Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

expectationlost wrote: »

who do you consider christian brown bomber?

This is what we counted from the 2011 Census:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88290281&postcount=7

Jernal wrote: »

Catholic can mean whatever you want it. Obviously the Church doesn't agree with this. You'd make progress counting the needles in a lightyear² haystack than you would determining the proportion of a population that are 'Catholic'. Or for that matter Christian. Most adherents of religion don't actually follow the religion they identify. Still, that doesn't change the fact that they identify as adherents of their religion. Ultimately, that's all that matters. Catholics aren't really Catholics but they are still Catholics. Just like a Republican might get caught in the identity crisis of being a democrat but not able to accept it. Most people in Ireland have a vague notion of spirtuality and other rubbish but they're not by any Cathechism yardstick measure Catholic.

The Moaners that I heard on Liveline seemed to have a very strong opinion on what it means to be 'Catholic' and what should happen in this 'Catholic' country...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Moaners that I heard on Liveline seemed to have a very strong opinion on what it means to be 'Catholic' and what should happen in this 'Catholic' country...

And I guarantee you there were some renegade 80-year-old nuns sitting spitting in the general direction of the radio, using some choice unChristian words in response to that!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The above looks like idle speculation to me. Could you be precise in the numbers effected for each point and support with evidence your claims?

you are right BB, I asked the CSO how they double checked this, no reply from them.

they have joined a european wide census quality group i'll have to look into that

here's is their Surveys and Methodology http://www.cso.ie/en/surveysandmethodology/population/censusofpopulation/censusofpopulation/

doesn't say how they double check

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Being a vegetarian or not being a vegetarian is black and white. Questions of faith and identity are anything but.

"Come on, Ted. Sure it's no more peculiar than all that stuff we learned in the seminary, you know, Heaven and Hell and everlasting life and all that type of thing. You're not meant to take it seriously, Ted!"

I believe it's a principle of natural justice that any inconsistency or ambiguity in legal matters be construed against, rather in favour of, the original drafting party. It's the RCC that invents and insists on RCC dogma. Thus for the RCC to argue "90% of the population are Catholic (thus it's only fair and reasonable that the polity be run on 90% theocratic grounds), it's just that we haven't been able to beat any actual Catholic beliefs into them, with the possible and partial exception of 'I am a Catholic'", would be, to use a technical expression, A Bit Rich.

yeah question is how many people actually _self_-identify in the census

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not "only". In that poll you are quoting 60-something pc of Catholics think that the bread and wine symbolise Christ. I think for some this is merely a genuine mistake through ignorance, though technically that makes them Protestant, I think, it is not a reflection on their actual faith. No foul play is involved.

So what do we do about the ones who understand the theology of transubstantiation and agree wholeheartedly... but have serious objections to other parts of Catholic doctrine? Let's say they understand all of the dogma and doctrine, for having had sound theological and ecclesial education - but just don't agree with some aspects of the teaching, and have no 'voice' in the formal processes and structures who decide what the accepted teachings are. Are THOSE people still Catholic? Or have they excommunicated themselves by being critical thinkers?

robindch wrote: »

Who's right? The RCC will claim -- not unfairly -- that it's the organization that defines what it means, so the people who self-claim to be catholic, but don't believe the right things, are wrong.

Thing is, there are a lot of dissident voices within the organisation, and the tussle for who gets to decide what the organisation means, is a pretty heated contest. Yet on the outside, people have this notion that 'the organisation' is clear and unified in its understanding of its teaching - when that's a false assumption.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Being a vegetarian or not being a vegetarian is black and white. Questions of faith and identity are anything but.

Even then a vegetarian could be eating prawn crackers without realising they are eating meat and they would still be vegetarians if not technically so.

Is it?

Have you ever read some of the ingredients they put in biscuits?
Can you eat biscuits containing animal derivatives and still call yourself a Vegetarian?


Being a Roman Catholic is also fairly 'black and white' as you put it - at least according to their HQ. They have rules see. Rules they expect Catholics to follow. Rules Catholics are signed up to agree to follow.
Can one be considered a member of an organisation if one doesn't follow the rules, doesn't know most of the rules and disagrees with many of the few one does know?

'Faith' is not the issue. People are not asked to declare whether or not that have this nebulous thing called 'Faith' on a census return. They are asked if they are members of specific religions.

AerynSun wrote: »

HQ would have everyone believe that's how it works, but ask the people on the ground and many would tell you that they do know most of the rules and couldn't give a feck, and besides the notion of universality means their own personal experience of being 'church' (which includes their own understanding of Catholicism according to their own well formed conscience) is as valid in their living room as the experience of the man in the funny hat sitting on the papal see in Rome. And it is for that reason that I'm forever putting my hand up and saying "Um.. no... the Church isn't the sum of all of the men who make the laws by themselves" - it's a much broader reality, even though 90% of that lived reality is well hidden or obscured from view because the hierarchy would prefer that it remain so, and the people on the ground aren't interested in the political fight they'd be getting into if they had to open their mouths. So instead they carry on doing whatever they do... in full knowledge that the lads 'at the top' would not approve.

My question is: how do we engage and mobilise the ones who prefer to keep their mouths shut because doing that suits them far better than wading into a political fray that's going to take time and energy that people couldn't give a fig about investing?

My experience of Irish Catholicism is the vast majority see it as a cultural identity rather than a religious belief.

The problem is the State itself enables this primarily via the education system. An education system which has indoctrination built into it's core - hence the moaners on Liveline complaining about 'Catholic' schools not giving 'Holy Days of Obligation' off - yet, are these schools paid for by the Catholic church? No. They are paid for by the State and funded by the tax paid by Catholics and Non-Catholics alike.

And it is indoctrination - students are not encouraged to question but to 'have faith'. They generally emerge from these so-called 'Catholic' schools completely ignorant of the belief system they claim to hold.

I have first hand experience of this as I have lectured 2nd year History undergrands on the Reformation and on my first day teaching that particular module I realised that the first thing I would have to do was explain those doctrines emerging from Rome that annoyed Luther. To say surprise was expressed when I pointed out that many of these doctrines are still in place is to put it mildly.

This was to a group of students aged on average 19/20 the majority of whom had come through these 'Catholic' schools but knew nothing about Roman Catholicism as a religion. Catholic schools do not teach about Catholicism - they brainwash students into uncritically having 'faith' - all paid for by the State.

As for the lies - yes, lies - this Catholic dominated education system is allowed to weave into our collective identity an incredible amount of utter BS regarding the role of the RCC is Irish history - it is nothing less then sectarian propaganda of the worst kind yet the State is paying for it.

When people like me come along and say - 'hang on, we have been looking at the primary sources and that isn't what happened at all. Quite the opposite in fact' there are howls from 'Catholics' that we have an agenda and are attacking the very essence of what it means to be 'Irish'.

Bit rich coming from people whose 'agenda' is to keep what is essentially a franchise whose HQ is a foreign sovereign State which demands loyalty to itself above all in control of not only our National school system but to have its symbols prominently displayed on State occasions and to have an input into our laws.

Now that people like myself are pushing back and saying that Irish does not = Roman Catholic and in fact never did suddenly it all 'agenda'.

AerynSun wrote: »

Church of Ireland [including Protestant] (which makes me wonder how the Census officials understood 'Protestant'): 129,039

My guess is that they're saying that if people reported being "Protestant", without specifying a denominational body, they're counted under this head (on the basis that the "default" sense of "protestant" is "CoI" in these parts). Rather than saying that there are "Protestant" CoI and "other" CoI (though in a sense that is true of some Anglicans, especially elsewhere).

Jehovah's Witness (Christian if you ask them): 6,149
Latter Day Saints [Mormon] (also Christian by their own definition): 1,284

In terms of (mutual) recognition of baptism, which is the most basic fundamental step of any sort of ecumenism, much less anything else, note that the (other) Christian denoms very much include them out.

Lapsed Roman Catholic: 1,279 (sure now why do they have their own category on the census? Do we count them as Christians or do we count them as people with no religion?)

This is indeed bizarre. I'm surprised this one is as low as it is: I had one flatmate who described herself as "lapsed", which seemed to mean "went to mass slightly less often than her Ma would have wanted her to".

AerynSun wrote: »

The best way for the dominant culture to retain its power is to promote the status quo and undermine anything that challenges it. So of course there are plenty of 'Catholics' that will howl loudly and dismiss the insight you would bring to the table, because looking at your evidence would end up meaning that they would have to seriously reconsider their position.

Thing is, there are plenty of voices inside the church who are saying the same kinds of thing... and if you think you're getting backlash, you should see the massacre that's going on inside the system... people getting very het up over insiders 'turning traitor', and accusing them of trying to 'destroy the one true church' - when what the voices of dissent are trying to do, is remind the church of what it started out as, and get it to let go of the power trip and get back to basics: loving people with selfless generosity and not demanding anything in return.

Benedict resigning as Pope was a sure signal of the intensity of the political battle that is raging within the institutional church - and evidence that the battle continues is easily found on any Catholic news site that allows visitors to comment on articles. Some of the most vitriolic stuff you're likely to see anywhere. Very sad.


Edit : Sometimes I wonder if we as a people were dropped on our collective head as a small child as we seem to be the biggest langers in Europe. Shure Vatican - we will pay for you to indoctrinate us. Shure ECB - we will pay to 'save' the Euro. Shure gombeen politico we will pay for your large pension even if we have to borrow the money... FFS!!!!

My 2c about church and state? They definitely need to be separate. And if the church was being honest with itself about what it imagines it is, then it would agree that it was never called to political power or governance.

I doubt the RCC will ever step away from either political power or attempts to influence the governance of sovereign states as it is built into the very structure of the organisation.

The die was cast when the Patrician Pope Gregory I inserted the Church into the vacuum left by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and then co-opted the structure of the Empire to begin a programme of evangelical interference in places like England and Ireland.

Those sent out followed a policy of forced baptism - essentially, once they got a 'king' to convert they then insisted that all his subjects also be baptised by force if necessary. This tactic was quite successful in the Germanic/Anglo-Saxon world but - despite what is taught in Irish schools - a failure in the Gaelic world due to the fact that Gaelic 'kings' were elected from a large kin-group and could be 'unelected' if they tried to impose too much. No Irish king dared to insist on baptism. Ever.

In the rest of Europe, Rome inserted itself into the very coronation process - The 'Divine Right of Kings' principle where monarchs are 'chosen' by God and anointed by the Church. A symbolically powerful message where the Church 'makes' the Monarch and that monarch derives his/her power from God via the Church.

As far as Rome was concerned, the Pope as God's mouthpiece on Earth and his chosen Shepard of a global flock took precedence over kings and would withdraw access to the divine if a monarch failed to do as told. This meant no baptisms, no confessions, no performance of sacraments, no last rights - a whole population denied those very things they had been taught were vital to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Henry VIII turned this principle of 'God's Chosen Prince'on its head by stating that as God had chosen him to be King of England - when it came to England he, Henry, took precedence over the Pope. It was a stunning blow to Rome political power and the repercussions cannot be overstated.

In matters of Doctrine Henry remained a 'Catholic' - his daughter Elizabeth was the one who introduced a Calvinist element with her creation of the Anglican Church. The result of this was Rome issuing a direct order to all Catholics to kill Elizabeth prompting wave after wave of attempts to remove her and place a Catholic on the throne. Fitness to rule was immaterial - Mary Scots was the preferred candidate and as her short reign in Scotland shows she would have been a disaster.

It was politics - pure and simple. Rome wanted monarchs who would defer to it.

Rome also put huge pressure on Phillip II of Spain to invade England - or Ireland, not to 'free' the Irish but to raise an army and attack England on it's western flank.

Ireland was - and remains - a counter-Reformation battleground between the Vatican and Non-Catholic Christian denominations as personified by England - the first European Kingdom to tell the Pope to sling his hook. At no point did Rome promote the idea of an independent Ireland, what it wanted was a Catholic monarch on the throne of England and therefore also king of Ireland. This is why it confirmed Mary Tudor as monarch of Ireland and later backed Philip II of Spain to be king of Ireland.

Battle of the Boyne was James II - a convert to Catholicism backed by Rome - Vs his Protestant Daughter and Son-in Law.

Later, The House of Stuart was replaced by the German Honovarians because the Stuarts had run out of Protestants - so Sofia of Hanover who was 52nd in line was offered the throne.

It was Catholic Europe Vs Protestant Europe - politics not religion was the impetus. Protestant Europe insisted on a personal relationship with one's God with no need for anointed intercessors or centralised power. Catholic Europe deferred to the central authority of the Pope whose whole existence is based on being Number One Anointed Intercessor.

Rome has always been opposed to the politics of nationalism and democracy and actively advocated against the late 19th/early 20th century move towards political self-determination.

From the Unification of Italy when the Pope hid in the Vatican and 'refused' to 'surrender' the city of Rome leading to a ridiculous situation where the Italians had to 'invade' it with the aid of the majority of the city's inhabitants to the excommunication of Irish Republicans in the War of Independence Rome has worked in the political sphere to retain it's control.

The Vatican is the last Absolute 'monarchy' in Europe. Democracy threatens its very existence. The Pope is nothing more than the Roman Emperor repackaged as 'God's spokesman' rather than a God as in Imperial days.

What is happening is essentially akin to the Cold War where religion is an excuse - two ideologies battling it out in a war for hearts and minds.
'The Troubles' in NI being one of the most prominent flash points.

As far as Ireland is concerned - England is, and will always be, the Vatican's main target because it led the breakaway and dared to set up the main rival to Rome. Until Henry VIII, the Vatican still exerted a great deal of control over all the sovereign states in Europe - Henry opened the floodgates (must be why they are terrified of floodgates...:pac:)

Ireland is important to Rome only as a way of attacking England - Rome scored a biggie when on 'Independence' Ireland handed over much of the control to it.
Ireland is one of the last European countries - and the last Western European Country - to allow the Roman Catholic Church to strut so prominently upon it's national stage. Now that 'traditionally' Catholic strongholds of France, Spain and Italy have separated church from state - only Ireland remains..

What we are seeing is the Vatican (that bastard off-spring of the Roman Empire) fighting to retain its last bastion in Western Europe and is getting the Irish people to pay for the 'privilege'

wasn't it the last time this came up they said they didn't want to change the question becuase it would mess up their timeline of stats (not because it wouldn't make it more accurate)

what we need to do is find somebody the CSO will respond to an actualyl answer the questions

as ever we may need to end around ireland by the EU, I wonder has the census come up in atheist ireland and other lobbying in europe, consider they say everything is based on the census numbers schools etc