Did anyone put heavy metal on the census?

[Troubled_Heart]

I heard on the radio that heavy metal is the new jedi knight and I was wandering if anyone actually put heavy metal as their religion. I'm so anoyed I didn't, I put agnostic which sucks in comparison and I LOVE METAL! (I wasn't sure if to put this in religion or music but I figured it is now a religion). Now I know I'm definately changing my religion to heavy metal!

[Jack]

I didn't as it's actually very important that if you don't believe in god/a religion that you put "no religion" onto the census. The government uses census data as the basis for making many policies and in the past people putting stupid things down like Jedi or Heavy Metal has allowed religious groups to point to a low amount of "no religion" answers in order to argue for things such as the continuous funding of faith schools. Similarly government policies are often based upon census data and innaccurate census data means innaccurate political decisions. These reasons for ticking "no religion" are not by any means all the arguments in favour of doing so.

Personally, it annoys me that people do stuff like that.

[Troubled_Heart]

I go to a faith school so I should probably be annoyed but it's just so cool I can't help but be envious!

[Sythan]

Heavy Metal cannot be a religion. It has no Deity, no Churches or houses of Worship, no Priests or Priestesses, not anything that makes a religion legal.

Jediism is an actual religion. It has a Deity, The Force, it has houses of Worship, and it has Priests and Priestesses, Jedi Masters. So it is a legal religion.

Jack is correct, it is important that if your religion is not recognized by your government, that you simply put "No Religion".

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Jack

I didn't as it's actually very important that if you don't believe in god/a religion that you put "no religion" onto the census. The government uses census data as the basis for making many policies and in the past people putting stupid things down like Jedi or Heavy Metal has allowed religious groups to point to a low amount of "no religion" answers in order to argue for things such as the continuous funding of faith schools. Similarly government policies are often based upon census data and innaccurate census data means innaccurate political decisions. These reasons for ticking "no religion" are not by any means all the arguments in favour of doing so.

Personally, it annoys me that people do stuff like that.

I must confess I find that a rather spurious argument, and the only group I've heard advocate it thus far is the British Humanist Association - who, let's be honest, do have something of a vested interest in the outcome of the census religion question. The census provides general data as to the composition of the population on one particular day in 10 years, particularly in areas such as ethnicity and religious beliefs, and such information may then go on to inform the development of policies on a regional level, but to claim that such data provides the basis for detailed national policy or leads to the subjugation of the non-religious is, with all due respect, bullshit. It is a snapshot of the country taken on a decadely basis, and by its very nature can provide very little substantive grounds for any kind of policy decision. If you want to complain about the decisions being made by Government regarding faith schools etc., direct it at the Commons Subcommittees which actually come up with the policies or the MPs themselves who vote on them, not a ticklist which I can safely say (this being the first time I've completed one myself) is one of the least taxing questionnaires I've come across.

Anyway, time to put the soapbox away...I hadn't heard about this and while I do think that like the Jedi thing at the last census it is a bit of a waste of time it does inject some much needed humour into the process. Also the ONS actually brought out a press release after the last census titled "390,000 Jedis There Are", so if there is a similar takeup on the Heavy Metal front I'm quite looking forward to what they might do this time. Could be fun.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I must confess I find that a rather spurious argument, and the only group I've heard advocate it thus far is the British Humanist Association - who, let's be honest, do have something of a vested interest in the outcome of the census religion question. The census provides general data as to the composition of the population on one particular day in 10 years, particularly in areas such as ethnicity and religious beliefs, and such information may then go on to inform the development of policies on a regional level, but to claim that such data provides the basis for detailed national policy or leads to the subjugation of the non-religious is, with all due respect, bullshit. It is a snapshot of the country taken on a decadely basis, and by its very nature can provide very little substantive grounds for any kind of policy decision. If you want to complain about the decisions being made by Government regarding faith schools etc., direct it at the Commons Subcommittees which actually come up with the policies or the MPs themselves who vote on them, not a ticklist which I can safely say (this being the first time I've completed one myself) is one of the least taxing questionnaires I've come across.

Anyway, time to put the soapbox away...I hadn't heard about this and while I do think that like the Jedi thing at the last census it is a bit of a waste of time it does inject some much needed humour into the process. Also the ONS actually brought out a press release after the last census titled "390,000 Jedis There Are", so if there is a similar takeup on the Heavy Metal front I'm quite looking forward to what they might do this time. Could be fun.

I appologise as I've been to the pub for the last few hours so I reserve the right to remove what I've posted and start again.

To argue that census data has no influence on political decision making is frankly ridiculous. The very first census was carried out on the basis that "the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy" similarly the census website itself states that "the information collected on the questionnaires is used to help government and local authorities plan the services and resources people need, such as transport, housing, healthcare and education." and therefore clearly influences policy that will effect everyday individuals. Similarly, if you've not seen religious groups pointing at either the low level of "no religion" respondants or the level of religious respondants within the census data then clearly you've not been following religious debate in the last few years. For example (as let it never be said that I am a man who does not source his opinions) [Source].

If you're not religious then clearly it represents your best interests to state that as clearly as possible within the census data.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Jack

I appologise as I've been to the pub for the last few hours so I reserve the right to remove what I've posted and start again.

I've left it a few days just in case, but now I'm treating this as fair game.

Originally Posted by Jack

To argue that census data has no influence on political decision making is frankly ridiculous.

With all due respect, that isn't what I said at all. What I actually said was that such data could be used to "inform the development of policies on a regional level", which is still political decision making, but that it could not provide the basis for detailed national policy or for claimed subjugation of the non-religious (which as a separate claim I find absurd in the context of the UK but that's another story). There simply isn't enough raw data in there to provide anything meaningful to form the backbone of any large-scale policy, and any deductions made on the basis of such data would have to be backed up by so much more empirical research that the initial census data becomes somewhat irrelevant. As such, I was arguing that it can provide initial influence on a limited level but no more than that.

Originally Posted by Jack

The very first census was carried out on the basis that "the intimate knowledge of any country must form the rational basis of legislation and diplomacy" similarly the census website itself states that "the information collected on the questionnaires is used to help government and local authorities plan the services and resources people need, such as transport, housing, healthcare and education." and therefore clearly influences policy that will effect everyday individuals.

That was indeed one of the reasons provided by John Rickman in his arguments for a census both inside and outside Parliament, but it was by no means the only one and if anything the Napoleonic Wars were as much a motivating factor for the first census as anything else - they wanted to know exactly how many men of service age and fitness could be called up if needed. Source. It may well be the most relevant of the reasons provided nowadays but that was not its founding principle and to suggest otherwise is veering dangerously near to revisionism (18th/19th century views of democracy were very different from our own, after all). As for the census website, it is understandably going to make such claims because they want people to treat it as a meaningful exercise rather than going down the Jediism route again, and demographic data such as that provided by the census will always have its uses in early policy formation. However, as I said before the data provided by it simply isn't detailed enough to provide anything meaningful for developing those policies beyond a very basic level - hence why there are Commons Subcommittees which have quite regular hearings involving expert opinions to provide the required knowledge.

Originally Posted by Jack

Similarly, if you've not seen religious groups pointing at either the low level of "no religion" respondants or the level of religious respondants within the census data then clearly you've not been following religious debate in the last few years. For example (as let it never be said that I am a man who does not source his opinions) [Source].

I have been following the debate, and I feel that such actions by religious groups are as disingenuous as the BHA's campaign. With regard to the article you cite, it specifically refers to difficulties before a local council as opposed to national policy, which does not contradict what I said, and I would find it unlikely that such decisions would be made based solely on the census data. Such an approach would come very close to entering the realm of Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Originally Posted by Jack

If you're not religious then clearly it represents your best interests to state that as clearly as possible within the census data.

It certainly represents everyone's best interests for accurate census data to be provided, if only to make sure it provides as accurate a snapshot as possible. However, I would still argue that claims that the non-religous will "lose out" if people decide to put more oddball answers in the census is not based upon any rational foundation. Just as you would not make decisions based upon one opinion poll, so the same applies to the census - Parliament consults a wide range of sources when deciding upon policy and it is those which will lead to decisions on matters such as faith schools and not a decadely questionnaire.