Excellent informative article!

It would also be appropriate to have a box called "Private".

History has shown us (Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany) that the state holding information on your religion can be somewhat dangerous.

Perfectly reasonable for any of us to reserve the right not to disclose what for many of us is a very personal aspect of our lives.

The fundamental purpose of the census is pragmatic: by asking your religion it aims to find out, in effect, how many blocks of land need to be set aside for churches in new housing developments, and how much car parking there should be around them.

Using census results for propagandising about the growth or shrinkage of any particular religion is fine, as long as we confine ourselves to comparisons between census results from different years. But any attempt to extrapolate from census figures to claims about how Australians are actually going to behave right now is going to end in disappointment.

Herbert, completely agree - I have seen comments on the ABC DRUM site, calling for identification of all "deniers", so that at some stage, they can take revenge on these people for "destroying the world".

I can imagine what would happen if the Greens had control of census information, or the ability to write in their own questions.

The current political climate in Australia makes me feel less safe now than I have ever felt in this country before.

I wonder how many people feel the same and may not even want to reflect any information to the state at all, since they clearly do not seem to have my best intentions at heart and are merely acting in the Green's best interests so that they can stay in power.

A very worthwhile and timely article that should make the more thoughtful among the readers understand that, by identifying themselves as 'christians', people are actually committing themselves to belief in a load of mystical medieval twaddle. On such contrived statistics do the various churches claim the right to educate children largely at public expense, enjoy a disproportionate share of the charity budget, and avoid taxation - to say nothing of enjoying a seemingly general amnesty with regard to on-going child abuse.
Think before you fill in the census form.

GYM-FISH, be sure not to let the facts get in the way of a good rant...

Why not just tick all the boxes?

I just hope that we get included in the census this time around. The last time we were left out all together.

Why are non-believers so concerned to define what a person must believe in order to be an authentic Christian? I say the creed most Sundays with a clear conscience without interpreting it as Glen does.

And I’ll make up my own mind which box to tick on census day.

Really, I thought that peoples' beliefs on Religion were private. What really annoys me is the lack of boxes to tick, there are probably more religions in Australia, (given the different Cultures) than ever before,
It probably won't be long before we have to comment on how many times we have sexual intercourse each week, really, some authors of the Census
really have not got a clue.
NSB

What a nonsensical, petty, whining little article this is.

If people feel inclined to write "Christian", then they should do so. There isn't a pass-or-fail test that goes along with it - it is just a question that is asked out of sheer habit.

Daft.

Why is this a census question, and what has religion got to do with the forward thinking and planning for the future of the country.
The religous organisations have plenty of cash and they don't pay taxes, which means they are not in need.
So why is this a census questions!

I generally support the sentiments of the article. If we're not religious, then we really have no reason to pretend to be so. I also support the idea of having the option of ticking 'private'. After all, some people's religious beliefs are private to them, and this in itself is a demographic group worth noting. That is, of course, if religion of any kind is a demographic group worth noting.

I actually think this question on religion is a good idea on the census form.
How often do we hear people saying that Australia should do this or not do that (eg Gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc), because 'we are a predominantly Christian country"?

What if it turns out we are actually NOT a predominantly Christian country after the census results are checked?
Or maybe we will find out that there are actually MORE Christians in Australia than ever before?

Wouldn't that knowledge have some bearing on the any future laws or changes in our country, whether other religious (or atheist) groups liked it or not?

Every question on that census form has a reason for being there.
And most of them have to do with our country's finances and/or politics.
If you don't like it, don't answer it!

I always tick: "Other - my own".

The purpose of this question is to apportion government funds between the major religious orders. The total sum is fixed in advance, so it practically makes no difference whether one ticks "other" or does not respond at all.

The correct wordings of this question should be "which of the following organizations would you like to benefit from your tax money?" - I just wish they asked me in the census more similar questions about the different avenues by which my tax-money is dissipated.

My view is to not have a religion until reaching voting age at 25. By that stage many would have sufficient sense to make up their own mind which path they want to follow both in religion & politics. Both are the most dividing factors in society.

Pericles, Tues, 26 Jul 7:22:51pm

It is more a question that appears to be answered "out of sheer habit" - there is a discrepancy between

. (i) the proportion in polls conducted between censuses that say they are religious and
.(ii) the census proportion that say they are religious.
.

Pericles
Would you also say that if people feel inclined to describe themselves as married if they are single, or 20 years old if they are actually 70, they should be smiled on fondly? So why should they be free to describe themselves as Christians if they are not? Perhaps you think that what it means to be a Catholic, say, is up to you, but most people (I think) would say that what it takes to be a Catholic is determined by the Catholic Church. And I'm pretty sure that those who design and administer the census, and those who, rely on the accuracy of the information it gleans, would be of the same view.
I'm sorry you found my article petty and whinging but I do wonder how you define whinging and I'm curious about whether you think that a concern for having the census questions answered accurately is a petty matter. And I suppose you are aware of a circulating email urging all anti-Muslims to tick a Christian religion box whether they are religious or not. It actually exhorts those who are not religious to tick the box of a religion of their childhood or their parents. I just find all attempts to contaminate the accuracy of census information immoral. Refusing to answer a census question is one thing but deliberately lying to destroy the accuracy of the resulting data is surely immoral. I suspect it is also illegal.

Chalk and cheese, GlenC.

>>Would you also say that if people feel inclined to describe themselves as married if they are single, or 20 years old if they are actually 70, they should be smiled on fondly?<<

One's age and marital status are facts.

One's religion is a personal view, and cannot be independently verified. If I choose to say that, on balance, given the alternatives, and in the spirit of trying to best describe my social outlook, I am a Christian, who are you to tell me that I am not?

>>And I'm pretty sure that those who design and administer the census, and those who, rely on the accuracy of the information it gleans, would be of the same view.<<

That, I very much doubt.

If they really were concerned about the "accuracy" of the answer, they would have ensured it by phrasing the question appropriately. For example, against the box next to "Catholic", they would add an explanatory note along the lines of:

"Only tick this box if you have a supporting note from your local Priest, affirming that you have a) been to Mass and b) confessed your sins, within the past week."

>>I'm sorry you found my article petty and whinging but I do wonder how you define whinging and I'm curious about whether you think that a concern for having the census questions answered accurately is a petty matter.<<

Please, there is no need for you to apologize for my opinion.

Answering factual questions accurately is not necessarily a petty matter. Quibbling about questions of the nature "how do you feel about God..." is, to my mind, the very definition of pettiness.

>>I just find all attempts to contaminate the accuracy of census information immoral.<<

Contaminate? Immoral? Let's stay in touch with reality here.

>>Refusing to answer a census question is one thing but deliberately lying to destroy the accuracy of the resulting data is surely immoral. I suspect it is also illegal.<<

Doubt it.

The phrase "get a life" springs to mind.

Can't think why.

Dear Glen,

"Would you also say that if people feel inclined to describe themselves as married if they are single, or 20 years old if they are actually 70"

Many people who are formally considered married are not married at all in their heart, and vice versa. As for age, there is no way to answer this question but with a lie, for we are not of any age, we are immortal - only our body ages.

"So why should they be free to describe themselves as Christians if they are not?"

It's a matter of self-defense. One is naturally free to describe themselves in any way they want, and it would be a lie anyway, because there is no way to truly describe who and what we really are. However, describing oneself as "Christian" is a good way of hiding in the crowd, should those census papers ever be handed to (or captured by) a wrong party.

"I just find all attempts to contaminate the accuracy of census information immoral"

How is it possible to contaminate something which is already impure and immoral?

Why isn't there an atheist or agnostic box? It would clear up the question of 'mmm am I a bit christian, nah not really'. Would make it succinct and clearer and would include people with such views. A box marked 'no religion' is an insult to atheists etc.

Pip66,

I think I already answered your question: the government is not interested in your views, they simply want to figure the exact amount to write on the cheques they send to the top 6-7 major religious organizations, which they seek to appease (with your tax-money of course). You may just as well tick "I believe we all come from the Magic Ultra-Violet Crow", nobody reads it anyway.

pip66,
Wed, 27 July, 2:16:56pm

You can write Atheist in the open boxes, under Religion (I think).
It will be counted in the No Religion statistics as well as Atheist classification in the fuller statistics
.