Increase in people identifying as having No Religion

beauf wrote: »

None.

No.

Which is why you shouldn't seek to associate the census data with the ethos and patronage of State schools.

So your saying that there is no value in knowing what percentage of the population is any given religion and the information should not play any role in decision making. So why do you think we spend time and money collecting this valueless information?

Mellor wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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. What does have relevance is the relative demand for non-denominational school places versus denominational ones, where the demand for non-denominational places is considerably higher.

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?

smacl wrote: »

So your saying that there is no value in knowing what percentage of the population is any given religion and the information should not play any role in decision making. So why do you think we spend time and money collecting this valueless information?

Not in relation to schools. Which is really what 99% of this debate is about.
There is value in data. Once you understand what the data is, and what it isn't. Religion should be separated from the state and thus schools. That just logical. The argument for that doesn't need census data.

The issue is if any politician or govt try to implement this. How will this effect their popularity, their votes. If you think the census isn't an accurate reflection of the majority opinion then there should be no problem. If it does then that is a problem for whomever tries to implement it.

Again its isn't that people identify as being RC. Its if they want patronage to continue. That's an entirely different question. You don't know if people want patronage to continue from that census. Though people are trying to infer that meaning from it. That's flawed logic and not understanding the data.

For example just because some ticked RC on the census, doesn't not mean they want time that could be used for something else to be used for religion. I don't think you would infer that for Irish as a Subject. So why do it for religion.

Debate isn't limited to schools.

It's about framing a question in such a way as to get a certain response and leaving the clearly incorrect answer as a good enough record on a census document that is widely used as a reference in public debate and decision making.

Anyone who doesn't have a problem with this is open to accusations of a prior agenda.

Deleted User wrote: »

Debate isn't limited to schools.

It's about framing a question in such a way as to get a certain response and leaving the clearly incorrect answer as a good enough record on a census document that is widely used as a reference in public debate and decision making.

Anyone who doesn't have a problem with this is open to accusations of a prior agenda.

If 90% of people ticked all the boxes for RC do you still think religion should be in schools.

beauf wrote: »

Not in relation to schools. Which is really what 99% of this debate is about.
There is value in data. Once you understand what the data is, and what it isn't. Religion should be separated from the state and thus schools. That just logical. The argument for that doesn't need census data.

The issue is if any politician or govt try to implement this. How will this effect their popularity, their votes. If you think the census isn't an accurate reflection of the majority opinion then there should be no problem. If it does then that is a problem for whomever tries to implement it.

Again its isn't that people identify as being RC. Its if they want patronage to continue. That's an entirely different question. You don't know if people want patronage to continue from that census. Though people are trying to infer that meaning from it. That's flawed logic and not understanding the data.

For example just because some ticked RC on the census, doesn't not mean they want time that could be used for something else to be used for religion. I don't think you would infer that for Irish as a Subject. So why do it for religion.

While I'd agree with you to that church and state should be entirely separate including with respect to education, I think this is a matter of preference as well as logic to some extent. As such it is a piece of statistical information that is at least as worthy of capture as nominal religious affiliation. Only by understanding the secular preferences of the people can the politicians properly implement those preferences. I think the census as it stands doesn't provide much useful information and the politicians play it safe by supporting the status quo.

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.

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. ...

I would agree. Though I dunno if the census or a referendum is the correct platform for that.

The majority of this thread seems to be focused on something entirely different.

darjeeling

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.

beauf wrote: »

I would agree. Though I dunno if the census or a referendum is the correct platform for that.

I'd say census if we're talking about preferring a secular approach to running society in general, as opposed to a specific issue which might be better suited to a referendum.

beauf wrote: »

If 90% of people ticked all the boxes for RC do you still think religion should be in schools.

You keep asking this. Of everyone. Regardless of their post, as far as I can see.

I never thought religion should be in schools.

Trying to expand the scope of such things hasnt worked in the past. Specific issues would have a better chance of success.

Deleted User wrote: »

You keep asking this. Of everyone. Regardless of their post, as far as I can see.

I never thought religion should be in schools.

I don't think I did. And what you believe wasn't my question. My question was really that the number in a religion shouldn't decide whats taught in school. darjeeling made that point better than I did.

beauf wrote: »

I don't think I did. And what you believe wasn't my question. My question was really that the number in a religion shouldn't decide whats taught in school. darjeeling made that point better than I did.

Nobody has disagreed with that. But that doesn't change the use of census data in bolstering arguments claiming Ireland to be a catholic country, which is then used to argue the usual.

looksee

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.

... and checking mass attendance....

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...claiming Ireland to be a catholic country, ....

The term Catholic country is a bit of a meaningless description. Probably means different things to different people.

beauf wrote: »

The term Catholic country is a bit of a meaningless description. Probably means different things to different people.

It was a short post but you still manage to make your response about the irrelevant part.

Deleted User wrote: »

It was a short post but you still manage to make your response about the irrelevant part.

It was either that or just re-quote the previous 2 pages of comments

When we talk about cycling, or housing, AirBnB or even the health system, we look at examples in other countries. We don't seem to be doing that when it comes to school patronage. Or the broader issue, of how no religion in other countries, perhaps in other countries like Spain, or similar.

darjeeling wrote: »

Among younger working age adults (25-44), only 73% were born in Ireland and 14% have no religion. We don't yet know what percentage would be Catholic, but in 2011 it was 80%, so it will now be lower. In 2011, 32% had degrees.

Among the over-65s, 92% were born in Ireland (most of the rest were UK born) and 3% have no religion. In 2011, 91% of this age group were Catholic, and 10% had degrees.

These growing differences between generations mirror those seen in the US, UK and other Western European countries. As there, we've also seen a breakdown in confidence in established political parties here. But we haven't seen the kind of backlash movements that led to Brexit, Trump and might yet elect Marine le Pen.

I wonder why is that?

When you say it mirrors other countries where did you get that from?

Mellor

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.

Mellor wrote: »

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.

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. 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 and seems to miss the obvious fact that secular schools are significantly more oversubscribed than their religious counterparts. This conflation of religious identification with secular preference is repeatedly used as an argument by the church to defend their unmerited position of power, notably withing the education sector, and is entirely disingenuous.

It's been stated number of times in the thread...

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

I don't think questions on preference and opinion should form part of a census itself. As it should be a record of facts.

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

Mellor

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.

smacl wrote: »

While I picked one example, census figures are regularly abused ....

A lot of these issues bring out very crazy extremists on both sides. They should be ignored not quoted for discussion.

Mellor wrote: »

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

Seriously? Gender is not a matter of choice in any way comparable with religion. If you're talking about transgender people, do you seriously think many of those who felt they had a choice would go through so much pain and crap to undergo gender re-assignment? People change their religion all the time on the other hand and can even be persuaded to do so on occasion.

Irish Times work for better for you maybe?

beauf wrote: »

A lot of these issues bring out very crazy extremists on both sides. They should be ignored not quoted for discussion.

Irish Times wrote:

According to the last Census in 2011 an overwhelming majority, 84% of the population, are declared to be ˜Roman Catholic™. This is in sharp contrast to figures for religious belonging revealed in survey data where only a shrinking minority of self-described Catholics‚ practice their religion by attending church.
Does this matter? It certainly does. The CSO tells us that government departments wish to know your religion‚ to help them with planning for services. Services like faith managed schools and chaplaincy services at new hospitals. Unfortunately, the problematic results on religion from the Census are an unsatisfactory basis on which to gauge the demand for schools managed by religious organisations.

Bottom line is that the census figures relating to religion are demonstrably used and abused by politicians and pundits alike.

smacl wrote: »

Irish Times work for better for you maybe?

Bottom line is that the census figures relating to religion are demonstrably used and abused by politicians and pundits alike.

My point was to ignore those who abuse the figures. Unless you think the Irish times is abusing the figures why link to that.

...According to the last Census in 2011 an overwhelming majority, 84% of the population, are declared to be Roman Catholic. This is in sharp contrast to figures for religious belonging revealed in survey data where only a shrinking minority of self-described Catholics practice their religion by attending church.

We've already pointed point out the problem with this. Just because someone doesn't practice their religion doesn't mean they don't want to be identified as RC, or that that it indicates what their school preference is.

beauf wrote: »

My point was to ignore those who abuse the figures. Unless you think the Irish times is abusing the figures why link to that.

Because the highlighted section states that government uses these figures to help them plan for provision of services. This is not a suitable use of this data, as it relates to preferred religious identity not secular preference.

We've already pointed point out the problem with this. Just because someone doesn't practice their religion doesn't mean they don't want to be identified as RC, or that that it indicates what their school preference is.

That's not the problem though, the problem is the inference that because someone self identifies as Roman Catholic they wish for the Roman Catholic church to continue running schools and hospitals. This inference has not been shown to be true, and indications suggest it is false.

So much of that is irrelvent. The hospitals and schools for example have to deal with a vast number of religions, and nationalities for a very long time and have local policies in place to deal with them.

The Govt policy and the CSO are playing catch up. Badly.

Case in point...

http://www.thejournal.ie/ruth-coppinger-prayer-dail-3334384-Apr2017/

Rather than point outing the flaws in the Census, you are validating it, by wanting more information in it. That will be wrong again.