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.