Increase in people identifying as having No Religion

The numbers are just one part of it. Church attendees are another. I was reading in the indo at the weekend how in some parts of Dublin attendance is just 3% and how an attendance of 17% is considered good. The church relies on donations and bums on seats. It can make what it wants from the census figures but if people aren't participating in the church they are in trouble. Weddings, christenings etc aren't enough to sustain it.

beauf wrote: »

Technically it not possible to leave once baptized.

However that's really of no interest to anyone. All we're really want to know if someone wants to be classified as RC. The Census serves its purpose in that regard.

TBH though removing religion from state schools should have nothing to do with the census data. Really if you want what to happen, you should stop fixating on the how many RC there are, and concentrate that the functions of state and public education should disconnected from any religion.

We have heard over and over that the majority of the country is Catholic and therefore the school system should represent the preferences of the majority. How can we argue against this unless we show that there are not as many Catholics as is being suggested?

beauf wrote: »

By using the example of other countries where religion is separated from the state schools. Regardless of the how popular any religion is.

How does that reply answer my question?

smacl wrote: »

How people self identify is clearly their own concern. If however someone was to suggest that the Roman Catholic church should be allowed maintain state sponsored patronage of 73% of our schools for example, on the basis of the population being 73% Roman Catholic, as is very commonly the case, I'd say it is a nonsense. The reason being there is nothing to indicate that these self identified Catholics are not also secularists who might prefer a more secular education system. We don't know this because it is not asked on the census. Certainly Christians on this forum would appear to favour secularism, and the relative over subscription of secular schools versus Catholic schools would seem to confirm this as a broader trend, but given the layout of the census we don't know whether this is the case or not. At the same time, given the national debate on the baptism barrier this is certainly information we would like to have, so why not collect it?

Well the church control on the school system isn't based on the census data. It's not like the leasehold is based on maintaining a two-thirds majority.
Also, they link is arguing that we need more non-domination schools, literally the opposite of what your suggesting.

And, how does qualifying how many times a real catholic goes to mass give us any information about their opinions on how schools should be run. It's completely unrelated tbh.
It really just looks like thinly veiled pop at religion. It baffles me why atheist would care.

Thirty years ago the census and mass attendance showed that country was still overwhelmingly Catholic, yet people were ready to see contraception legalised.
Ditto 20 years ago when people voted narrowly by referendum to allow divorce (I bet there wouldn't be much opposition today).
And only two years ago 62% voted to allow sex marriage even though 84% had ticked Roman Catholic in the census just four years earlier.

So the high number of people historically ticking 'Roman Catholic' has not been a good guide to popular thinking on social issues.

Now the census shows an accelerating trend towards ticking 'no religion' amongst younger adults. Almost one in five people in their mid-20s did this last year.

That means that there is even less reason to assume that a majority would agree with the traditional establishment / doctrinal Catholic line on education, healthcare & family planning, end of life decisions etc. Instead, policy makers need to find out what people are actually thinking on these issues.

I think that's the value of the census religion question.

The actual solution would be for there to be a referendum, since the whole business is centered on the constitution. However this would open the gates to the wild imaginings that we have seen on this forum of claims that 'schools will be forced to teach atheism' and similar nonsense.

smacl wrote: »

The link suggests the number of non-denominational schools be brought in line with the census figure, which again implies that this figure is relevant to the way that people would prefer to have their children educated. Yet you've just said yourself, the church control of the school system isn't based on census data.

But the church control isn't based on census data. That's a fact.
A random journalist claiming the churches control should be reduced based on the census data doesn't make it true.

The churches control, or lack of control, should be dictated by the wants of the people. Regardless of what they identify with.
The two aren't linked, I really don't know why people keep pretending they are.

Where did I make any mention of how often anyone goes to mass? Like the census figures on religion, it clearly has little to no relevance.

It's been stated number of times in the thread.
In order to find the number of "real catholics". A concept that I personally find ridiculous.
It's obvious that the people post that have no interest in finding ou the number, they just want to push an anti-theology agenda.

At this point the forum should be renamed Atheism, Agnosticism & Antitheism. As the latter is clearly a prevalent mindset.

I'd ask you the same question as beauf. What in your opinion is the value of gathering a percentage breakdown of religious affiliation, and what reasonable use can this statistic be put to?

I see great value in information. Information is one of our most value resources. Often census data isn't relevant for many years. A census isn't just about immediate civil action.

At the very least it highlights the current in public opinion. It's a snapshot of history.
If in 50 years, 50% of people are identify as having no religion. That will be a key point in Ireland socio-history. The 2016 census tells a part of that story.

Most importantly, its not as if it's a singular question they are polling the country with. It's one question out of many, the omitting one multiple choice question would change very about the cost and effort involved.

smacl wrote: »

I think the issue with the census is that it needs to add a question that relates to secular preference as distinct from religious affiliation. While I imagine that most Irish Catholics would like to see civil and religious matters kept separate, as can be seen from the same sex marriage issue, we don't know whether or not that is the case until we measure it.

I don't think questions on preference and opinion should form part of a census itself. As it should be a record of facts.
But I wouldn't be opposed to including a poll on the above issue along side, but separate from the census.
Small change makes a big difference imo.

smacl wrote: »

While I picked one example, census figures are regularly abused to prop up religious organisations preferential position on the basis of being the supposed will of the people.

People misrepresent data all the time to suit their argument.
The issue is people being disingenuous, not the fact that data.
The fact that people might be disingenuous isn't a valid reason to shun information. It's not difficult to asses a claim on its merits on a case by case basis.

Another example for you from the Iona Institute this time asserts "Demand for non-religious schools is very low", where this assertion is based on CSO figures for religious identification

The Iona institute, well the less said the better there.
The assertion is clearly incorrect and misleading. Non-secular schools aren't attended by on non-religious people. The fact a crazy institute is making those claims means nothing really.

In your two examples, you have shown two sides using the same data to claim that we need more non-secular school, and then less non-secular schools.

That proves one thing, that the data isn't the issue.

Maybe so, but not by me, address that to whoever raised the issue.

I don't think I said it was claimed by you. I said in the thread generally.

Really? In case you hadn't noticed religious identification is a matter of personal preference, unlike say ethnicity, gender or number of siblings.

Religious identify is a matter of identification. Once somebody identifies a certain way, that's their identity. Gender is the same by the way.

Asking how the school should be run, how should income be taxed, should we allow gay marriage, etc. Is not about identification of the popultation, it's an opinion on a social matter. That's not what a census is about.

I said "preference AND opinion", the and is important. I never said that no personal preferences should be included.
And I notice you deleted the part of my post where I said I'd be fine with a poll on along side, but separate from the census.
I guess twisting things to suit an argument is not just for the Iona institute.

For example, you said earlier that you would have considered yourself Catholic in your teens but no longer do. That was your choice. And you called me out earlier for hypocrisy?

I made my communion, confirmation just like everyone in my class.
If I was asked my religion, I would have answered catholic and thought nothing of it. I was older when I gave the matter any thought.
The fact you are calling me a hypocrite for that is absolutely bizarre and rather sad.