Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet · 09-01-2014 01:51PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think we can safely say that for the purposes of the census, the question actually means 'do you consider yourself catholic in theory, whether or not you fail miserably to match that in practice?'

Absolutely.

vibe666 wrote: »

except that there isn't broad agreement, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There is broad agreement in society - that there is dissagreement in this particular corner of the interweb doesn't amount to a big hill of beans.

vibe666 wrote: »

but the problem is that there are very clear definitions within church doctrine that have already been pointed out qualify someone as catholic. unfortunately, the census doesn't ask the question in such a way as to distinguish between the most faithful catholic in the country...

Again with the judging of people! People can call themselves catholics if they want to.

vibe666 wrote: »

....the most popular web forum in Ireland always has many many more people browsing the Atheism forum than the Christianity forum (28 here to 8 there currently) so either we are having much more interesting dicussions in here, or Atheism in Ireland is a lot more popular (at least amongst web users) here than Christianity.

Perhaps the CSO would consider using this method in future for compilling census data. Asking people is so old-fashioned.

I Heart Internet · 09-01-2014 01:56PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Hardly, if I believe in a diety of any form, I can call myself athiest but this would be a lie, and to put it down on a census is a lie. If I believe in Christ as a Diety and follow/worship him but do not follow/obey in the teachings of the Catholic Church, then I can call myself Catholic but that would be a lie, I would be a Christian. If I don't believe in any Diety, I can call myself a Catholic, but that would be a lie, I am an Athiest.

That's a nice clear position you've outlined there. Now, if only we can find a good, reasonable, compliant populace to implement your strict religious labelling policy we'd be off to a great start.

magicbastarder · 09-01-2014 02:04PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Again with the judging of people! People can call themselves catholics if they want to.

they can if they want to; but the question here is whether the answer given on the census should ideally reflect fact or what the responder likes to think.

it's like asking 'are you a criminal?'
most people should answer 'yes' if the question means 'have you ever committed a crime?'; but many people would interpret the question as 'do you have a criminal record?', which would give a very different result.

Bannasidhe · 09-01-2014 02:10PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's a nice clear position you've outlined there. Now, if only we can find a good, reasonable, compliant populace to implement your strict religious labelling policy we'd be off to a great start.

I think you will find that we have a nice compliant population who are willing to tick a box which states they are members of a particular organisation even though they do not actually believe in the 'mission statement' of that organisation.

By an amazing coinkydinks this same organisation controls the vast majority of State funded schools and uses those ticked boxes to justify continuing to control the vast majority of State funded schools.

old hippy · 09-01-2014 02:16PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think you will find that we have a nice compliant population who are willing to tick a box which states they are members of a particular organisation even though they do not actually believe in the 'mission statement' of that organisation.

By an amazing coinkydinks this same organisation controls the vast majority of State funded schools and uses those ticked boxes to justify continuing to control the vast majority of State funded schools.

Damnit it, you're allowing the ticked boxes to hold sway!

Bannasidhe · 09-01-2014 02:19PM

old hippy wrote: »

Damnit it, you're allowing the ticked boxes to hold sway!

Not Me Guv.

I have never been a fan of the multiple choice tick a box option.

I Heart Internet · 09-01-2014 02:20PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think you will find that we have a nice compliant population who are willing to tick a box which states they are members of a particular organisation even though they do not actually believe in the 'mission statement' of that organisation.

You think that people are being coerced into ticking a box they don't want to, in the comfort of their own home

Delirium · 09-01-2014 02:22PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You think that people are being coerced into ticking a box they don't want to, in the comfort of their own home

how did you manage to get that from what Banna posted?

CramCycle · 09-01-2014 02:31PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's a nice clear position you've outlined there. Now, if only we can find a good, reasonable, compliant populace to implement your strict religious labelling policy we'd be off to a great start.

The population have no say in being compliant, they either are or are not, there is no middle ground within the definitions/labels. The population do have a say in how they fill out the census, many of them may believe they are roman catholic, when they are Christian (my wife is a great example who gets very annoyed both at the fact that I bring it up, and secondly I know more about the religion she claims to be than she does). Personally as far as the census is concerned, I think it should not be a question at all as it serves no purpose as it stands (although I could be wrong) other than historical interest. If it has to remain, maybe a page on the census hand out explaining what every label means maybe useful. Although my parents will still tick Catholic even if they are not, and my wife will still do it no matter what the truth maybe.

magicbastarder · 09-01-2014 02:35PM

i reckon a better question would be 'what does "the immaculate conception" mean?'
many, if not most catholics seem not to know. if you don't know the answer to such a basic question, you're off the list.

Bannasidhe · 09-01-2014 02:38PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You think that people are being coerced into ticking a box they don't want to, in the comfort of their own home

I think that people are being educated to believe that Irish = Roman Catholic within our education system - which feeds into our broader cultural - and religion and national identity are being deliberately confused so yes 'coerced', while not the term I personally would use, could be applied.

I haven't considered myself a Roman Catholic since the 1970s yet until I was tasked with filling out the Census Forms in the 1980s the Catholic box was ticked for me by the 'Head of The Household' as they considered me to be a Catholic. It took years of explaining that it is possible to be Irish without being a Catholic.

The fact of the matter is - it shouldn't matter what percentage of the population is Christian or Roman Catholic as the State - according to the Constitution - is not allowed to endow or favour any religion or discriminate against any citizen on the basis of religion.

While the majority of the population may or may not consider themselves members of a particular religion that is immaterial where the Constitution is concerned yet, those ticked boxes are used to justify the State endowing specific religions by funding their indoctrination process via the education system and enabling National schools to discriminate on the basis of religion in their enrolment policies.

Ireland does not have an Established Church. It does not have a State religion but it does have one religion controlling over 80% of our State schools in flagrant breech of our Constitution.

Brown Bomber · 09-01-2014 02:43PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You dont get that choice. It's not for individuals to say what they are, what they are is simply whatever label best describes the beliefs and actions they have and do. Labels exist outside your own head, if you like a label then you must change to suit it, you can't change it to suit you.

Like the label of Christmas?

Bannasidhe · 09-01-2014 02:44PM

CramCycle wrote: »

The population have no say in being compliant, they either are or are not, there is no middle ground within the definitions/labels. The population do have a say in how they fill out the census, many of them may believe they are roman catholic, when they are Christian (my wife is a great example who gets very annoyed both at the fact that I bring it up, and secondly I know more about the religion she claims to be than she does). Personally as far as the census is concerned, I think it should not be a question at all as it serves no purpose as it stands (although I could be wrong) other than historical interest. If it has to remain, maybe a page on the census hand out explaining what every label means maybe useful. Although my parents will still tick Catholic even if they are not, and my wife will still do it no matter what the truth maybe.

Even within the historical perspective the census figures are never taken at face value. They are always qualified.

'According to the census of **** X% of the population self-identified as Y, however when one looks at voting patterns these figures must be viewed with caution as...*insert examples of where those who identified as X failed to vote according to the doctrine/ideology of Y.'

Delirium · 09-01-2014 02:45PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like the label of Christmas?

Jesus-Christmas or Santa-Christmas?

Bannasidhe · 09-01-2014 02:47PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like the label of Christmas?

I think you mean Saturnalia/ Yuletide/ Solstice.

Brown Bomber · 09-01-2014 02:48PM

Piliger wrote: »

There is no argument of any merit there against the use of the census figures where people record their choice of how they see themselves. This is by far the best and most accurate number that it is possible to attain and the one that should be used as the basis of any discussion.

This sums it up perfectly. The only survey that can supercede a census is a more recent census.

It's funny people thinking that because their parent/son/neighbour answered it "wrong" that the whole thing is null and void.

Bannasidhe · 09-01-2014 02:50PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This sums it up perfectly. The only survey that can supercede a census is a more recent census.

It's funny people thinking that because their parent/son/neighbour answered it "wrong" that the whole thing is null and void.

Null and Void - No.

Open to being questioned - Yes.

Taken as absolutely without fault or inaccuracies - No.

See the difference?

eyescreamcone · 09-01-2014 03:30PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By an amazing coinkydinks this same organisation controls the vast majority of State funded schools and uses those ticked boxes to justify continuing to control the vast majority of State funded schools.

I find it amazing that the vast majority support the status quo with regard to the schools...

In spite of the wholescale raping, abuse and widespread cover up by the heirarchy of same.
In spite of the fact that most people do not believe in the RCCs views on premarital sex, contraception, divorce and abortion.
And in spite of the fact that most people don't belive in transubstantiation or the rest of the hokus-pokus!

Would we let Tesco or SuperValu run our schools?
Would we let the RCC run our planning departments?
These qustions are equally as valid as "should religious organisations run our schools?"
If it is so important to have religions involved in education, why don't we let them run our universities?
Why not? - because that would be just crazy - no matter how many people tick whatever box.

Also by letting the RCC into our schools we let them bring their "ethos" in the door.
Therefore, by using their ethos card, they can legally discriminate against employees (who are paid by the state) who are gay or don't agree with the god thing.
This is not allowed in any other workplace but is condoned when the "ethos card" is played.
At the moment they can also discriminate against non baptised children when they apply for entry to "the local school".
Are these the values we want to showcase to our children???

Religions, as role models, are not fit and proper organisations that we should be putting in charge of our children's schools.

vibe666 · 09-01-2014 03:46PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There is broad agreement in society - that there is dissagreement in this particular corner of the interweb doesn't amount to a big hill of beans.

well, we are discussing it in this particular corner of the inteweb, so here it does amount to quite a lot.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Again with the judging of people! People can call themselves catholics if they want to.

people can call themselves whatever the feck they like, but when people are calling themselves something just for the sake of it despite the fact that by that something's own clearly set out rules and standards they do not qualify as that something and then the figures compiled from the mislabelling of that something affect everyone in the country, then I take issue with it.

i take even more issue with it when that something then uses that clearly incorrect figure to try and make a case that it is still much more relevant in modern ireland than it actually is.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Perhaps the CSO would consider using this method in future for compilling census data. Asking people is so old-fashioned.

very funny. how about instead just asking questions in a way that gives more accurate and useful results when you are going to use the information to help decide how to run the country?

weisses · 09-01-2014 03:54PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Null and Void - No.

Open to being questioned - Yes.

Taken as absolutely without fault or inaccuracies - No.

See the difference?

What other "reliable" figure/report are you using to question the census ?

I don't think anyone is saying its without fault or inaccuracies, unless i missed that particular post.

vibe666 · 09-01-2014 03:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Taken as absolutely without fault or inaccuracies - No.

See the difference?

I'm thinking that given that he's of the persuasion that believes everything written in the bible as absolutely without fault or inaccuracies, he probably doesn't. :pac:

I Heart Internet · 09-01-2014 04:02PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think that people are being educated to believe that Irish = Roman Catholic within our education system.

I really don't think that's the case. Roman Catholic children attending Roman Catholic schools are being educated to believe in Roman Catholicism....but to suggest that they are being thought that Irish = Roman Catholic is quite insulting. That RCC schools are somehow havens of racism when, in fact, they are, in many cases the most diverse institutions in many communities.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The fact of the matter is - it shouldn't matter what percentage of the population is Christian or Roman Catholic as the State - according to the Constitution - is not allowed to endow or favour any religion or discriminate against any citizen on the basis of religion.

Agreed.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

While the majority of the population may or may not consider themselves members of a particular religion that is immaterial where the Constitution is concerned yet, those ticked boxes are used to justify the State endowing specific religions by funding their indoctrination process via the education system and enabling National schools to discriminate on the basis of religion in their enrolment policies.

That's just not true. The Constitution enshrines the right of people to educate their children as they see fit and for religious communities to operate institutions (inc schools).

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ireland does not have an Established Church. It does not have a State religion but it does have one religion controlling over 80% of our State schools in flagrant breech of our Constitution.

Wrong (that's a very common mistake though!). Ireland has approxiamtely 6 (SIX) "State Schools". Other schools, such as those operated by the RCC are private institutions (which attract public funding) - they are not "State Schools". They are not in flagrant breach of anything.

Piliger · 09-01-2014 04:02PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Sounds very big-brother to me. "It doesn't matter what you say or call yourself, you have been deemed by our monitoring of you to be an X."

Indeed. I have a deep dislike for people who arrogantly feel they have a right to slap a label on you whether you like it or not. Who knows what is in their hearts ? How on earth can these people know how they feel in the deepest recessed of their minds ? I have met atheists who have admitted to me after long discussions of life and death and the meaning of life that they have a sneaking belief in some kind of god ... so do we go around theorising about slapping Atheists with theist labels ?

Piliger · 09-01-2014 04:09PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think that people are being educated to believe that Irish = Roman Catholic within our education system - which feeds into our broader cultural - and religion and national identity are being deliberately confused so yes 'coerced', while not the term I personally would use, could be applied.

In certain parts of the country this most certainly is happening still.

I haven't considered myself a Roman Catholic since the 1970s yet until I was tasked with filling out the Census Forms in the 1980s the Catholic box was ticked for me by the 'Head of The Household' as they considered me to be a Catholic. It took years of explaining that it is possible to be Irish without being a Catholic.

It is widely still held in many parts of the country that you are what your parents were and what school you went to. Many tick the Catholic box for those reasons and no other.

Ireland does not have an Established Church. It does not have a State religion but it does have one religion controlling over 80% of our State schools in flagrant breech of our Constitution.

Indeed yes. At least 80%. Which is appalling considering the rape and abuse of our children. Any other organisation would be outlawed and banned form ANY access or contact with children, yet this organisation is still left in control of the vast majority of our most vulnerable.

eyescreamcone · 09-01-2014 04:11PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They are not in flagrant breach of anything.

How about discrimination in the workplace on religious grounds?

Because it is legal for religions to discriminate against teachers and potential teachers, based on their religion or sexual orientation, doesn't make it right to do so.

This dispicable example of discrimination in front of our children is a "flagrant breach" of what is right!!!

Our children can dream of becoming firefighters, astronauts and presidents

They can be educated in Trinity, Oxford or Harvard

But can they become a national school teacher if they're a non-believer? Two chances!!!

Ethos me bollix!!!

I Heart Internet · 09-01-2014 04:19PM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I find it amazing that the vast majority support the status quo with regard to the schools...

Religions, as role models, are not fit and proper organisations that we should be putting in charge of our children's schools.

Could I humbly suggest you read the following obit from the NY Times which I think gives some (small)insight into how/why someone (with no ties to catholicism) might support the involvement of the RCC (amongst others) in the running of schools, albeit in a US context.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/nyregion/robert-w-wilson-hedge-fund-founder-and-philanthropist-dies-at-87.html?_r=0

I Heart Internet · 09-01-2014 04:21PM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How about discrimination in the workplace on religious grounds?

Because it is legal for religions to discriminate against teachers and potential teachers, based on their religion or sexual orientation, doesn't make it right to do so.

This dispicable example of discrimination in front of our children is a "flagrant breach" of what I think is right!!!

I've fixed this for you.:cool:

Religious communities have the right to ensure a particular ethos is maintained in a school.

old hippy · 09-01-2014 04:26PM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

How about discrimination in the workplace on religious grounds?

Because it is legal for religions to discriminate against teachers and potential teachers, based on their religion or sexual orientation, doesn't make it right to do so.

This dispicable example of discrimination in front of our children is a "flagrant breach" of what is right!!!

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I've fixed this for you.:cool:

Religious communities have no right to ensure a particular ethos is maintained in a school.

Fixed this for you

Piliger · 09-01-2014 04:27PM

old hippy wrote: »

Fixed this for you

Exactly. Having a legal right doesn't make it right.

weisses · 09-01-2014 04:28PM

old hippy wrote: »

Fixed this for you

Can you at least highlight what you changed ... bloody puzzles

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments