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; } } }

Child Item

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

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

There is a distinct smell of b/s from this reply,

The census form from 5 years ago, and last year for that matter, doesn't ask the number of people per household that subscribe to a belief/no religion.

There is only census form issued to every property.

Unless all of you have moved to separate individual properties since 2011 census and are completing separate individual census forms in 2016 census, your claim (above) reads as b/s spoofery.

Your claim (above) is b/s.

What's bs about that

The census clearly asks personal information of all people in the property at the time the census was taken. How else do you think the CSO get an accurate figure of the numbers of people who belong to the individual faiths or who have none

Do you even live in Ireland or did you have someone else complete the form on your behalf?

Pherekydes

hinault wrote: »

There is a distinct smell of b/s from this reply,

The census form from 5 years ago, and last year for that matter, doesn't ask the number of people per household that subscribe to a belief/no religion.

There is only census form issued to every property.

Unless all of you have moved to separate individual properties since 2011 census and are completing separate individual census forms in 2016 census, your claim (above) reads as b/s spoofery.

Your claim (above) is b/s.

Ah, Hinault, have you just outed yourself as not living here? Everyone here knows that the census asks the religious affiliation of every individual.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

There is a distinct smell of b/s from this reply,

The census form from 5 years ago, and last year for that matter, doesn't ask the number of people per household that subscribe to a belief/no religion.

There is only census form issued to every property.

Unless all of you have moved to separate individual properties since 2011 census and are completing separate individual census forms in 2016 census, your claim (above) reads as b/s spoofery.

Your claim (above) is b/s.

looksee

Mod: Hinault, please be more careful before describing claims as b/s. Please check the sample census form here: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/censusform_2006.pdf

hinault

ShooterSF wrote: »

Life and death professions maybe Ah my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek. If I had my way the licensing laws would allow for 24 hour service 365 and no restriction on number of places serving alcohol. But thats a discussion for a different forum.

O/T 5 years ago I was the only member of my family (Mam Dad and Sis) to put down no religion as the staunch Atheist. This time all 4 of us marked no religion. And maybe there is a shift happening, was approached in confidence by two friends who were having trouble coming to terms with their falling belief in the RCC and religion in general.

There is a distinct smell of b/s from this reply,

The census form from 5 years ago, and last year for that matter, doesn't ask the number of people per household that subscribe to a belief/no religion.

There is only census form issued to every property.

Unless all of you have moved to separate individual properties since 2011 census and are completing separate individual census forms in 2016 census, your claim (above) reads as b/s spoofery.

Your claim (above) is b/s.

ShooterSF

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well isn't that a shame. Many other professions have to provide 365 days a year cover, not just 363, but you know they have annual leave and rotas and stuff... as do you. There's no need to make it sound like you only get literally 2 days off a year, we're not fools.

Life and death professions maybe

Ah my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek. If I had my way the licensing laws would allow for 24 hour service 365 and no restriction on number of places serving alcohol. But thats a discussion for a different forum.

O/T 5 years ago I was the only member of my family (Mam Dad and Sis) to put down no religion as the staunch Atheist. This time all 4 of us marked no religion. And maybe there is a shift happening, was approached in confidence by two friends who were having trouble coming to terms with their falling belief in the RCC and religion in general.

Hotblack Desiato

ShooterSF wrote: »

Woah woah woah. I don't often side with IONA but you leave bartender's holiday alone! We get 2 guaranteed days off a year (non existent) god dammit.

Well isn't that a shame. Many other professions have to provide 365 days a year cover, not just 363, but you know they have annual leave and rotas and stuff... as do you. There's no need to make it sound like you only get literally 2 days off a year, we're not fools.

ShooterSF

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

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.

Woah woah woah. I don't often side with IONA but you leave bartender's holiday alone! We get 2 guaranteed days off a year (non existent) god dammit.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We're concerned about secondary options though - literally there are none here.

We went through a similar enough situation with ours. Eldest got into an ET primary in second class after a space came up and youngest followed as a sibling. When eldest left primary there was nothing, and though we'd put a few bob aside to get her into a fee paying co-ed, she decided she wanted to go to the same RCC all girls school here friends were going to. She's got through it well enough as she's very academically inclined but even then she's had to take subjects out of school as they simply weren't available. She's a maths, applied maths, physics and chemistry nerd, and getting that combination was not easy. If you've a practically minded girl interested in woodwork or metalwork you might as well forget it, which to my mind sucks just as much as the whole time wasting on religion thing.

We were much luckier with youngest, and got into an ET secondary in its first year, which is just as well as the staff at the RCC girls school would most probably have her burned as a witch. It's not exactly local at 10k door to door, but the parents have organised carpooling as there are a number of kids travelling to get to the school from our area. On good days she cycles there and back which is about 45 minutes for her each way. Plan is she'll cycle more as time goes by and she gets stronger on the bike. The ET school and staff are fantastic, she loves the place, and it is certainly worth the effort to figure how to get to one if at all possible. It is also worth checking for vacancies during term as well, as we've seen a number of kids drop out of the ET school. For all that, the odds aren't great, and what places there are exist despite the Dept of Ed and our various governments, and are due to the efforts of the parents that want them.

Hotblack Desiato

We've been in contact with ET since years. Dept of Ed will not sanction another school here, end of*. It's a mature Dublin suburb so school population is not growing enough, and as I said the expansion of the local RC schools caters for the demand for places - provided as a parent you're prepared to hold your nose at the type of places offered.

We were lucky - we (not from a CoI background) managed to get Child 1 into the small local CoI primary when places were still available, and Child 2 got in on the sibling rule. This school was undersubscribed for years, now it's full to bursting and turning kids away - but not with children of CoI parents, just people who are seeking out the only English-speaking non-RC option.

They are nothing like as pushy about religion as the RC schools of my childhood, and are fully cognisant of their position as a minority religion within their own school

if only protestant families sent their kids here, it would have shut down years ago. We are opting our kids out of religion but at their own choice, after sitting through it it's something they'd rather not do so it's not us pushing antitheism at them. The school is fine with this, all we have to do is send them in a bit later on a Friday morning so they arrive as church ends - lie in for everyone so win-win

We're concerned about secondary options though - literally there are none here. One large RC boys secondary and one large girls RC secondary, each run by a religious order with a very suspect past, and NOTHING else. We despise single-sex schooling as it's bad for both boys and girls and forces rigid gender roles and expectations on them both. There is an ET/ETB joint patronage secondary but it's a drive away - we're a little bit outside its official catchment area and lots of ET primaries further away from us will get priority in enrolment, so I'm not too optimistic there

plus my wife would like to be able to get back to the workplace someday rather than spend another 8 years or so ferrying kids around, and as things stand nobody is going to college if they're relying on my sole income (I'm Irish and middle class, so I pay for everything and get grants for nothing.)

* all the 'so why not set up your own school' shysters can cram it. Without state funding, only lottery winners and barristers can afford to set up their own school, and the Dept of Ed will only sanction new schools in areas where unmet population growth exists, not because parents are unhappy with the ethos choices or lack thereof where they live.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What if, like me, you live in a place where there is no ET? There is no admission list recording our disappointment. There's no school within reach to apply to and all the ones tantalisingly beyond are full anyway.

The local RC primary schools here doubled their capacity in the last few years, and another gaelscoil was built, but there was no survey, no consultation, no nothing for us non-conformists who refuse to speak Irish and worship the RC religion :rolleyes: :mad: Thanks a bunch, Dept of Ed.

Between a rock and a hard place there by the sounds of it, and it seems a common enough story, reading this article. AFAIK, ET schools are set up largely on demand by parents pushing for them, the Dept of Ed don't seem proactive at all in this regard. Possibly too late for your kids but you could register an expression of interest to have an ET set up in your area or start a campaign. Unfortunately, everything I've read suggests that not only does demand for ET places exceed supply by a significant multiple, but that the demand is increasing at a greater pace than new places are being created.

looksee

Mod: Absolam, I responded to one of your posts personally rather than as a mod in the hope you would take the hint that you were heading towards waffle posting. Your responses are the usual examples of nit-picking irrelevance - especially this:

They don't though; that statement is not from their mission statement, values, or charter, as I said, is it? But like I said, I don't think ET aren't comparatively secular, even if they're not sufficiently secular for some. Just that demand for their format isn't necessarily illustrative of the idea that proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

If you wish to continue posting on this forum please keep your answers relevant and moving the arguments forward rather than attempting to bog them down.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The parents who go through it i.e. baptise against their wishes, always get places as far as I'm aware. Can you provide me a case of a baptised child failing to secure a school place in Ireland?

That's a good point. So when you talk about these parents;

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The people who stick to their principles and will not baptise are the actual victims of the system.

Can you provide me a case of one of these children failing to secure a school place in Ireland?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

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.

As per looksees post, there certainly is information to support the notion that there are ET schools, just like denominational schools, who are oversubscribed. Nothing presented so far rises anywhere to the notion that "most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed", but I'm happy, as I said, to consider any evidence you put forward?

smacl wrote: »

They do though, from their site

They don't though; that statement is not from their mission statement, values, or charter, as I said, is it? But like I said, I don't think ET aren't comparatively secular, even if they're not sufficiently secular for some. Just that demand for their format isn't necessarily illustrative of the idea that proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

smacl wrote: »

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.

I think it's a great model too; it allows religious traditions to be celebrated and explored as part of their curricular activities showing that schools can respect diversity without being obliged to have purely secular education.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

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 didn't say there wasn't over subscription; I said I think a claim that most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed is hyperbolic. If you have evidence that it isn't, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it....
There are more than 20,000 ET places in Ireland so we'd need to see something that says they have considerably more than 40,000 applicants I think?
I do note the fact that ET in your article have pointed out that they feel prioritising local area children could be a legally discriminatory practice, which might disappoint some proponents of such a system hereabouts... tying into the fact that they don't want to be denying parents who live outside the catchment area of an Educate Together school, their choice of school for their children (Hotblacks 'snobs' who turn up their noses at their local schools).

looksee wrote: »

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.

Sure, it might seem so to you; no doubt it seems relatively secular to many, including me. But I was saying they make no claims in their mission statement, values, or charter about being secular or promoting secularity which means demand for their format doesn't necessarily illustrate a notion that the proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

looksee wrote: »

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.

I certainly wasn't quibbling the meaning of the word, so I'm afraid you'll have to do that without me. My point was that ET are more than just a secular counterpoint to denominational education; their own mission statement, values, and charter completely omit any mention of such an idea. I've no doubt that they've made plenty of statements and submissions where they position themselves at the secular end of the educational spectrum, though whether or not they do offer a secular education is obviously a matter of opinion; the likes of Atheist Ireland would disagree with your opinion, for example. Maybe we can agree they're secular enough for the tastes of some, if not for others.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

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.

What if, like me, you live in a place where there is no ET? There is no admission list recording our disappointment. There's no school within reach to apply to and all the ones tantalisingly beyond are full anyway.

The local RC primary schools here doubled their capacity in the last few years, and another gaelscoil was built, but there was no survey, no consultation, no nothing for us non-conformists who refuse to speak Irish and worship the RC religion :rolleyes: :mad: Thanks a bunch, Dept of Ed.

Hotblack Desiato

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

The parents who go through it i.e. baptise against their wishes, always get places as far as I'm aware. Can you provide me a case of a baptised child failing to secure a school place in Ireland?

I also have never heard of a 'we baptised against our will and got a school place, so we're grand really, but feel a bit regretful' piece in any media, can you link me to one please and thank you

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.

The people who stick to their principles and will not baptise are the actual victims of the system.

The ones who conform and 'take the soup' as it were, are not putting pressure on politicians or anyone else. Quite the opposite, they are supporting the view that the present system is OK and that parents are happy with it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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: »

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.