The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fear not God or secularism: Census 2016 > Comments

Fear not God or secularism: Census 2016 : Comments

By Hugh Harris, published 2/8/2016

For the many Australians who once identified as Christians but have 'lapsed' in their churchgoing, the Census provides a chance for honest reassessment and mature reflection.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
@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!
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 5:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 6:41:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Aspley, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 6:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:50:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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'.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 11:28:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 3 August 2016 2:45:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy