nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Increase in people identifying as having No Religion

Delirium

RTE are tweeting some results from 2016 census and figured these two tweets would be of interest to this forum

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/849926358323122176
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/849926537176633344

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

beauf

I actually meant in my experience they are in general not discriminatory. Because in the real world day to day, on the front line, that isn't workable when a lot of the people you're interacting with aren't even Irish never mind RC. But I guess everyone has a different experience depending where they are.

eviltwin

beauf wrote: »

I actually meant in my experience they are in general not discriminatory. Because in the real world day to day, on the front line, that isn't workable when a lot of the people you're interacting with aren't even Irish never mind RC. But I guess everyone has a different experience depending where they are.

I think it's less about discriminating against patients and more to do with certain treatments being vetoed by religious members of the board.

looksee

beauf wrote: »

I actually meant in my experience they are in general not discriminatory. Because in the real world day to day, on the front line, that isn't workable when a lot of the people you're interacting with aren't even Irish never mind RC. But I guess everyone has a different experience depending where they are.

Why should it be acceptable that there is any possibility of discrimination? They are 'generally' not discriminatory? How about 'there is no discrimination at all'?

Mellor

smacl wrote: »

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.

I never said the seriousness of either was comparable with the other.
I said gender was a matter of identification. issue. How do you not understand that?

The phrase is in fact "gender indentity".
For some, changing their gender identity was simple and came natural. From some people religion is the source incredibly torment. For other the opposite in both cases. There's no relative scale between them. But the fact is they are both about identification.
FYI Being transgender doesn't require gender reassignment.

In every post your twisting something, or conveniently misunderstanding to suit your agenda. It's a bit pointless tbh.
I dont think the religion question does any harm. All of the issues with schools would still exist if the question was never asked.
If you disagree, that's fine.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

I actually meant in my experience they are in general not discriminatory. Because in the real world day to day, on the front line, that isn't workable when a lot of the people you're interacting with aren't even Irish never mind RC. But I guess everyone has a different experience depending where they are.

That's kind of the point I'm making. Most of Irish people rightly shun discrimination and we are by and large a tolerant bunch, yet at the same time we continue to allow the Catholic church to enforce discriminatory practices (e.g. school enrolment) on the basis that most Irish people are Catholics. Most Irish Catholics also clearly shun discrimination as evidenced in the same sex marriage referendum, and choose to do so even when asked not to by their church hierarchy. Thus, as you've said yourself, the census figures showing a Catholic majority don't suggest that the majority stand behind the Catholic church on many important social issues.

darjeeling

beauf wrote: »

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

The proportion of people born in other countries has risen here as it has in the US, UK and most if not all of the Eurozone over the last 20 years as OECD stats show. In Ireland it's gone from middle of the pack to amongst the EU's highest.

For higher education, the OECD stats show that proportion with degrees is typically much higher in younger generations. Again, the gap in Ireland is greater due to the rapid increase in young people going to university in recent years and also the arrival of third-level educated younger workers from elsewhere in Europe, as the census shows.

Religious affiliation in Ireland shows a similar generational gap to the UK (census data) and the US (Pew research data). For Europe the data are less available and subject to the same problems of interpretation as here - are people actually religious or is it a cultural identity? But if you take support for same sex marriage (one of the most contentious religious issues of recent years) as some sort of proxy then polling here ahead of the referendum and in other European countries have shown much higher support amongst younger generations and lower support or even opposition in older generations. Also it's striking that Ireland went from one of the last countries to legalise divorce to accepting same sex marriage in 20 years.

There are other changes as well. The proportion of women working has increased in Western Europe and the US over the last 30 years as you can see at gapminder.org. Ireland started at the lowest in the EU at the time and consequently has seen more rapid growth than most other countries. We see much greater population growth and also younger populations in cities, especially Dublin, than in rural areas, again according to the census, reflecting a similar trend in other European countries. And of course we've been hit by the economic downturn in the same way as most other EU countries.

So that's why I think that societal changes here have mirrored those in Europe and in the US, and has arguably been faster here. But while we've seen large populist movements - mainly on the right but sometimes on the left - in other countries, aside from independents and the small showing for AAA/PBP, we've not really seen the same here.

beauf

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it's less about discriminating against patients and more to do with certain treatments being vetoed by religious members of the board.

I don't know which ones are allowed by law but are vetoed by a only religious members of a board. If that situation does exist, I assume its to do with the beliefs of those religious members.

You'd be best starting a new topic to discuss the specifics of that.

looksee wrote: »

Why should it be acceptable that there is any possibility of discrimination? They are 'generally' not discriminatory? How about 'there is no discrimination at all'?

I shouldn't have said in general. You'll all get hung up on that. I should have said in my experience they are not discriminatory. Unless the law prevents it.

Again that is the subject for a different thread, or this one will get derailed away from the census information.

beauf

smacl wrote: »

That's kind of the point I'm making. Most of Irish people rightly shun discrimination and we are by and large a tolerant bunch, yet at the same time we continue to allow the Catholic church to enforce discriminatory practices (e.g. school enrolment) on the basis that most Irish people are Catholics. Most Irish Catholics also clearly shun discrimination as evidenced in the same sex marriage referendum, and choose to do so even when asked not to by their church hierarchy. Thus, as you've said yourself, the census figures showing a Catholic majority don't suggest that the majority stand behind the Catholic church on many important social issues.

Again it comes down to the issue that ticking RC on the census doesn't mean what people are inferring from it. Rather than accept that. People want it to mean something else.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

Again it comes down to the issue that ticking RC on the census doesn't mean what people are inferring from it. Rather than accept that. You want it to mean something else.

Nothing to do with what I do or don't want, it is how others misuse this information that is the issue, as per the previous linked article from the Irish Times.

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

beauf

By the next census how % of the total population do people think will identify as having No Religion.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

By the next census how % of the total population do people think will identify as having No Religion.

Cynically you could take a guess at the number of those who will no longer be with us who were predominantly Catholic versus younger people filling out the census for the first time who will have among the highest rates of NR and predict a rise on that basis. You also have a dearth of young priests that younger people could relate to which also stifles take up of religion. The papal visit might drag a few back into the fold but if I was to take a punt I'd say about 800,000 NR in the next poll. I'd also guess the less conservative protestant denomination would alfare better than the RC. Reading the tea leaves might give a better results though

What's your guess?

beauf

I would guess 15-20% in the census. There will still be scope to misuse the figures.

looksee

The ONLY reason that it matters what percentage of people tick no religion is that it is used to support a situation where a supposed majority of people professing a particular religion significantly influences the rest of the population. If we had a truly secular state the people who have a religion of any sort could practice it, and those who have none would not be affected by that practice.

This would remove the need for parents to hypocritically baptise their children just to get them into school;
It would remove the need for parents to have to arrange for their children to be segregated in school, in order they are not taught rituals that are not part of their own beliefs;
It would remove the influence of the Catholic church in hospitals, and the consequent religion-led decisions on women's health;
It would remove the apparent stranglehold the Catholic Church has on the elected government of the country and its interference with matters that should be secular.

None of this would prevent parents from raising their children in any faith they choose, in teaching them whatever beliefs they choose, or having them initiated into whatever religious groupings they choose - though admittedly in many cases this would require parents to have a more active involvement in their children's rites of passage.

People who did not wish for intervention in pregnancy for whatever reason - whether for health, psychological or any other reason, would not be obliged to accept it. And the rank hypocrisy of exporting these 'women's problems' to other juristictions would be removed.

beauf

I think it would be more successful to focus on achieving secular state, and bypass the census discussion completely.

I think society will force change before the census reflects it.

Hotblack Desiato

Mellor wrote: »

But the church control isn't based on census data. That's a fact.

No, it's an unfortunate legacy of history, but the census is nonetheless being used by various groups in an attempt to justify the continuation of RCC control.

The churches control, or lack of control, should be dictated by the wants of the people. Regardless of what they identify with.

Actually we should base the delivery of state services on a human rights based approach.

Otherwise what we have is what we have now - crude majoritarianism where the majority are "All Right Jack" and the rights of minorities are routinely trampled.

These are state services, paid for by all taxpayers, but not delivered to all taxpayers in a fair or equitable manner.

Hotblack Desiato

More census abuse:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/iona-institute-opposes-end-to-good-friday-drink-sales-ban-1.3045453

According to Census 2016 figures, “78.3 per cent of the population identify themselves as Catholic. Good Friday marks an important day in the Christian calendar and is a day that is commemorated by many Christians in Ireland and worldwide,” Mr O’Connor said.

It doesn't matter if there is only one non-catholic in the country. It's wrong to restrict his or her rights because of catholic dogma.

Mellor

looksee wrote: »

This would remove the need for parents to hypocritically baptise their children just to get them into school;

It's hypocritical for antitheists to baptise their children to get them into school. But not hypocritical for someone who's an atheist - and nothing more.

I fully agree that it's a ridiculous game to play in order to get an education. But I wouldn't criticise anyone for playing the game until such a time that it's removed.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, it's an unfortunate legacy of history, but the census is nonetheless being used by various groups in an attempt to justify the continuation of RCC control.

And it's also being used to denounce the RCC control. The exact same figures.

What % of schools national are under Church control/patronage/whatever. (I genuinely don't know). I would have presumed that its over 78%, in which case I don't see how the census backs up that control.
The Iona institute claiming it, doesn't making it so. A child old could tear down that argument

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

It's hypocritical for antitheists to baptise their children to get them into school. But not hypocritical for someone who's an atheist - and nothing more.

I fully agree that it's a ridiculous game to play in order to get an education. But I wouldn't criticise anyone for playing the game until such a time that it's removed.

You just did though. You called them hypocrites. Others might call them pragmatists taking the least worst choice among a set of undesirable options. It could just be that they're antitheists as you call them (more likely just anti-RCC) because they have to go through this nonsense in the first place. Most parents just want what is best for their child and will become very annoyed to have to go through this nonsense just to end up with something that isn't even that.

Mellor

I was pointing out it was a hypocritical action, as it directly contradicts an opposition to religion. But I'm just stating a fact. Don't confuse that with criticism. I mean, I clearly said I wasn't criticising them. There nothing wrong with putting your child ahead of everything else.

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

I was pointing out it was a hypocritical action, as it directly contradicts an opposition to religion. But I'm just stating a fact. Don't confuse that with criticism. I mean, I clearly said I wasn't criticising them. There nothing wrong with putting your child ahead of everything else.

It is not hypocrisy when you act under duress and put the best interests of your child before your own personally held principals. It is well considered pragmatism.

Its not really fair to call people hypocrites for criticising actions that are forced on them by the system.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

It is not hypocrisy when you act under duress and put the best interests of your child before your own personally held principals. It is well considered pragmatism.

Unfortunately this 'pragmatism' forces other parents to do the same, or risk their kids losing out.

If nobody did this, nobody would feel compelled to do this, and nobody would lose out for not doing this.

It would help also if we had fewer catholic snobs who turn their noses up at their local RC school and instead take the bus elsewhere and deny a place to a local child in that area, who may have no other options given that ETs are oversubscribed and a non-religious child is bottom of the admission list in most RC schools.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Unfortunately this 'pragmatism' forces other parents to do the same, or risk their kids losing out. If nobody did this, nobody would feel compelled to do this, and nobody would lose out for not doing this. It would help also if we had fewer catholic snobs who turn their noses up at their local RC school and instead take the bus elsewhere and deny a place to a local child in that area, who may have no other options given that ETs are oversubscribed and a non-religious child is bottom of the admission list in most RC schools.

So, the baptism barrier is being caused by atheists posing as religious, and Catholics who want a school better than the local one for their kids are snobs? Are the athiests who do the same not snobs too then?

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Unfortunately this 'pragmatism' forces other parents to do the same, or risk their kids losing out.

Not true. It is as often as not the parents who have to go through this nonsense that are creating all the uproar in the media which is in turn putting pressure on the politicians and slowly effecting change. To suggest they're at fault for playing the system on the one hand while attacking on the other is both incorrect and victim blaming.

Most people who would like an ET school place at this point in time will be disappointed, as all ET schools are grossly oversubscribed and have to turn away many more than they can accept. Parents need a workable plan B.
Worth remembering that over half of ET school places are currently filled by Catholic kids. While this is perfectly reasonable, it illustrates the proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

smacl

Just caught the tail end of Michael Nugent and David Quinn talking about this on the radio. Fair play to Michael Nugent, some patience putting up with that Quinn fella.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Not true. It is as often as not the parents who have to go through this nonsense that are creating all the uproar in the media which is in turn putting pressure on the politicians and slowly effecting change. To suggest they're at fault for playing the system on the one hand while attacking on the other is both incorrect and victim blaming.

I don't think that's true. I'd say it's organisations (like ET) who are providing attractive alternatives to denominational educational organisations, and the parents who support them by sending their children to them who are the ones effecting change.

smacl wrote: »

Most people who would like an ET school place at this point in time will be disappointed, as all ET schools are grossly oversubscribed and have to turn away many more than they can accept. Parents need a workable plan B.

I doubt anyone could actually demonstrate that most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed; I think that's pure hyperbole. There are certainly oversubscribed schools, no doubt. I'd say they tend to be the good schools, and that includes denom and non-denom alike.

smacl wrote: »

Worth remembering that over half of ET school places are currently filled by Catholic kids. While this is perfectly reasonable, it illustrates the proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

I don't think it does. It certainly illustrates an appetite for a broader range of educational styles than we once had, but there is a great deal to recommend ET schools, not least their inclusiveness. They themselves make no claims about being secular or promoting secularity in their mission statement, values, or charter, though they do mention all religious backgrounds being equally respected, which I think is a far more laudable aim.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I doubt anyone could actually demonstrate that most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed; I think that's pure hyperbole. There are certainly oversubscribed schools, no doubt. I'd say they tend to be the good schools, and that includes denom and non-denom alike.

This and other similar articles demonstrate over-subscription. It also demonstrates the continuing difficulties of trying to accommodate children in non-religious schools. 4 and 5 times as many applications for places available, I don't think that is hyperbole. How about asking for evidence before dismissing an argument as hyperbole?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/educate-together-takes-legal-advice-on-admissions-1.2264527

I don't think it does. It certainly illustrates an appetite for a broader range of educational styles than we once had, but there is a great deal to recommend ET schools, not least their inclusiveness. They themselves make no claims about being secular or promoting secularity in their mission statement, values, or charter, though they do mention all religious backgrounds being equally respected, which I think is a far more laudable aim.

This quote from the ET website seems to me to be offering secular education. They offer information about other religions and non-religious beliefs, but that is not the same as teaching it as fact.

Are we going to quibble about the definition of secular, or the fact that the site does not actually say in so many words 'we offer a secular education'? It does not alter the fact that that is what they are doing.

Educate Together schools provide a learning environment that is safe and supportive of the identity of every child. A childâ€™s identity is affirmed and validated and this includes a religious or philosophical viewpoint. Children learn about the major world belief systems in our schools as well as atheism, agnosticism and humanism. The Learn Together Ethical Education Curriculum, which is taught in place of religious instruction in Educate Together schools, encompasses morality and spirituality; equality and justice; belief systems and an ethical approach to the environment.

Schools provide facilities for the teaching of faith after school hours. There is no faith formation within school hours and at no point are children separated from their classmates according to religious beliefs.

smacl

I doubt anyone could actually demonstrate that most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed; I think that's pure hyperbole.

As per looksees post, there is plenty of information to support this. First hand I know quite a few people who have sought an ET primary school place and have been disappointed.

Absolam wrote: »

They themselves make no claims about being secular or promoting secularity in their mission statement, values, or charter, though they do mention all religious backgrounds being equally respected, which I think is a far more laudable aim.

They do though, from their site

Statement of Clarification: The Educate Together Model of Education wrote:

The members of Educate Together are its schools, who take policy decisions at Annual General Meetings. As such Educate Together is a secular, or non-denominational organisation.

Personally I think it is a great model in that it respects all traditions while allowing those who seek specific religious instruction the opportunity to avail of it on an extra curricular basis without imposing it on those who do not. Secularity does not interfere with celebrating diversity.

beauf

One of those schools I'm familiar with, and its not just the ET school that's over subscribed. All the schools of all types in that area are oversubscribed. The problem with local kids given priory over kids further away is feature of all their admission policies. I thought the ET operated differently, in that its based on when you register interest in the school not where you live. It was also popular for this reason as people not local have a better chance of getting their kids in the school.

I'm don't see the point of not giving local kids priority. Not doing this just creates gridlock with kids from all over being driving to other places. When the kid is not in school they are not near their classmates. Etc.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Just caught the tail end of Michael Nugent and David Quinn talking about this on the radio. Fair play to Michael Nugent, some patience putting up with that Quinn fella.

I heard the second half of it as well. Quinn kept going on about the nuns having an á la carte approach to catholicism, but still praying every day and still being "spiritual". Only towards the very end did he spell out what nuns he was talking about; n-o-n-e-s :pac:

Nugent did very well though. He had a short answer to everything, straight to the point. The interviewer seemed to take Quinn's side, just to provide some missing balance to the debate.