2011 census

hach_bee

hach_bee

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Better still, list no religion. If we get a big enough majority for that, we can push for separation of church and state!
 
kona_kona

kona_kona

Likes Dirt
yea mate mark no religion. there's a pretty decent sized movement around the web for it. I'm interested to see if it swings the percentages much.
 
Ridenparadise

Ridenparadise

Likes Bikes and Dirt
hach_bee said:
Better still, list no religion. If we get a big enough majority for that, we can push for separation of church and state!
Click to expand...
So if all us ireligious Aussies mark no religion and all our new Australians mark (let's say, with no prejudice) Muslim, doesn't that mean that state and federal governments will make funding available in accordance with the increase in Muslims in society? So instead of what we have now we may get public prayer areas for midday prayers and increased funding for Muslim schools and bans on alcohol on Muslim holy days etc. Read Jedi, Hindu, Greek Orthodox or whatever for Muslim if you want.

Isn't denying the religion you were born into like denying your history of drug use? No-one hears about your safe and ordinary life and only the adverse outcomes become public knowledge and hence the subject for misguided public funding and support.

I'm not so sure about this one. A census is supposed to be a register of what is, not what you want it to be.
 
hach_bee

hach_bee

Likes Bikes and Dirt
That said, just because you may have been BORN into a religion, doesn't mean that it IS what you ARE NOW. Therefore with your logic, we should still mark no religion :D

Also, if we were majority Muslim, or even an increased percentage, I highly DOUBT our government would convert but it would be great to see the separation.

And oath bring on the public prayer areas, why the hell not? We're an accepting multicultural place! Hey we still let the bloody scientologists operate here even though we don't agree with their views...
 
T

thelankyman

Likes Dirt
More importantly how many peops will be pitting down bike as their transport. We had 7% of the population of Yarra council (melbourne) ride to work in 2006. Hoping to break 10% this year. The more riders the better funding commuting cycling gets which is good for cycling
 
J

Johnny Come Lately

Likes Dirt
Ridenparadise said:
So if all us ireligious Aussies mark no religion and all our new Australians mark (let's say, with no prejudice) Muslim, doesn't that mean that state and federal governments will make funding available in accordance with the increase in Muslims in society? So instead of what we have now we may get public prayer areas for midday prayers and increased funding for Muslim schools and bans on alcohol on Muslim holy days etc. Read Jedi, Hindu, Greek Orthodox or whatever for Muslim if you want.

Isn't denying the religion you were born into like denying your history of drug use? No-one hears about your safe and ordinary life and only the adverse outcomes become public knowledge and hence the subject for misguided public funding and support.

I'm not so sure about this one. A census is supposed to be a register of what is, not what you want it to be.
Click to expand...

A child cannot be born into religion. Fairy-tales are something you learn, it isn't an innate characteristic.

The whole "muslims will overrun us if we don't mark christian" is a furphy. The last census shpwed 1.7% of people identified with being muslim, compared to 64% christian and 18% irreligion.
 
Ridenparadise

Ridenparadise

Likes Bikes and Dirt
This is not a question about being over-run, it is just a question. I'm not questioning anyone's religion, nor revealing mine, or what I listed on the last census or few I did. I am also not questioning your right to have no religion, or placing religion against science in some moral Pokemon match.

What I am asking, is if you wish to separate state from church, why do you think de-identifying yourself in the census helps that goal? Walking away from an argument hasn't won too many in this country. It just lets our baby-sitting, lowest common denominator-imposing government and every "socially-responsible", government-funded group make decisions for you, based on the funding you gave them.

And, not asking but stating; governments totally do make decisions about public funding based on your 30 minutes next Tuesday night. Hands are already rubbing together in lust of it.

So, if you are going to make a point in the census, then think about what it really means, not just what you think it does. If my simple drop of the line caught you fish, how many more are waiting open-mouthed to be caught by a system made to take advantage of us in the guise of a Tuesday night in?
 
hach_bee

hach_bee

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Ridenparadise said:
What I am asking, is if you wish to separate state from church, why do you think de-identifying yourself in the census helps that goal? Walking away from an argument hasn't won too many in this country. It just lets our baby-sitting, lowest common denominator-imposing government and every "socially-responsible", government-funded group make decisions for you, based on the funding you gave them.
Click to expand...
Because if the government structure is not an accurate representation of the general public and their interests then it will be easier to push for separation... geez thought that was a pretty easy one to figure out...
 
dcrofty

dcrofty

Eats Squid
Ridenparadise said:
What I am asking, is if you wish to separate state from church, why do you think de-identifying yourself in the census helps that goal?
Click to expand...
I really don't get what you are trying to say here.

I am not religious. So what are you trying to say I should put on my form when it asks my religion?
 
J

Johnny Come Lately

Likes Dirt
Ridenparadise said:
This is not a question about being over-run, it is just a question. I'm not questioning anyone's religion, nor revealing mine, or what I listed on the last census or few I did. I am also not questioning your right to have no religion, or placing religion against science in some moral Pokemon match.

What I am asking, is if you wish to separate state from church, why do you think de-identifying yourself in the census helps that goal? Walking away from an argument hasn't won too many in this country. It just lets our baby-sitting, lowest common denominator-imposing government and every "socially-responsible", government-funded group make decisions for you, based on the funding you gave them.

And, not asking but stating; governments totally do make decisions about public funding based on your 30 minutes next Tuesday night. Hands are already rubbing together in lust of it.

So, if you are going to make a point in the census, then think about what it really means, not just what you think it does. If my simple drop of the line caught you fish, how many more are waiting open-mouthed to be caught by a system made to take advantage of us in the guise of a Tuesday night in?
Click to expand...
The Alex Jones style conspiracy rant did nothing to answer my contention that you are not born into a certain religion, it's a learned idea. If a person grows up and starts thinking that it is all bunkum and becomes agnostic/atheist as a result, it becomes their correct answer at that moment, does it not?


Science brought me my bicycle...just another reason to love science/
 
placebo

placebo

Likes Dirt
Ridenparadise said:
This is not a question about being over-run, it is just a question. I'm not questioning anyone's religion, nor revealing mine, or what I listed on the last census or few I did. I am also not questioning your right to have no religion, or placing religion against science in some moral Pokemon match.

What I am asking, is if you wish to separate state from church, why do you think de-identifying yourself in the census helps that goal? Walking away from an argument hasn't won too many in this country. It just lets our baby-sitting, lowest common denominator-imposing government and every "socially-responsible", government-funded group make decisions for you, based on the funding you gave them.

And, not asking but stating; governments totally do make decisions about public funding based on your 30 minutes next Tuesday night. Hands are already rubbing together in lust of it.

So, if you are going to make a point in the census, then think about what it really means, not just what you think it does. If my simple drop of the line caught you fish, how many more are waiting open-mouthed to be caught by a system made to take advantage of us in the guise of a Tuesday night in?
Click to expand...
It's because identifying as non-religious, rather than a humorous answer such as "Jedi" which is what I identified as in the last census, pulls numbers, funding, and as a result power away from all religious groups. This helps to lessen the leverage of all religious parties in influencing governments, and helps reduce government funding directed toward religious organisations as part of planning policies of governments. How could identifying as not religious do anything other than help separate religion and the state? How is identifying as non-religious undermining the argument that religious groups and their narrow beliefs, often violently at odds with other religious groups, should not be the major determinant of how our governments govern?

If you want an example of what religious groups may do when they have power and funding, Fred Nile's policy of vetoing state government policy in the upper house of the New South Wales parliament until the state government reneges on it's election commitment of the teaching of ethics classes in NSW schools as an alternative to religious classes is an instructive example. Nile has compared the teaching of ethics classes to children in schools to Nazism and Communism.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nazi-ideology-in-ethics-classes-says-nile-20110805-1ifft.html
 
J

Johnny Come Lately

Likes Dirt
placebo said:
It's because identifying as non-religious, rather than a humorous answer such as "Jedi" which is what I identified as in the last census, pulls numbers, funding, and as a result power away from all religious groups. This helps to lessen the leverage of all religious parties in influencing governments, and helps reduce government funding directed toward religious organisations as part of planning policies of governments. How could identifying as not religious do anything other than help separate religion and the state? How is identifying as non-religious undermining the argument that religious groups and their narrow beliefs, often violently at odds with other religious groups, should not be the major determinant of how our governments govern?

If you want an example of what religious groups may do when they have power and funding, Fred Nile's policy of vetoing state government policy in the upper house of the New South Wales parliament until the state government reneges on it's election commitment of the teaching of ethics classes in NSW schools as an alternative to religious classes is an instructive example. Nile has compared the teaching of ethics classes to children in schools to Nazism and Communism.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nazi-ideology-in-ethics-classes-says-nile-20110805-1ifft.html
Click to expand...

Couldn't have stated it better.

Like all arguments, even had Nile had a point (which he doesn't), once he reduced it to a Nazi insult, he lost.
 
Ridenparadise

Ridenparadise

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Well, I hope we do progress to a country with more emphasis on science than religion and funding to match, but this is a Christian country (historically) and there are not many examples of nations letting their founding religion pass away without a fight. Perhaps setting up a political party with separation of church and state would be a more practical approach, but could it survive?

I see this as more like the republic versus constitutional monarchy debate. If you cannot effect change with benefit to all, then change doesn't happen. Hence the failure of the totally logical last plebosite on the republic.

Anyway, I am not arguing against the choice to say no religion, seeing as I started saying it at age 11 and have stuck with that choice. Having said that, Australia would be a very different place without the current funding arrangements and I am not sure it would be a better place. Perhaps the scientist somewhere in me feels that accuracy in statistics makes more sense than manipulation of them, but I do understand the reasoning and differing opinions voiced here. I also guess I won't be here in 100 years to read what everyone said.

Just as an aside though, if you can't be born into a religion, does that mean you can't be born Australian?
 
Last edited:
Cypher

Cypher

Likes Dirt
Pro census

As a person who uses the census data to help local government plan for stuff (technical term, that) it is really important that you take the census seriously.

The reason why it happens on a Tuesday is that it is supposed to be a typical day in your life (and the lives of all Australians). Don't do untypical things or mark down silly stuff

If you don't normally ride to work, ethically I can't advocate riding for just that day - it doesn't really help our planning of transport facilities and demand.

For instance if you normally catch a bus, but ride instead you are reducing our determination of demand on buses.

I think only religous groups and sociologist use the religion question data. In a government planning context certain religions are linked with socio-economic advantage/disadvantage. It helps you understand the trends in the changing population of an area, for instance, do you need more adult migrant services?

I know in my council certainly no one cares what entry in the religion question you put down. It is generally used inconjunction with a couple of other census themes to give an understanding of the 'flavour' of an area and almost never by itself.

Please do your census right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top