You have to remember the religious tend not to let reality affect their beliefs.

Despite the slow but pervasive trends described in the article we are still awash in 'rivers of religion'. If it's not school chaplains, it's a superstitious PM praying for rain (presumably God controls time, so maybe he should be praying for past rain not a future deluge) and government activites in drugs policy, employment and education being sub-contracted to church businesses that are allowed to descriminate of basis of religious beliefs.

Now in NSW we have a Police Commissioner-designate who's appointment announcement highlighted his religious beliefs as credentials. Silly me, I thought policing was supposed to be evidence based.

Supposedly the US Republicans lost the mid-term Congressionals because of their over the top religiousity as witnessed by Bush's public policy but I can't see such electoral pressure here. We prefer to see our Christians happy and clappy in the kitchen whilst their men-folk get on with the (very much) business of saving souls.

A lot of issues and ideas are in play here.

What I would like to see now is another discussion, of what the Census data tell us about whether there is a return of ethical values to politics? It seems to me that more people these days - both religiously affiliated and secular - are calling for a return to a sense of community responsibility and a linked concern for future generations. Such concerns, I think and hope, increasingly unite folk of many religions or no religion ay all.

What does the recent census say about the appeal of such ideas in Australia today ? Does it tell us anything at all? Probably not, as the census questions do not interrogate ideas and values - only stated religious affiliations.

I hope that as a society we are becoming less selfish, less focussed on "me", less inclined to say, like Groucho Marx, "Why should I worry about posterity? What has posterity ever done for me?"

Is there any statistical data to back up or oppose that more optimistic view?

TonyKevin1
you would like to see a return to ethical values in poltiics.
So would I.
They say power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, well.. 'corrupt' is a word which refers to an ethnical/moral baseline.

To use power for the benefit of ones family, supporters, unionists, Employer group at the clear and unmistakable unfair expense of other groups is one result of the intoxication of too much power.

Most people face situations in life where they absolutely KNOW that if they cross this or that line it will go against their conscience, but also, they can see the benefits/rewards (financial, sexual,political) which are on the other side of that line. When drunk with power, our ability to comprehend the negative side of things is dulled in my view.

Hence, in order for ethics to return to politicians, they also need to return to we who elect them.

THE BASELINE for ethics and morality.

What is it ?

MIUAUG...or.. some values system which we can agree on.
Sadly, in a democratic society, the loudest voices and most generous pork barrellers tend to prevail.

The most simple and all encompassing baseline is "Love your neighbour as yourself". But sadly also, without any reference to the Almighty, who's grace and strength we all need in ORDER to live in that 'golden rule' mode, we are back to loud voices, and financial inducements to vote or act in a certain way.

UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS are as universal as those who agree with them.
So, if only 20% of the world agrees, then, the 80% will simply go it alone. There is no mandate whatsover for them to change, because those alleged 'rights' are not linked to a power who is above us all.

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. In conjunction with the above, there is the aspect of religious aggression against others. If a group believes it has a divine right/calling to invade and take over a country purely to install Gods rule, what interest will they have in 'Human Rights' apart from how they define them?

The census data can't tell you anything about ethics or value systems of the population because the only relevant question asked what religion respondents followed. Perhaps you can assume that respondents follow the teachings of their religion.

Boaz: "RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE"

Well I guess Boazy would know all about that, eh? IMHO, I think it's the activities of loopy evangelists, sanctimonious politicians, meddlesome clerics and lunatic terrorists that are driving the declining participation in organised religion that is evidenced in the latest ABS stats.

They say every cloud has a silver lining.