    Interesting graph, showing the percentage of 'No Religion' correspondents in the different age groups, compared with the percentage of those age groups in the general population:

    Census_3.jpg


Advertisement