Religion in the census.

[Marguerite]

Census night, Australia! What did you mark?

We put down no religion. No disrespect, but I'm hoping to see the number go up this year. Last census (2006) around 20% of Australians marked 'no religion'. 70,000 also wrote Jedi Knight and I think you could probably count that as no religion too (with respect, Jedi Knights!)

About 60% of people listed some form of Christianity and about 10% refused to answer.

Other major world religions had very small numbers, as follows:

Buddhism: 2.1%
Hinduism: 0.7%
Islam: 1.7%
Judaism: 0.4%

Interesting when looking at other countries compared to us, looks like we are a bunch of heathens compared to the rest of the world.

[BabyIndia]

I Don't know if it counts, but i'm from the uk and on my form I put no religion, wish i'd thought to put jedi knight or something hahah

[MegaMadness]

I wanted to put Jedi but I was forced to say Catholic by my family eeeeww.

[TheBabyEater]

I'm hoping to see the Satanist population come up all over the world in census in the next few years

At least enough they add it into the survey results. I FEEL SO ALONE

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

I find the options in the census ridiculous.There are about 8 options for Christianity and a few others.
I went along with "no religion" as my mother and sister did.

[Pelios]

83.9% of the Mexican population is Catholic.
The second dominant religious belief are Protestants and Evangelicals who have 7.6% of Mexicans.
The third ideology regarding the dominant religion are irreligious (no religion) comprising 4.6% of Mexicans.

[Snufkin]

Genuine question, as I do not know the answer - what would make 10% of the population refuse to answer what their religion is on a census?

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

Originally Posted by Snufkin

Genuine question, as I do not know the answer - what would make 10% of the population refuse to answer what their religion is on a census?

Some people do not claim a religion at all.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by BabyIndia

I Don't know if it counts, but i'm from the uk and on my form I put no religion, wish i'd thought to put jedi knight or something hahah

As cute as it is, please don't do this. Some places have a policy of discounting "gag" votes such as this, which defeats the entire point of the census.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST

Some people do not claim a religion at all.

No, there's a "no religion" option.
People just failed to fill in the field.

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

No, there's a "no religion" option.
People just failed to fill in the field.

Well that is their right.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST

Well that is their right.

When did I say that it wasn't?
Are you just looking for a fight?

[Composure]

I did infact put down Jedi Knight, just as my father did in 2006 (yes, he was 42 and still put it down).

Personally, whilst I see that there are some merits to counting certain religious groups, I still love seeing humour on census forms. My sister put "Pastafarianism," but I'm not particularly sure if the ABS considers that a religion or not.

I did however get a joke text from a mate of mine regarding the census.

Originally Posted by Mate of Composure's

They sent my census form back. Answer to the question, do you have any dependants? I replied: 535 politicians in Canberra. Apparently this was not an acceptable answer.

Good humour.
But it was more distasteful - I just got rid of the majority of it.

[Dark Horse]

I've read on the internet that the percentage of people following organised religions is in fact decreasing. I don't really know why...I guess times have just changed and many people can't find the time to concentrate fully on their spirituality and/or religion? (Not that that has any real relevence to the thread :/)
I would have put down Jedi Knight!

[ShimmeringFaerie]

I put down no religion and explained to my sister that she should do the same. She can never even remember what type of church she was baptised in, so I pointed out that she obviously doesn't follow it enough to mark it as her religion.

Personally, I don't think it's helpful for people to put down 'Jedi Knight'. If you don't have a religion, then that's what you should put down. Otherwise, the government will just ignore those forms and continue supporting "Christian values" because they think that the majority of Australians are Christians. Personally, I'd love to see the Australian Christian Lobby get less support from the government.

As for those who didn't put down a religion... perhaps they didn't know what they identified as? Like maybe they are agnostic, so they didn't want to put down 'no religion', but couldn't think of what to actually call their beliefs?

[Beetbox]

well in 2006 Ireland was 92% catholic and 3% had no religion. It sucks, however in the last few years Ireland has seen a huge reduction in catholic followers but the statistics haven't been release. Since the catholic priests failings have been brought to light many people were sickened and started to question their whole faith.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

When did I say that it wasn't?
Are you just looking for a fight?

That certainly wasn't how I read the comment, so please calm down. We have enough arguments over nothing in this bit of the forum as it is...

For what it's worth, I believe most census bodies treat answers like "Jedi Knight" as being "no religion" anyway (although the UK's Office for National Statistics ran a press release with the priceless title of "300,000 Jedis There Are" so who knows?) so such jokey answers don't cause that much harm overall in terms of policy decisions. Besides, as I believe I argued with someone quite strongly on in another census thread, the majority of government policy is dictated by sources beyond the census - all such a document can provide is demographics, which is fine but a bit of a blunt instrument.

[Beetbox]

Originally Posted by dr2005

We have enough arguments over nothing in this bit of the forum as it is...

I see debates rather than arguments, honestly though I won't go down that road as people just seem to have difficulty trying to figure out which is which. As for the few arguments that exist they exist due to people not understanding what debating is. Overall that comment seems a bit null and void. A certain amount of agitation will of course exist but arguments over nothing technically I don't see. I see slight arguments every now and again with a cause (mostly lack of knowledge on what debating entails) I however have not seen someone just randomly post only to cause arguments.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Wings

I see debates rather than arguments, honestly though I won't go down that road as people just seem to have difficulty trying to figure out which is which. As for the few arguments that exist they exist due to people not understanding what debating is. Overall that comment seems a bit null and void. A certain amount of agitation will of course exist but arguments over nothing technically I don't see. I see slight arguments every now and again with a cause (mostly lack of knowledge on what debating entails) I however have not seen someone just randomly post only to cause arguments.

I would start off by saying that was a general observation based on two stints on TeenHelp, and that it is based upon a distinction between a good-natured exchange of differing views (debate) and a bandying about of accusations and in some cases insults (argument). Even over the last 18 months (my second stint), I have seen a number of examples of both, hence why I felt it best to nip that one in the bud. As such, I hope you will appreciate I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that it was a "null and void" comment, based as it was on personal observation and experience. You are right in saying that people do not just randomly post to cause arguments - they have arisen nonetheless. The "over nothing" comment was more to do with said arguments often having very little, if anything, to do with the actual topic being debated at all. I trust that clarifies the statement suitably.

[Beetbox]

[quote=dr2005;704192]I would start off by saying that was a general observation based on two stints on TeenHelp, and that it is based upon a distinction between a good-natured exchange of differing views (debate) and a bandying about of accusations and in some cases insults (argument).[/QUOTES]

I have seen very little of this, would you like to bring forward some examples please.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Even over the last 18 months (my second stint), I have seen a number of examples of both, hence why I felt it best to nip that one in the bud.

To verify this I have only your word right now.

Originally Posted by dr2005

As such, I hope you will appreciate I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that it was a "null and void" comment, based as it was on personal observation and experience. You are right in saying that people do not just randomly post to cause arguments - they have arisen nonetheless.

It was null and void from the viewpoint of arguments over nothing since you yourself just admitted you don't see that. So really you are changing your statement. That is not what I was debating and simply changing your stance and trying to use it as a correction for a faulty statement makes my original argument no less true.

Originally Posted by dr2005

From The "over nothing" comment was more to do with said arguments often having very little, if anything, to do with the actual topic being debated at all. I trust that clarifies the statement suitably.

This can be seen from two points. 1. You should verify as we cannot see what you were thinking when you wrote this.

2. Debates evolve over time and many arguments do stem from the original question. Therefore while some would view the arguments as nothing to do with the debate they may very well have if you have followed the thread.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Wings

I have seen very little of this, would you like to bring forward some examples please.

The "I get a lot of guff from Atheists" thread is one recent example, as shown by Nat's response to it. If you would like I can find more.

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Wings

To verify this I have only your word right now.

See above.

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Wings

It was null and void from the viewpoint of arguments over nothing since you yourself just admitted you don't see that. So really you are changing your statement. That is not what I was debating and simply changing your stance and trying to use it as a correction for a faulty statement makes my original argument no less true.

With respect, that is incorrect - there is a difference between starting a thread with a view merely to causing an argument, which is what you referred to, and an argument developing over something broadly immaterial, which is what I referred to in making that comment. The latter is what is generally defined as an "argument over nothing" - the former is generally defined as "flaming". There is a difference, and if you wish to have proof of that I would point you in the direction of Google. As such, I maintain my stated position until such a time as you can provide grounds for me to change it, and for your contention that it is a "faulty statement" which at present is not supported by the definition of either term.

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Wings

This can be seen from two points. 1. You should verify as we cannot see what you were thinking when you wrote this.

I was thinking in the context of the general "arguing over nothing", which I was of the view was a fairly well understood concept. I did not have any particular example argument in mind as I felt the concept speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Wings

2. Debates evolve over time and many arguments do stem from the original question. Therefore while some would view the arguments as nothing to do with the debate they may very well have if you have followed the thread.

Agreed - however, I was not referring merely to debates going off-topic. I do spend enough time reading the threads to understand how it has gotten to a certain stage. What I am referring to is when a thread gets derailed onto a heated tangent which does not further the thread itself and merely causes offence or upset, often followed by closure.

As we are ourselves at risk of taking this off-topic, I would advise that should you wish to discuss this further we do so elsewhere.

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by Snufkin

Genuine question, as I do not know the answer - what would make 10% of the population refuse to answer what their religion is on a census?

I think there are a lot of reasons. Some people are unsure, some only answer what is required of them in the census (you don't have to answer that field) and some still have an attitude somewhere along the lines of 'it's rude to talk about religion' and don't want people to know.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

I think there are a lot of reasons. Some people are unsure, some only answer what is required of them in the census (you don't have to answer that field) and some still have an attitude somewhere along the lines of 'it's rude to talk about religion' and don't want people to know.

I think the last one is a very good point - some people do take the position that their views on religion are no one's business, least of all the state (who do commission the census in the first place, after all). It's interesting in that it's one of the few questions I know of which is still optional, but I suppose it's along the same logic as it not asking for your in-depth political views. (At least I'm assuming it doesn't - the UK one didn't at any rate)

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I think the last one is a very good point - some people do take the position that their views on religion are no one's business, least of all the state (who do commission the census in the first place, after all). It's interesting in that it's one of the few questions I know of which is still optional, but I suppose it's along the same logic as it not asking for your in-depth political views. (At least I'm assuming it doesn't - the UK one didn't at any rate)

I do agree that's probably why it's optional. I think people would be calling discrimination if it weren't. Nope, it didn't ask about political views. Something did suprise me though. The question that asked if we identified as Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander. Not that I mind answering it (I don't indentify as either of those) but I see that question a lot when I'm filling out many forms here and usually explicitly says we don't have to answer it if we don't want. But in the census it was a required field, which suprised me.

Okay that was totally irrelvent, but I just found it interesting