Should not the question be formulated thus: what is your religion? And I have no pre-knowledge how the question on religion will be formulated on the census form: But I will answer, Christian, or to be specific, Presbyterian if necessary. I was well educated with the concepts of Christianity, and, As some cynics would probably confirm, brainwashed during the critical first seven years of childhood.

But that would be difficult to prove, since during those formative years, I lived in an isolated community with no churches of any description! ( nor electricity, nor sewage or water systems, no hospital, no doctor, only my good mother who was the only nurse in the village).

Yes, I'm a Christian, a practising Christian, but don't attend church! How's that then?
Because, in my formative years I learned the art of Christianity well enough to fly blindfold!

I will answer yes I am Christian to the census question! And proud of it!

"For those who want a genuine separation of church and state, and who don't belong to any particular religious order, "No religion" is an easy choice."

Those who want a genuine separation of church and state, whether or not they belong to any particular religious order, should not answer this question!

I don't see a check box for pastafarianism!

The fact that secularism has dumbed down enough people to believe that something comes from nothing, that their are no absolutes, that order came from chaos and that design does not require a Designer does not change the truth. It simply means more people are irrational and have been dumbed down by so called 'rationalist'. Of course they will claim they are absolutely right despite the fact they deny absolutes. The void left by the idiotic dogmas of secularism will be filled. The extremism in Europe is largely thanks to irrational secularist who were to blinded by their ideology resulting in few sensible policies in place. In fact it was hatred of anything decent that blinded them. Kinda of like the dumb down getup team who have adopted the gw lies as science.

A good take down of the absurd attempts to broaden the definition of religion to such an extent as to render the concept meaningless.

On another note, those on Facebook will probably have noticed the Christian scare campaign from the last census doing the rounds again claiming that checking ‘no religion’ will mean mosques will start springing up everywhere. This, however, is a non sequitur that assumes that an indifference to Islam necessarily follows from no religious affiliation, or that Muslims will start randomly spawning around the place to fill a Christian void.

Non-believers who fall for this scare campaign and check off a Christian religion will be handing power to, and legitimising, lobby groups like the ACL by allowing them to claim to speak for, and represent, a larger group than they actually do when they fight to deny women their reproductive rights, the terminally ill the right to die with dignity, and the important medical research done with stem cells.

Furthermore, people need to stop mindlessly checking off the religion that they attended RE classes for in primary school. Nobody cares what religion your (sometimes even non-practicing) parents labelled you for the purposes of a half-hour-per-week RE class. Having the ‘No religion’ option at the top of the list this time around will hopefully prevent this happening to some degree.

This one change in the census form has dredged up so much more misinformation, fear, bigotry and pure nonsense than anyone could ever have predicted. The purpose of the census is to gain information in order that the government can make decisions informed by the truth about the people who currently inhabit our country. All people have to do is tell the truth, but there is a remarkable number of people (many of them claiming to be religious) encouraging others to lie. Placing the "no religion" option at the top of the list will hopefully encourage everyone to examine their own belief system and decide if it falls within the commonly accepted definition of a religion. This is a great opportunity for all Australians to think seriously about the basis on which they make their moral judgments.

Secularism works amazingly for atheists and secular people. But, it seems that practising Christians should, wherever possible, live under a Christian government as it appears that laws exist to manage behaviour and guide morality, so they may as well be Christian, lol.

As a lapsed or former christian, I and many other folk who still retain their intellectual freedom or remain untroubled by a strange burning smell created, it would seem, by hitherto unknown activity in previously unused cerebral circuits! Understand all the change and reassessment needs to come from those folk who claim to know the mind of God!

It has to be extremely disconcerting to hear voices coming out of thin air or even far more disconcerting, if you actually understand what they're saying!?

Levity aside, I cannot look a a night sky literally sparkling with more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches the world over, or hear a baby cry, or touch a leaf, without at least considering the possibility of a creator or divine intelligence? And given energy can be neither created or destroyed and given all that we know of the discernible universe including us, is transformed energy!

Then surely rational intelligence demands that we acknowledge it had to have always existed in one form or another? Perhaps as yet not understood but discernable dark matter or dark energy?

As for fear, there's nothing to fear but evil and or evil intent and some folk who claim to intimately know the mind and intended purpose of God, who they claim gives them carte blanche to perpetrate unspeakable evil on all those who won't conform to their impositions or insanity?

If there is a God, then surely God is Love, and indeed the very source or wellspring from whence we get our humanising hopes and dreams, which by the way, are rarely if ever about money or "inspirational" personal greed!
Alan B.

What does or does not constitute religion is totally irrelevant when it comes to the census. The only thing that matters is what information is collected and how it is used.

The only religious act that some people ever do is to put a tick on the census form every eight years or so. This is hardly radical behaviour. It tells us nothing about the involvement or otherwise that they may have with religion. No inferrence should be drawn from this information at all.

Every Muslim will tick Muslim but many never go to a mosque, never pray, never fast - never indulge in any religious activity at all. Should we be making policy decisions in favour of these people? Should we say this is a Christian country based on ticks on a form?

If the government needs to know what religion you are then they need a good reason to ask. It is totally irresponsible to make decisions based on ticks of the census form. They would need a lot more information about your level of involvement than that.

The question is not about what constitutes religion but about what information the government requires in order to make informed policy. This question tells them nothing. It is not like asking about the numbers of people in a household or their ages or incomes. These provide information which can be acted upon.

Ticking that you are Anglican tells them absolutely nothing about you.

What a far too long, ignorant waste of time. Anyone who has to hark back to the Old Testament for anti-Christian arguments is a loser. And, the High Court in 1983, and any other time, was not, is not, equipped to define what it means to be religious. I have not been to church for 60 years as a worshiper, but I still am, and always be, a Christian; and that is what I'll be putting on the census form. Only self-haters and renegades deny their heritage and what they really are.

I believe that one of the reasons that the government wants a true picture of people's religious affiliation is that certain groups in the community are agitating for more power/financial support/attention to their views etc on the basis that they represent a large percentage of the population of Australia. If the census proved that claim to be quite false, then perhaps different outcomes might ensue.

Louisa:
How do you prove genuine affiliation? The person who ticks Catholic might be a cardinal or he might be someone who hasn't been involved in any way with the church since his baptism.

The government should require more information before it starts giving favours. Such benefits should be dealt out on the basis of genuine affiliation and a census is not going to provide that level of information.

ttbn,

That’s not enough information to determine if someone is a “loser”.

<<Anyone who has to hark back to the Old Testament for anti-Christian arguments is a loser.>>

On the contrary, they may be aware that Jesus fully endorsed the Old Testament and are demonstrating their efficiency in going straight to the source. Or perhaps their Biblical knowledge is not as good as ours and they are unaware of all the nasty bits to choose from in the New Testament?

Either way, it hardly renders them a “loser”.

<<Only self-haters and renegades deny their heritage and what they really are.>>

The census question being discussed asks for one's religion, not one's heritage. Religion isn’t the only thing that makes up one’s heritage either. And, on the contrary, the fact that I personally am not a self-hater is one of the reasons why I don’t identify with a poisonous doctrine that tells me I am filthy and in need of superstition to fix that.

Well they say "Sex Sells"

The common, possibly accurate belief, is that Men of the Church are interested in kiddies. But belief needs to shift back to more positive sexual symbolism in Church History. For example:

- Jesus, a Middle Easterner, was unaccountably not of Middle Eastern Appearance but as it shows in Catholic Bibles, he was a red-blond-haired, blue-eyed, white, Nordic looking, 6 foot, stud-muffin.

- Mary was importantly a Virgin = untouched purity

- Billy Graham, when in Australia, was all about handsome male virility in a spiritual package https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham

- the well scrubbed girls of Hillsong exude coltish belief http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3472375/Inside-life-Hillsong-Church-leader-Joel-Houston-s-wife-Esther.html

So basically the Churches need to change their image from paedophilia to interest in sexy adults.

SEX SELLS the CHURCH

As for "proving genuine affiliation", I don't think the census has anything to do with proof. After all, the census doesn't ask us to prove our age or where we were born. Probably in the next census, there will be a question along the lines of, "Do you hold a belief which would generally be considered to be religious? - YES or NO. If YES, in which religion do you believe?"

Of the 6 members of my high school debating team, in the mid 1950s, 3 were the daughters of different denomination ministers, & a fourth was from a highly Christian family. At least 20% of our debate preparation time would be spent with this 4 trying to convert we other 2.

They never succeeded in this goal, but they did quite easily convince me that countries run as Christian nations, on modern Christian principles, were the best to live in, both the kindest & most just available. I still see this as true.

It is perhaps the reduction in those actually practising their Christianity that is leading to many of these nations becoming less kind, & definitely less just in recent times.

I have only been to a church for the three big events in life, births marriage & death, but the question is, am I Christian. Damned if I know really, but I just might decide I am , when I have to answer the question.

There's a lot of debate about what exactly "Christian principles" are. It depends where in the Christian bible you look, for a start. Also it's very easy to find principles that were later adopted by Christians which actually existed among people who had never heard of the Christian god and who lived long before Jesus was ever thought of.

What principles would they be, Hasbeen?

<<...they did quite easily convince me that countries run as Christian nations, on modern Christian principles, were the best to live in, both the kindest & most just available.>>

Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages by secularism, and any modern principles that is has, it has had to adopt grudgingly as a way of surviving. The Western world is the way it is despite Christianity, not because of it.

<<It is perhaps the reduction in those actually practising their Christianity that is leading to many of these nations becoming less kind, & definitely less just in recent times.>>

Another example of why correlation does not necessitate causation (assuming for a moment that your claim is even true and that “less kind” is meaningfully defined).

The US is always a good test case for spurious correlations like this because it is a single country fragmented by so many states that are so independent from each other. And when we look at the relation between religiosity and societal health across the different states, we actually see an inverse correlation.

http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/table-religion-vs.....png

<<I have only been to a church for the three big events in life, births marriage & death, but the question is, am I Christian. Damned if I know really, but I just might decide I am , when I have to answer the question.>>

And what exactly would that achieve?

If you really think society is getting so bad, and that it’s because Christianity is in terminal decline, wouldn’t you want to check ‘No religion’ to encourage people to go back the other way?

@neverwas, what a completely foolish thing to say, There are no Christian nations, there are secular ones. The US for instance is a secular state, it replaced some very nasty christian states, it is worth reading America early history.

Most western nations got religion under control by making the monarch the head of the church, and then introducing a secular parliament to replace the powers of the monarch.

If you then look at the laws of most modern secular countries well there are lost of religions who's rules are pretty well aligned.

Christians would do well to read about how their religion was practices 1000's years ago and then ask themselves what has changed. Apparently their little book hasn't!

Louisa:

If you cannot prove what you need to prove by the census then the question should not be asked. Before the government spends any money it should gain as much insight as possible into the best way to spend those taxpayers' funds

It is no good spending money giving religious people tax breaks to help build a church if only two or three go to church. If you look at the census information how do you know whether those who say they are Anglican go to church or not? It makes a big difference to how you decide to give government advantages. You have to find out that information by other means.

The questions about age or birthplace are simple unqualified questions. If you are 40 then that information is enough to make considerations about how the government might spend money on middle aged people. If you were born overseas then it would give an insight into how much money might be spent on multi-cultural activities. In most questions that is all the information the government needs.

There are degrees of religiousness and simply declaring your allegiance to one or another does not give enough information.

Sure there is no proof of your age or where you are born. The system relies on honesty. You might never go near a church but ticking the square of Anglican is honest whether you do or you do not. Whether you do or not might have repercussions for the way governments spend money.

The religious minority are in a panic over this question.

"The 2016 Census result could herald a discernible shift in Australia's religious landscape"

The statement would be more accurately cast as "reliable" instead of "discernible"

One keeps hearing that X% of Australians regularly attend Church and that X+ do so occasionally .

Both , I believe, are exaggerated.

This is another statistic that needs to be challenged!

You may for example be a devout, church-attending Anglican - but this doesn't necessarily mean that you are willing for the state to attempt to corrupt your clergy and their teachings by offering them tainted money, stolen from the taxpayers, including even from atheists who would as a result hate you, your religion and God.

You could also be an observant Jew - but this doesn't mean that you want to risk the census information being used to pick up you and your family should a new Hitler come to power in Australia.

Do not answer this question!

AJ,

The Western world is based on Christianity despite your refusal to accept that fact. You don't have to like it; you can believe whatever you wish. But, the history of the part played by Christianity in the building of Western society is plainly there. Also plain to see is the vast difference between Western democracies and the rest of the world, which did not have the same start. Even China, which cracked down on it's own brand of spirituality, Falon Gong, is now accepting Christianity as a legitimate import, one tenth of its population now being Christian. While the Chinese elite hangs onto to its 'one party system', it is eager to import any system from the West that will help its economy grow. Christianity, which supports self-help and encourages people to strive, is one of the acceptable 'imports'.

What exactly do you mean by “based on”, ttbn?

<<The Western world is based on Christianity…>>

That's a pretty broad and non-specific statement. You’ll need to narrow that down a little. To what extent, for example, is the Western world is “based on” Christianity? Pinpointing which aspects of Western culture you're referring and how exactly they're based on Christianity would be a good start.

<<...the history of the part played by Christianity in the building of Western society is plainly there.>>

Apparently.

<<Also plain to see is the vast difference between Western democracies and the rest of the world, which did not have the same start.>>

This is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc).

It's not good enough to just say ‘this’, therefore ‘that’. You need to explain how ‘this’ necessarily resulted from ‘that’.

<<Even China, which cracked down on it's own brand of spirituality, Falon Gong, is now accepting Christianity as a legitimate import, one tenth of its population now being Christian.>>

So how has China “importing” Christianity affected its rise? What is the evidence that Christianity helps economies “grow” (beyond spurious correlations), or that China is importing it for that reason? Does the New Testament contain teachings or values that Judaism and Islam lack that were necessary for Western societies to flourish? How have you controlled for the seemingly-infinite combination of other factors?

<<Christianity, which supports self-help and encourages people to strive, is one of the acceptable 'imports'.>>

So have you just been referring to the "God helps those who help themselves" motto? Because that's not in the bible and was around long before Christianity. Furthermore, the motto didn't even appear to become an unofficial Christian motto until, at least, the 17th or 18th centuries - long after Western Europe began its civilising process, and long before the west of the US began theirs.

Either way, the fact remains that the census question being discussed is not asking about your heritage.

AJ,

I do not "need" to do anything, any more than you felt a "need" to answer my recent question to you when when we were discussing creation versus evolution. I believe my claims regarding the superiority of Christian based Western society are self-evident; you do not. So be it.

ttbn,

You do “need” to do those things I mentioned if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. Because, as it stands, they can be dismissed as fallacious as freely as they were asserted.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

<<I believe my claims regarding the superiority of Christian based Western society are self-evident; you do not. So be it.>>

So now it’s just self-evident to you? Sounds very faith-based. The way you were speaking before made it sound like it was an objective fact.

But thanks anyway. Your response does not come as a surprise and is more satisfying than I think you realise. I hope you at least now understand the problems with committing the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and mistaking correlation with causation. Especially when such relationships can be found on closer inspection not to exist.

AJ Philips, I don't know from what perspective you view our world from, but if you can not see western democracy as being superior societies for the majority of people to Muslim, Asian, or communist societies, I suggest you find a new position to view the world. The one you are using is totally wrong.

Could it be an ivory tower?

Hasbeen,

I do see Western democracy as superior in a lot of respects, but that doesn’t mean that Christianity is the cause or foundation of that, and the stats I provided you with discredit such a connection. Not to mention the fun facts I provided ttbn with.

Did you know that homicide rates go up and down with ice cream sales? The correlation is strong and has been around since ice cream was invented. Of course, eating ice creams doesn’t cause people to commit homicide. There is a third factor driving the two - seasons.

It’s a pity you didn’t understand the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy or that correlation doesn’t necessitate causation in that debate. You could have wiped the floor with your opponents.

<<Could [your perspective] be an ivory tower?>>

Ah, an ad hominem (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem). What difference would it make even if it were? I’m not the one here who has been short on facts and full of assumptions. Without evidence for your position, my points remain regardless of my perspective. Pointing out that someone is an academic (which I'm not) is not a trump card. You need to explain why they're wrong.

Anyway, I still don’t see what checking yourself off as a Christian on the census will prove, other than perhaps a touch of self-loathing on your behalf.