Monday, June 04, 2007
On Ireland’s own human rights failings?
Interesting response from El Nuevo Pantano to Newton Emerson’s satire on the unconscious way people in the Republic lecture other countries on human rights, apparently blissfully unaware of how the state came to be 97% (nominally) Catholic.
Mick Fealty @ 08:56 AM
As an athiest, I wouldn’t shed a tear if the figures in that plot went to zero (so long as the other religions numbers responded in like).
But as a citizen of a country supposedly free to worship in whatever way you wish, I am saddened by the continuous decline in the numbers of non-RC numbers.
There would appear to be some extent of a “cold house”.Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 09:32 AMAnd the fact the most recent census showed Protestantism is the fastest growing religion in Ireland means what? While Catholicism fell? Catholic oppression? Give me a break. Stats can be spun how you want, just like the wee graph deals in percentages not numbers because they wouldn’t fit the bias of the author quite as well.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 09:32 AM“the fact the most recent census showed Protestantism is the fastest growing religion in Ireland means what?”
Apart from the fact that Protestantism isn’t “a religion” per se, when you start from a very low baseline, in the words of the song - “the only way is up!”
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 09:53 AMIf you look at Appendix A on the dopey angst site link he gives a Protestant figure of just over 100K in 1991 (I don’t believe it, think it’s just CoI) if it’s true using the minimum level of identifiable protestants in the 2006 census 180K plus, in just 15 years the level of protestants in the south has increased by 80% and is at it’s highest level since 1936.
Sort of fecks us his wee graph and angst levels a tad.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 09:54 AMAnd btw: cutting a 100% graph down to a 10% range is a deceitful statistical ploy designed to inflate a minor change - it shows manipulation not presentation is the aim.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 10:07 AM-
What the same graph looks like in a proper scale
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 10:15 AM Has the representation of protestants in police and civil service increased proportionately ? If not should there be a period of positive discrimination?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 10:18 AM-
Just look at that ethnic cleansing.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 10:20 AM “Stats can be spun how you want, just like the wee graph deals in percentages not numbers because they wouldn’t fit the bias of the author quite as well.”
Hmmm you talk like a Unionist defending the reasons not to back a single equality Bill.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 10:28 AMDC,
It’s numbers, he spun on a short scale to create an impression of a huge differential. I have a problem with bad statistical presentation.
With the actual numbers on a correct scale you get
My only complaint is bad presentation of stats.
Same numbers very different graph. Mine is the proper one and as close to a straight line as you are likely to see in demographics over a 115 year period.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 10:46 AMSo a 50% decrease is insignificant?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:06 AM“Until recently, there was discrimination against Protestants in the labour market of the Republic of Ireland. For example, Trinity College, although a Dublin University, was mainly attended by Protestants. (Even today it is a stronghold of Irish Unionism.) In many jobs, Trinity College was not accepted as a source of education, so applicants who had attended Trinity were automatically rejected. This had the effect of preventing most Protestants from applying for the jobs.”
What a load of crap. Naturally, this amateur sectarian propagandist provides no examples whatsoever to support his claim that a degree from Trinity was a hindrance to seeking employment and not - as is the actual fact - a huge help to it.
Apart from luminaries such as Charles Haughey, Brian Lenihan, Mary McAleese, Mary Robinson, Mary Harney, et al, holding Trinity degrees, Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet and Douglas Hyde were also past students.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:18 AMThe Dubliner - because of the Church ban on Catholics attending Trinity, was it not the case that Trnity Graduates could not get jobs as teachers at Catholic schools ?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:28 AMApparently Wolfe Tone wouldn’t have got a job in a county Clare library.
Some anecdotal evidence.
My Jaffa grandfather was born a bit south of Dublin some years before partition. He was sent up North to the same school his dad had attended before moving South. Instead of going to an Irish University he went to an English one and when he set up in business he chose to do so in Belfast.
I’ve no idea whether he did this for economic reasons or because he felt potentially oppressed down south. Maybe he just thought there was more money to be made up north and more stability for his family and perhaps that introspective nationalism was sending the south into a declining economic spiral.
Frank - you seemed to change your tone when you put the figures in and realised there was an absolute drop. Did you think Ireland’s population had doubled in the period or something?
The Ne Temere argument seems a good one to me. Blame the mean spirited control freak priests.
Wolfe Tone would have.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:40 AMoh dear
the numbers just will not go awayPosted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:42 AMCryptic Barnshee,
Do you mean the evidence or the last couple of hundred thousand pesky prods?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:44 AMI have to take issue with Frank Sinistra suggesting that you have to use all 100% in the graph. The reason you confine the scale to the relevant data is so you can see the relevant data. If you have 0.1% muslims increasing over 1 year to 0.5% - a five-fold increase, you would be desperately stupid to use a graph with a scale going up to 100%.
The graph does show a bigger drop in the immediate independence period and then a decline afterwards (although its not up to date to show the more recent rise).
The reason for the steady decline is suggested as intermarriage and the children having to be brought up catholics, and the sudden drop at independence is given as protestants moving out of the republic for whatever reason.
Anyway - it might be interesting to speculate on reasons why the protestant numbers in the republic drop, while the catholic numbers in Northern Ireland rise. My hypothesis would be that in both states, catholics were at the bottom of the heap, and those at the bottom of the heap tend to have bigger families. Now that I assume we have equality in both states, we should see the numbers stabilise, although the protestant numbers in RoI are apparently increasing, probably more through immigration than conversion (people from Britain make up about 5% of the republic’s population now, and while some of these may be returning Irish emmigrants, the bulk are probably recent economic migrants or marriages).
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:49 AM“ because of the Church ban on Catholics attending Trinity, was it not the case that Trnity Graduates could not get jobs as teachers at Catholic schools ?”
No.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:50 AMany figures for concentration of wealth by religion in RoI.
A distinctly non-republican (and indeed diabolical) poster on this site was implying prods in the south had a disproportionately high proportion of national wealth…
Aside from that I though a lot of professional jobs had a distinctly disproportionately high protestant make up (no figures for this I am afraid).
As well as this - may I make the obvious point that if you felt British and lived in what became the IRish Republic - you may have wanted to move to Britain / NI post -22 without any extra disxriminatory incentives.
However I take Jaffa’s argument about the pernicious catholic church
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:53 AMMaggot, it’s a bit like the Chruch saying don’t wear condoms - who the fuck listens to them? Charles Haughey, et al, certainly didn’t.
In Ireland, unlike in the United Kingdom, the head of the state is not the head of the official church, nor does this country ban you from becoming head of state based on your religion. Now, it was Protestants who chose to live within the United Kingdom. It was not the wish of the Irish that they should do so. They chose to live apart - and those who didn’t migrate immediately upon partition, did so as soon as they had disposed of their assets in the south. Those who chose not self-segregate in that manner enjoyed prosperity and influence in the south well beyond their tiny numbers - including contributing two presidents to the Irish state.
If you wish to show otherwise, then you need to show that protestants have experienced a standard of living in the south that is below that of Catholics. While you won’t be able to show that in the south, you can easily show the converse in the north where the Catholics experienced horrendous discrimination and victimisation at the hands of their protestant neighbours.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 11:54 AM“Maggot, it’s a bit like the Chruch saying don’t wear condoms - who the fuck listens to them?”
Are we only talking recent times ? Sorry I thought we were talking since partition.
Of course things have changed a lot , and for the better, since then - though if I was a Southerner I’d be might peeved at Bertie giving the Church a Billion Euros - no connection to them turning a blind eye to his adultery of course.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 12:04 PM“In Ireland, unlike in the United Kingdom, the head of the state is not the head of the official church, nor does this country ban you from becoming head of state based on your religion.”
On the other hand - the Head of State and Church of England does not excomunicate politicians who vote against her wishes.
and isn’t “horrendous discrimination and victimisation at the hands of their protestant neighbours.” a bit ‘Noraid’ ? If we accept your claim that the Protestant president disproves that there was discrimination against protestants then surely all those RC University students and graduates who were so influential in NICRA disproves your claims about NI ?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 12:20 PMMaggot
Not sure if having a few graduates = having two presidents!Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 12:37 PMMick,
why should we take the views of El Nuevo Pantano seriously rather than consider the linking to this comment a feeding the trolls exercise?In what way is his response “interesting”?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 12:37 PMThe relative Protestant population fell sharply (by over 30%) between 1911 to 1926.
And how many British soldiers and family left the country in this time?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2007 @ 12:43 PM
