Talk:Religion in the Republic of Ireland

Effect and history

Saying the majority of the Irish population is Catholic/believes in the existance of a god does not say a thing about the effect of religion in it. How strict are they? How does it show in the law (like in banning infant circumcision and abortions)? How tolerant are they? And another thing, I think the history of religion should be mentioned as well--the move from pagan beliefs to Catholicism, the first evidence of religion, the fights between the Catholic and the Protestants... Siúnrá (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Religion Number Roman Catholic 3,681,446 Church of Ireland 125,585 Islam 32,539 Presbyterian 23,546 Orthodox 20,798 Methodist 12,160 Apostolic / Pentecostal 8,116 Buddhist 6,516 Hindu 6,082 Lutheran 5,279 Evangelical 5,276 Jehovah's Witness 5,152 Baptist 3,338 Jewish 1,930 Wiccan 25 Pantheist 1,691 Agnostic 1,515 Atheist 929 Latter Day Saints (Mormon) 1,237 Quaker (Society of Friends) 882 Lapsed Roman Catholic 540 Bahá'í 504 Church of the Brethren 365 Other Christian 29,206 Other religions 8,576 No Religion /Atheist/Agnostic 186,318 Not stated 70,322 Total 4,239,848 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.6.238 (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange numbers...

Chart shows that in Ireland live 86.8% Roman Catholics while CIA fact book give the total number of 87.4% under the same date - 2006...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html

0.6% isn't that big deal but still...

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland is the 5th happiest nation on Earth! How DOES their religion effect them? Because, like, six of the other nations on the list of happiest nations are pretty secular (Belgium, Sweden, Norway).Masternachos (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why is almost all of the information in this article about anti-Protestantism? - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the two sections on Protestantism to Protestantism in Ireland. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011 census and opening paragraph

When we update the figures in the lede what do we do with the old 2006 figures? Do we just keep the same sentences and change the figures?HylandPaddy (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is currently a mess. Lots of material here not even mentioned in the text. Was on the point of taking a pruning shears to several additions, possibly moving them elsewhere. Will revisit when time allows. In the meantime, please review WP:LEAD. RashersTierney (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of tidying. I think the general trends of 2006 have a place, but not the specific figures (since they have been superceded). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's certainly an improvement. RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this talk thread after I made a few updates to the lead adding in 2011 data and a survey by the Association of Catholic Priests. The whole lead is getting unwieldy, I think a lot of the information on Church attendance could be moved to a separate section, either specifically about church attendance, or about Catholic church attendance, but it's hard to figure out whether the church attendance figures refer to catholics only, all christians, or to the population of the country as a whole. What do people think?

Also, the two tables should probably be combined somehow so they present the same info in the one table. I won't be doing this as tables and I generally don't get along and I always seem to make a hames of the things. I might make a new pie chart if time will allow me to. Sometimes Incoherent (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe we should have subsections in the Christianity section on each (major) denomination and put the relevant numbers there?
I considered combining both census tables, but I also want to add percentages -- doing both might make unsightly tables. I propose removing the 2006 census table altogether and just keeping the most up-to-date figures. Thoughts? HylandPaddy (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. On the new graph, the atheists and agnostics should be added to no religion, this changes the percentage to 6.0. Simple calculations like this are allowed per WP:NOTOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pantheism

I don't think it is correct to group pantheists in with pagans. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right it's a mistake. The census only recorded "pantheist", when I made the 2011 table I carried on the error from the 2006 one. In my head I thought that the census grouped them together - but in fact they don't even mention paganism. HylandPaddy (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, no worries. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the census does put paganism and pantheism together in the dynamic tables which I used to create a combined 2006/2011 table so I added it back in there. I also moved 'lapsed Catholic' to the non-religious side on the table and removed 'no answer' from non-religious (there is no way of knowing why a person didn't answer so can't assume no religion). In addition I removed the 2006 pie chart. --Erp (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

academic study of religion

Life is too short for this, but just to register an objection...

The academic study of religion (ie the neutral study of religion as a social phenomenon rather than theological perspectives which are institutionally linked to particular religions) is presumably an important and valid source of knowledge for this particular WP topic. I'm closely involved with the Irish Society for the Academic Study of Religions (ISASR), which (no surprise) is the recently-formed body for that field of knowledge.

Apparently *because* I'm involved (ie an academic specialist in the area working closely with other specialists) I shouldn't add links to material I'm involved with - which is perhaps a bit counter-intuitive but these are apparently WP rules.

I haven't the time or energy for WP wars on the subject (not least because I'm busily trying to "add to the store of knowledge" on this topic) but do want to register an objection to removal of a link to ISASR <http://isasr.wordpress.com> firstly on the mistaken grounds that "it appears to be a blog linked to an institute", and secondly on the basis of a claim that it is irrelevant. Whatever about personal connections to sites, this is unhelpful.

ISASR does not, of course, bring together all academic specialists on the topic: its members are not theologians, for example, and there are also historians and sociologists (my own discipline) who study religion without understanding themselves in this way. However the only university department dedicated to the non-confessional study of religion, along with the main scholars on *non*-Christian religions in Ireland (Islam in Ireland project, TCD specialists on Judaism and Buddhist Studies experts) and many researchers on Christianity in its various forms, are.

As said, life is short and I have actual research to do, so I can't actually be spending time trying to argue that the academic study of religion is relevant to the topic of religion. I do though want to make the objection public and leave it to those who are not involved with ISASR and the academic study of religion more generally to consider. I wonder if (to take a random example) academic sources for research on physics would be considered irrelevant to articles on physics, or if a member of a national physics organisation would be told that their work was irrelevant?

Laurence Cox (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the objection because 1. you have a strong conflict of interest 2. It appears to have been added for promotional reasons only. I notice that it has been added about 2 weeks before a conference and has conference details. 3. It does not have a direct connection to the article. I don't see what anyone can get out of reading this blog after reading this article. If the blog of a non-notable group was added to Physics I would remove it for similar reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Celtic Religion (Different than Neo-Paganism)

In the rural East-coastal United States I know of a tiny pocket of Irish descendents who are non-Cristian Pagan Celts. This is in a tiny, isolated farming community. They told me their ancestors immigrated from Ireland in the sixteen hundreds and were non-Christian (they said "Druid").

Are there any remnant communities of non-Christian Druidic peoples also still extant in Ireland today? These would not be "neo-pagans, but instead the real originals.

    • Although I remember when I came across this American community years ago, that the younger members (then in their 20's) had at that time found out about neo-paganism and some saw it as the same as their traditional Celtic/non-christian family religion and were staring to mix the neo-pagain stuff in with their family traditions. So maybe the neo-pagan stuff has syncretised and buried the original pagan Irish faiths by now, if any even remained there by the 20th/21st centuries. If anyone knows about this, or has valid sources to add to this article, please let me know, or feel free to contribute to the article yourself. It would be an interesting addition.208.57.34.8 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware there was no continuous line of pagans. They are all neo-pagans, although neo-pagans do like to claim an unbroken tradition. See Celtic Neopaganism, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually really did know people who were real pagans (their family tradition of paganism going back to a persecuted escape from Ireland in the 1600's). They were rural farming people in an isolated area on the East Coast of the USA when I met them. They practiced a Celtic/pagan religion passed down for generations in their family. I knew them personally. Most had never been to College and were dirt farmers. Although one friend of mine from that community was a college student.

It was a very tiny community, a few hundred people at most. 208.57.34.8 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political fight among Christians weakens Atheism

The behaviourally anthropomorphic person-god isn't compatible with the cosmological principle. The universal physical laws aren't dictated centrally by any person. Hate against other nationals is metaphysically off-topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:EA00:BC9F:7F27:28BA:2412 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobite

Currently the above points to a disambiguation page which could refer to one or more of these:

Autarch (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Religion in Ireland § Purpose of this page

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Religion in Ireland § Purpose of this page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=1200365151"