Census 2016 - Time to tick NO

Absolam wrote: »

I'd agree the format of the "Do You Speak Irish" question is probably a good way to go; I'd avoid the 'practice' bit though and keep it as non pejorative as possible, since that seems to be the point?
"Do you profess a religion y/n, if so...' sort of thing? That's seems about the closest you'll get without trying to determine to what degree they might be what they say they are.

My understanding of the reasoning behind the existing question is it offers the possible answers in order of those provided by people in the last census, so really the only issue is whether 'no religion' is a sufficiently large enough portion to be worth excluding entirely at the outset, as non-Irish speakers are.
I'm not sure that how Census questions are asked ought to be based on peoples agendas rather than statistical usability, but I can't see it damaging the information coming from the Census?

In social science, when people are completing questionnaires, the wording of the questions do impact the results. It's very important that due regard is given to avoiding leading questions and avoiding prompting answers as this can bias the results so much as to make the study useless

With the census, they are worried about changing the questions too much because this makes comparisons between the census results less reliable.

I am 100% confident that if the wording of the census was changed to

census wrote:

1. 'Do you practise/believe/profess a religion? (whichever wording, doesn't really matter that much)
1a If so, what religion?

we would see a large increase in the number of recorded as having no religion compared to the previous census, and the CSO have chosen consistency, over accuracy.
They'd prefer to see the trends in people prepared to search for the no religion box, over the actual number of people who no longer believe in any god.

Peregrinus wrote: »

"What is your religion" is a readily understandable question, and if somebody has no religion, and "no religion" is one of the options offered, I really struggle to think that many people are confused, and don't know how they ought to answer the question.

But it's not a readily understandable question, because for many people they are culturally catholic even if they don't believe in god. They would tick the box 'Catholic' because that's a part of their ingrained identity, even if their beliefs are that they are secular, atheists.

If the census cares about belief or practises, then it's important to ask specifically about people's belief or practises.

People have an emotional barrier that prevents them from saying that they have 'no religion'
Even staunch atheists will avoid this question in conversation by saying 'I'm not very religious'

Peregrinus wrote: »

Currently, as regards religion the census only attempts to elicit information about one variable: religious identity. As I suggested already, the information they are looking for can be presented as a pie-chart, with one slice of the pie representing those of no religion.

I don't see why use of Irish couldn't be shown as a pie chart either, and religion isn't one variable in the question anyway, it's various religions or none, and quite possibly whether the person practices that religion or is merely a nominal member.

Asking about mere self identification is not an entirely suitable question for a census, it indicates prurience rather than governmental needs : that's why those countries you mention mark OPTIONAL or VOLUNTARY at the start of that question. Ireland doesn't, it seems to be obligatory. So no, I think there is either incompetence or a deliberate choice there. And unless there are other questions which are as poorly phrased, I think incompetence is less likely.

Or are you just not interested in a better understanding of any identity other than Catholic? And, fourthly, leaving aside the curiosity of tragics like ourselves, what is the public interest which justifies gathering this data through the census?

So you managed all of this (I cut a lot of it) without ever pushing your thinking a little further and asking why exactly we are gathering this information at all??

Because not only do other countries leave this as a voluntary question, clearly marked as such, the UK at least (I haven't checked for the others) appears in fact also to use it as a cross-reference wrt immigration : first "no religion" then "Christian" as one single box, and the various religions of immigration after that.

I have repeated asked for evidence that the present form of the question leads to confusion; nobody has produced any.

You must have missed the results then. The idea that 84% of the population are catholic in the way their grandparents were is laughable.

Finally, I note that the NI, Scottish, English, Australian and New Zealand census questions on religion all ask a question in form of “what religion . . . ?” and then offer a range of options, one of which is “no religion”. Do you think they are all deliberately engendering confusion? Or is it just an amazing coincidence that the Irish census authorities, bent on creating confusion, decided to use the exact same form of question as is used by other census authorities who just want to collect information. Googling hasn’t found me any national census with a question on religion which doesn’t take this form. Why do you think that might be?

But it's not true that it's "the exact same form of question" at all. They're marked as one of the few (perhaps the only) voluntary questions, and "no religion" is the default response. Which is also leading, I accept that - but closer to the observed situation and therefore unsurprising. Like the question about having a sewerage system.

My point exactly. The form of the religion question is entirely consistent the form of other census questions that seek to elicit information about only one variable. Which is as it should be.

But it isn't one variable, it's many variables. You keep saying this but it's self evidently untrue.

There are 3,555 of them, apparently, which is almost exactly the same as the number of self-identified agnostics in the country. Coincidence?

I'm sure not.

THE CSO have designated 2016 as a 'no change census' other than one question about marriage due to our constitutional change

They said it was to save money on doing the pre-census survey

The next census after this one in 2021 will face extra pressure to update the questions so we should probably start the campaign to update the religious question with that census in mind

Akrasia wrote: »

I am 100% confident that if the wording of the census was changed to
Originally Posted by census
1. 'Do you practise/believe/profess a religion? (whichever wording, doesn't really matter that much)
1a If so, what religion?

we would see a large increase in the number of recorded as having no religion compared to the previous census, and the CSO have chosen consistency, over accuracy.
They'd prefer to see the trends in people prepared to search for the no religion box, over the actual number of people who no longer believe in any god.

First off, it's pretty apparent that the wording appears to matter a great deal to some posters; practice and profession would immediately be called out as being substantially different propositions.
Secondly, it's a concern that you're proposing a question that you believe will see a large change in the data, in 'favour' (for want of a better word) of a result that you would prefer. If we're changing the questions to get the results we want it's not really a census anymore, it's an exercise in confirmation bias.

Akrasia wrote: »

But it's not a readily understandable question, because for many people they are culturally catholic even if they don't believe in god. They would tick the box 'Catholic' because that's a part of their ingrained identity, even if their beliefs are that they are secular, atheists.

The fact that it is, as you say, part of their ingrained identity, would seem to be worth knowing though? If the census, rather that caring about beliefs or practices, is actually about who we are?

Akrasia wrote: »

People have an emotional barrier that prevents them from saying that they have 'no religion'
Even staunch atheists will avoid this question in conversation by saying 'I'm not very religious'

That seems like a very odd assertion indeed, but still, if people are averse to saying they have no religion (and I find that enormously difficult to believe of people who have no religion), should the census be pushing them into it?

conndeal wrote: »

If you look at any of the lists of death notices or sites like RIP.ie over 90% of people appear to die Catholic. The funeral arrangement include a Catholic church and a mass. So they must revert back to their faith at some stage.

I suspect it may have more to do with those organising the funeral than those whose funeral it is... though it does seem to indicate that a large proportion of the living population still lean towards Catholic funerals (presumably for people who were at least baptised Christian in fairness).

Absolam wrote: »

First off, it's pretty apparent that the wording appears to matter a great deal to some posters; practice and profession would immediately be called out as being substantially different propositions.
Secondly, it's a concern that you're proposing a question that you believe will see a large change in the data, in 'favour' (for want of a better word) of a result that you would prefer. If we're changing the questions to get the results we want it's not really a census anymore, it's an exercise in confirmation bias.

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. I'm in favour of accurate results, I want the true picture of religious belief in Ireland to be recorded in the census. The current question format is almost universally accepted as giving an inaccurate result.

Even the census acknowledge that it's a leading question, they just choose consistency over accuracy. (I've heard representatives acknowledge this in various radio interviews throughout the last number of years)

The fact that it is, as you say, part of their ingrained identity, would seem to be worth knowing though? If the census, rather that caring about beliefs or practices, is actually about who we are?
That seems like a very odd assertion indeed, but still, if people are averse to saying they have no religion (and I find that enormously difficult to believe of people who have no religion), should the census be pushing them into it?

If someone feels Catholocism is still part of their ingrained identity, they would probably tick the box to say they're catholic. The question change would capture the non committed person who doesn't really give it enough thought one way or the other. Right now, these people are being recorded as catholics even if they aren't religious and haven't been to mass in decades.

Leading questions give inaccurate results. if you ask someone what religion are you, they might say 'catholic' even if they identify as atheist 99% of the time. If you ask someone 'Do you practise a religion?' They're much more likely to give an accurate answer.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. I'm in favour of accurate results, I want the true picture of religious belief in Ireland to be recorded in the census. The current question format is almost universally accepted as giving an inaccurate result.
Even the census acknowledge that it's a leading question, they just choose consistency over accuracy. (I've heard representatives acknowledge this in various radio interviews throughout the last number of years)

Just wrong? But you acknowledge yourself that the question you think should be asked is one that will result in statistics that you favour. Does that ring no alarm bells at all when you want to see a true picture of religious belief? Even the fact that you use the word true rather than accurate doesn't cause you to pause?

Akrasia wrote: »

If someone feels Catholocism is still part of their ingrained identity, they would probably tick the box to say they're catholic. The question change would capture the non committed person who doesn't really give it enough thought one way or the other. Right now, these people are being recorded as catholics even if they aren't religious and haven't been to mass in decades.

I don't think that's necessarily true though. We've no real reason to think "Do you practise/believe/profess a religion?" will provoke any greater levels of religious introspection than occurs now, do we?

Akrasia wrote: »

Leading questions give inaccurate results. if you ask someone what religion are you, they might say 'catholic' even if they identify as atheist 99% of the time. If you ask someone 'Do you practise a religion?' They're much more likely to give an accurate answer.

But then, as Peregrinus has pointed out, if anyone bothers to consider the concept of practicing rather than being (and I'm not persuaded anyone will) you're measuring something new; not something the State necessarily wants to know about, but something that anti-theists want to know about.

After reading this thread, I asked my boyfriend what he put down on the census last time around.

"My mam filled it in."

She put him down as Catholic because he was baptised Catholic. No regard for how he hasn't been to mass since he was 12 (up until last year he'd never even heard the word 'catechism'!), he has no religious beliefs whatsoever, and he will happily say he's an atheist.

When I asked what he would have ticked, he thought for a bit and said:

"Catholic, because I was baptised Catholic".*


If every adult was expected to fill in their own section, and if they were asked about beliefs or practice, those supposed Catholics who don't even believe in god, such as my boyfriend, would have ticked the correct box. (and no, I don't think "correct" means "atheist"; just whichever option actually corresponds to the religious beliefs of the respondent.


*When I asked whether he considers himself Catholic, he said no... but he was taught that once you're baptised, then you're Catholic. Never even considered that there's people who aren't baptised but profess a religion, as he assumed every Christian is baptised soon after birth.

Absolam wrote: »

What exactly is the 84% being used to justify? And... just a thought... if 84% identified as 'no religion', what would that be used to justify?

I don't think it should be used to justify anything either for or against.

It's nice that you cut the rest of my post though where again I say we can have the same question just not in a biased way.

But hey here's Dr Martin Mansergh using the results

While secularism is hard to measure or classify neatly, it is worth reminding ourselves that in the 2011 census about 6% of the population (or double the Protestant denominations combined) declared themselves to be of no religion, of which slightly over 7,000 people or 0.02% declared themselves to be atheists or agnostics. While down on the peak of 95% recorded in 1961 in a significantly smaller population of slightly less than three million, the proportion of Catholics in 2011 is still 84%, consisting of just under four million people. Obviously, the return comprehends both practising Catholics and occasional Massgoers.

On the face of it, a pluralist/multicultural state should reasonably reflect, in a balanced but generous way, the religious make-up and identity of its population, rather than treat a secular humanism as an organising principle, as demanded by a small, albeit growing, vocal minority claiming that as a right based on their supposed neutrality.

- See more at: http://irishcatholic.ie/article/eliminating-catholic-influence-will-not-enhance-respect-religious-minorities#sthash.JgueUriV.dpuf

However my issue is around the question not whatever comes from people using it.

Absolam wrote: »

I can't say he's really making much use of them, though he's certainly offering an opinion about them.

Ah so now you're looking for a Govt policy which explicitly references some policy referencing the 84% or something?

You asked for somebody using the stats to justify something. A former Govt person offering his "opinion" to justify that the State should represent religion and not be secular isn't good enough.

Again Absolam with his wibbly wobbly "well they answered my question how do I rephrase the question now" approach.

Absolam wrote: »

Not really; what exactly has Dr Mansergh used the 84% to justify?

Justify his stance, his opinion, whatever. You looked for something, I showed you, now you're nitpicking at a question I didn't ask!

"If the 84% of Irish people are Catholic is going to be used to justify anything". Note the word "anything".

Absolam wrote: »

Apologies if that seems 'wibbly wobbly', I'm just looking for the facts......

Facts? I didn't say facts. I said justify. Wibbly wobbly again.

Absolam wrote: »

Well no, what I'm saying is he doesn't appear to be using the stat to justify his opinion, does he? If the stat were, for instance, 4%, he's given no indication that his opinion would be different.

Yes he is.

He uses the census stat to say secular people are a small minority (based on the census stats) and therefore shouldn't be listened to. His entire argument is based on the friggen census stats.

He's using the the census stats to back up his claim. Again you asked for somebody using the census figures to justify anything. You can be sure his opinion would be different if the stats showed 84% of people were Muslim.

You'd seriously give Ben Conroy a run here in being giving evidence then changing what your question is.

Daith wrote: »

Yes he is.

He uses the census stat to say secular people are a small minority (based on the census stats) and therefore shouldn't be listened to. His entire argument is based on the friggen census stats.

Just to be clear; you're saying he's using the census to justify his opinion that a small minority shouldn't be listened to?
Because obviously he can't be using the census to justify the fact that a small minority declared themselves to be of no religion.
The thing is, I can't see where he says "secular people are a small minority and therefore shouldn't be listened to" anywhere in the statement quoted. I can see that he said "On the face of it, a pluralist/multicultural state should reasonably reflect, in a balanced but generous way, the religious make-up and identity of its population" which would be rather at odds with not listening to a minority. Could it be that when he says we shouldn't treat a secular humanism as an organising principle, as demanded by a small, albeit growing, vocal minority, you' re trying to twist that into we shouldn't listen to the small, albeit growing, vocal minority? Even if you are, where does he use the fact that the census shows those who identify as having no religion (who are not identified as secular humanists, by the way; he actually points out that secularism is hard to measure or classify neatly, but even if they were) to justify not listening to them?

Daith wrote: »

He's using the the census stats to back up his claim. Again you asked for somebody using the census figures to justify anything. You can be sure his opinion would be different if the stats showed 84% of people were Muslim.

He's certainly pointing out that the census stats don't measure or classify secularism, true. But he hasn't used them to justify not listening to secularists, has he? His point was simply that on the face of it, a pluralist/multicultural state should reasonably reflect, in a balanced but generous way, the religious make-up and identity of its population, rather than treat a secular humanism as an organising principle, as demanded by a small, albeit growing, vocal minority claiming that as a right based on their supposed neutrality. And, if 84% of the population were Muslim, I don't see why he might change his opinion of secular humanism. Can you explain that?

Daith wrote: »

You'd seriously give Ben Conroy a run here in being giving evidence then changing what your question is.

I seriously haven't changed the question. He has offered the stats, certainly, and they give some context to his statement. But he doesn't once say the stats are why we shouldn't treat secular humanism as an organising principle. Never mind said that they're a reason for not listening to secular humanists at all. Indeed, if 84% of the population identified as secular humanists I suspect he might be even more strident about secular humanism not being treated as an organising principle. So the question remains; What exactly is the 84% being used to justify?

RossieMan wrote: »

Would you not go behind a cause that is important rather than this crap? Who gives a ****?

Me, I give a ****. And lots of other people do.

Over and over and over again we are told by the theocrats that "this is a Catholic country" or there is talk of the "majority". Of course we all know that majority are non religious and anything we can do to show this is helpful in creating a truly secular state based on rational principles.

fisgon wrote: »

Over and over and over again we are told by the theocrats that "this is a Catholic country" or there is talk of the "majority". Of course we all know that majority are non religious and anything we can do to show this is helpful in creating a truly secular state based on rational principles.

But..... if we all know that the majority are non religious, then we obviously don't rate what the theocrats tell us. Since they're being ignored already, what's to worry about? Those who want to create a truly secular state based on rational principles can just go ahead and run for public office on that basis.

I didn't mean the Dept Ed looks at the census religion box. I meant that the Dept Ed look at the census for birth rate in an area, in practice they also do (or should, I hope) use birth registrations to augment that, but neither captures immigration/migration within Ireland during the timeframe between censuses.

As far as I know they determine total demand for places in an area, if they deem it insufficient then they authorise either extensions to existing schools, or new schools. They don't look at the religion box and then say 'there's a fierce number of non-religious here, better build an ET.'

Their criteria as to whether to expand existing schools or authorise new ones appear to be totally arbitrary. Where I live there are no non-religious options and there is clear demand for an ET, but the RC primaries got a number of new classrooms instead.