Clearly some folk, with a single indigenous forbear, forty-fifty generations ago are adding their names to the census as aboriginal? Because they feel aboriginal?

Therefore, and with regard to claimed indigenous specific benefits/land rights etc. DNA testing that proves they are not less than 25% aboriginal ought to be mandatory!

With those failing the test asked to show cause, why they shouldn't be charged with fraud?
Alan B.

The number or Tasmanian Aboriginals in 1800 was estimated at no more than 6000.

This had to decreased to no more than 1000 by 1828. In 1832 this number had shrunk to 200. Robinson gathered 178, by 1834 ( from memory ), to go to Flinders Island.

He believed that he missed no more that 3 or 4 People.

When I went to School , our Black Arm band History taught us that we , Australians , had managed to wipe out an entire Race of People, Then we rounded it off with the Tasmanian Tiger , for good measure.

What was that the truth , then , or was it the Propaganda that we are used to nowadays ?

The definition without a % is total rubbish. In 100 years time , will we have Aboriginality at 1/1280th ?

Yes !

25% should be the bottom limit.

I am pretty sure that I am a 1/12,560th Roman Citizen. I will identify as one and if I cam find a few fellow 'true ' Romans like me... then.... Let's get the Empire back !

Then, there is the Anglo-Saxon Part of me from the 'Dark Ages'... Hmmmmm

I would say that DISHONESTY is “behind Australia's exploding indigenous population”. Our peculiar politicians, slaves to minorities and the extreme Left have made it worthwhile for any Tom, Dick or Harry to claim connection to aboriginality. There's money and benefits in it! The push for 'recognition' in the Constitution makes the idea even more attractive. What dishonest people would not want to get their hands on 60% of Australian land?

Even some genuine claimants are wondering how there are so many of them in Tasmania when the story has always been that they were virtually wiped out in that state!

This is what you get when you concoct an idea that a tiny section of the the Australian population should be treated differently from the majority.

Anyway, are we to believe the Census, which is the biggest cock up of the century?

Yes, it's quite amazing that the Indigenous population grew since the 2011 Census by 101,000, while the number of births was only about 73,000. Clearly nobody died in those five years, AND many people were born at 8, and 16, and 37.

OR there was a process of re-identification which added about 10 % to the 2011 population. In that case, for what it's worth, the 'real' population was more like 590,000 than 649,000.

But this process of re-identification has been going on at every Census since 1971. What it signifies is that any judgments or predictions about Indigenous population are worthless. After all, it's possible that most of the 'population growth' since 1971 has been through re-identification. Or, in the case of many non-Indigenous people, identification.

It's possible on that basis to cautiously suggest that the population has barely doubled, not risen six times, in forty five years.

But one feature stands out: the number of births from one Census to the next - if one controls for that re-identification factor - may actually be declining, and by about 1 % p.a.

Another feature of the 2016 Census data is that the NT Indigenous population may not have risen at all, or at most by only about 4 % in five years. Again, there were fewer NT births in those five years than in previous Census periods. The proportion of Indigenous people registered on Census night as being in the NT declined by nearly 2 %. There are more indigenous people in Greater Sydney than in the NT. The balance is shifting rapidly towards a city, even a metropolitan, population, away from a remote population

Re-identification has disrupted analysis of Indigenous population since 1971.

Let's look at 'age-cohorts': groups of people born within the same age-range - i.e. 0 to 4 years old at one Census, 5 to 9 years old at the next, 10 to 14 at the next, and so on. In the Censuses, we can track their growth in numbers over time [What ?! 'Growth' in numbers, you ask ? How is that possible ?! Yes indeed.]

Going back to the 1971 Census, and the youngest age-cohort, those aged between birth, 0 yrs, and 4: they numbered 18,733 in 1971. In the next Census, when they were aged 5 to 9 years, they had multiplied - miracle of miracles ! - to 24,106.

By the 1996 Census, they had given birth to many others at later ages, and the age-cohort, now aged in their late twenties, numbered 33,741. In 2006, there were still 30,873 of the original 18,733 left, even with inevitable mortality.

Something similar has happened to every age-cohort in every succeeding Census: age-cohorts grow in numbers, despite any mortality. But if one were to take the 2016 figures as a sort of benchmark, and work backwards, building in a bit of mortality (using the ABS' mortality tables), clearly the numbers in each age-cohort should increase as we move backwards, from 2016 all the way back to 1971. If we do that, the total numbers at each previous Census increase. If we do it right back to 1971, the total then was more like 350,000 than 115,000.

In other words, Indigenous population has barely kept pace with the total Australian population numbers, perhaps slipped a little behind. So perhaps the Indigenous population has made up about 2.8 % ever since 1971, and perhaps it was even higher back then.

If this is confusing, phone someone from the ABS and explain it to them.

Joe

Joe,

I'm my own Grandpa, and living in an apple tree in Tasmania!

Bob Katter claimed on Q & A that he was a Blackfella.

Since at least the late nineties, some academics in Indigenous Studies have perceived themselves as being more immersed in Aboriginal culture than Aboriginal people themselves and 'therefore' more Aboriginal. Probably many on the 'Left' now have the same perceptions.

Since the War, inter-marriage rates have rapidly increased: perhaps 90 % of urban Indigenous people now inter-marry quite happily. Of course, this will tend to tie them down to the urban areas where they grew up. But one, two and three generations of inter-marriage does attenuate any links with culture, country and extended family, and of course identity.

Since the earliest days, administrations have grappled with the definition of 'Aboriginal', or 'native' - usually the term used to describe a person as just 'native' meant a native-born white person. The Australian Natives' Association, founded in 1871, to represent them, still exists, as Lifeplan. Usually administrations from the earliest days have conceded that any mixed-race person was entitled to much the same benefits as 'Aboriginal natives'. Those policies have continued for six or seven generations now.

At the 2016 Census, the Indigenous population rose by about 18 %. In the NT, it rose by only about 3 %. I would suggest that the 'inflation' caused by re-identification (and identification: see above) was around 11 %. So 'real population growth' was barely 5-7 %, barely 1 % p.a. The size of birth-groups continues to decline. Even so, the population shift was from remote areas to towns, and from towns to cities.

We lived in one 'community' across the mid-seventies up on the Murray, when it had a population of about 150. At the 2016 Census, it had a population there of 34. Visiting it a few years ago, I noticed only two houses being lived in, perhaps a dozen people.

If you pay them, they will come! Just saying.

Fools rush in, don't they ? My grandma was right, I'm not as clever as I thought: I used a wrong set of figures to analyse the Census figures for the NT. The number of people NOT ticking any box was so large that it's pointless to make much of the Census data. Except perhaps for the likelihood (that's all I'm going to call it all, from now on) that the number of Indigenous births in the NT seems to be falling, even faster than across Australia generally. Very tentatively, I would suggest that the Indigenous birth-rate is no higher than Australia's, and hasn't been for 45 years.

But the good news is that populations in most places rose miraculously by more than the number of births. Nobody seems to have died in the past five years, and many older people have come back to life. That's probably because of the power of the old fellas' magic.

Or re-identification: people have been doing that now for forty years, so when will the last person come out of the cupboard ?

OR identification: people with no actual Indigenous ancestry - but - truly-ruly strong feelings about it, passing themselves off as Indigenous. Tasmania seems to be a shining example of this. Tasmanians must really love Blackfellas.

Joe

Oh dear, the outright ignorance and racist attitudes on display in the comments are breathtaking. The faux outrage of the whitefellas who cannot comprehend some of the many reasons for the increases in people identifying as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.

The Tasmanian situation is hardly the anomaly it seems as the population of Aboriginal people is still a very small 20 000 (approx.). The number being 4.6% of overall population is due to the state population being small and around the 537 000 mark.

It is a myth that Tasmanian Aboriginal people ceased to exist after Trukannini's death in 1876. It is also a myth that all the remaining Tasmanian Aboriginal people were 'rounded up' and sent to Flinders Island at the end of the Black War. Those who were the focus of George Augustus Robinson's 'mission' were those still waging resistance against the invading colonisers. As historian Lyndall Ryan identifies there was a 'creole' population of Tasmanian Aboriginal people who had mixed bloodlines. They were never accepted into either society.

They were often the 'product' of rapes committed by convicts who were used to frontier shepherds or stockmen. There were no official records of the children. Those children then invariably became servants, labourers or shepherds. The only records of them being Aboriginal are oral family and local histories. As people do more research into their family histories the more people find they have Aboriginal family.

There are also issues to with previous adoption practices and people are also finding out that they have Aboriginal ancestry due to that. It is not their fault part of their heritage has been denied to them.

Hi Moronitaur,

As usual, you miss the point entirely. Populations can't just increase vastly on a whim, and certainly not without at least as many births: nobody is born after the age of 0, not at 6, or 15, or 38. So how do those population groups increase in number ? How can a population increase by more than the number of births ? What, nobody dies ? Yes, i know like everybody else that Indigenous people are super-human but not that super-human.

I was looking at the total Indigenous population figures for each Census since 1971, and it struck me that sometimes the population growth was greater than the number of births from one Census to the next. I totalled up the extras and it came to 120,000 since 1971 - 120,000 more in the population than births. Then I made very rough guess for mortality, say 5 % between Censuses, or 1 % p.a. - and added all the 'excess' figures up: it came to 407,000. In other words, there were 407,000 more Indigenous people in Australia in 2016 than all the births and deaths since 1971. How's that possible ?

Obviously, re-identification on a massive scale of people who were already there (and their kids since 1971) - and identification by non-Indigenous people, thinking they were doing Blackfellas a good turn. As for re-identification, how long since 1971 does it take for people to 're-identify' ? That's their right, but it all knocks the daylights out of any sensible analysis or predictions of Indigenous population.

Joe

Thanks for starting with the insult Joe...very typical response when someone did not comprehend what they were presented with. And my comment wasn't a direct response to you anyway.

Clearly, this issue is one of complexity that is beyond the comprehension of many. You, Joe, clearly missed my point that people are discovering Aboriginal ancestry and therefore identifying on the census as being Aboriginal (or Torres Strait Islander). Such were the levels of racism and government control over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that great numbers of them hid their identity so they could raise the families without the constant threat of being targeted by authorities.

It is not a case of an increasing population based on birth/death ratios. Only a simpleton would apply such a criteria. You have to look at the complexities of people who previously hid their heritage/identity but now either they or their descendants feeling proud and confident enough to reclaim that identity.

There has also been an great increase in people's ability to trace family heritage and that too is a contributing factor. There can be no time limit on that rediscovery and to try and apply one is, again, simplistic.

If you don't understand something why comment on it?

Whatev, Minotaur.

You're right though: re-identification has been a far, far bigger contribution to population growth than the usual means, i.e. births - deaths = population rise.

In Tasmania, the Indigenous population rose by 3945 from 2011 to 2016. Indigenous births during that time totaled 460. Mortality over that period may have reached 1,000, so 'other means of increasing population' besides births may have been as high as 4,500, or more than 20 % rise on the 2011 figures.

The point is that re-identification (and identification) make it impossible to make accurate estimates of actual growth through births, and any other demographic calculation. Yet I'm sure we will get some idiot, perhaps permanent on a very good salary, prattling about a 18 % growth in population - or even that the figures were some sort of under-estimate of actual numbers.

No: births contributed about 6 % to that five-year population growth (i.e. barely 1 % p.a.), and identification about 11 %. Without that identification factor, the Indigenous population would be making up less and less of the total Australian population.

Joe

Dr Nicolas Biddle, of the Centre for Aboriginal Policy Research (CAEPR) has contributed this article on the 2016 Census:

https://cass.anu.edu.au/news/news/20170629/census-2016-what%E2%80%99s-changed-indigenous-australians

He hasn't noticed yet that birth numbers are relatively declining, and what this may mean in the near future. That's okay, he's busy earning his living, give him time.

Hi Joe, thanks for the link and it makes for some interesting reading. You have found a very pertinent point with the increased number of people 'identifying' masking the lower birth rate. In that regard, the increase in Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander people is not actually a 'population' increase and I think that is a very worthy point of discussion.

As one who been intricately involved in Aboriginal issues for some time now I believe there are a number of reasons as to why many are identifying 'now' but financial gain is not high on the list. There are not any great benefits to any individual in identifying as Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander. In fact, those who do identify and haven't done so before are often treated with scorn and disdain. And will often be unable to access any services unless they really do some in-depth and verifiable research that establishes their bona fides.

In my experience, most people identify as there is now a feeling of pride to have ancestral links to some of the most ancient cultures on the planet. It is almost a reflection of how people once denied they had convict ancestors but now embrace them.

However, if someone merely ticks a box does that really make them Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? The census does not ask if people are embracing cultural practices, finding out about Aboriginal history beyond ancestral links or at least trying to. In that respect the census question is a shallow one full of ambiguity.

On a final note for now...regarding the increase in Tasmania of people identifying as Aboriginal it is entirely possible that some of that can be attributed to those who are not Tasmanian but moved to the state in the previous 4 years. It is interesting that in my field of Aboriginal tertiary education a significant number of those accessing the program were from interstate. That indicates it would be folly to simply put down the increase in numbers (in Tasmania) to simply more people 'identifying'.

Hi Minotaur,

Yes, I agree with you, there's not much mileage in claiming Indigenous status. My poor kids are finding that out the hard way: as mainstream graduates who are Indigenous they get parked in the 'Indigenous' category of jobs, like it or not, with all the pitfalls of having to negotiate carefully with often incompetent managers.

What you say about people moving to Tasmania probably applies to the entire eastern coast from Cairns down to Melbourne and around to Adelaide, maybe down to Perth too. Victoria seems to have special attractions for uni students. I suppose the point is that people are choosing to move to urban areas and to pursue mainstream careers when they can, and good on them.

And hey, I apologize for my intemperate remarks before, sometimes I'm an idiot :) Best wishes.

Cheers,

Joe

No worries Joe. I also agree with you about the mobility of Indigenous people being applicable pretty much across the board. I believe that will increase and in particular kids from remote communities will increase their presence in metropolitan universities and other institutions. Hopefully the cycle of disdain for education is abating and many more Indigenous graduates will gain their degrees, get some experience and then put back into their communities and show that it can be done!

Have a good one Joe.

Hi Minotaur,

Yes, just had a knee op. Bloody painful. Yeah, there are only three ways for the population to actually increase: migration, births and identification. Of course, because people are living longer, that effectively 'adds' to the population too. Migration is negligible, although it might be surprising to know how many Australian Indigenous people are living overseas.

So births and identification are really the only two ways to boost population. I would say that, in the past five years, according to the 2016 Census, mortality may have taken 30-40,000 people, so the rise of 101,000 was a gross gain of around 140,000. But births made up, say, 74,000 of those. So identification - 66,000 give or take - made up almost half of the population gain.

If so, then the net 'natural gain', the births, kicked up the 'natural growth' by only about 35,000, over the 548,000 of the 2011 Census, about 1.2 % p.a. That would be lower than the net growth rate in the Australian population, although probably higher if overseas immigration is taken out of the equation.

Still working on it. By the way, that 'identification' factor has probably contributed much more than half of all Indigenous population growth since 1971. Working on that too :)

Regards,

Joe

I've just come across this posting and I would like to put my bib in also. Firstly, most importantly, I wish to establish a base line from which to start. The method of determining whether someone is of a particular nationality or not is very simple and cannot be contaminated by 'political correctness'. If BOTH parents are of the same nationality, for example they are both aborigines and their lineage can be shown not to have been broken or 'contaminated' by partnering with a non-aboriginal, then any off-spring are of that same nationality. If one of those children has a child by ANYONE other than another 'pure blood' aborigine, then the off-spring or children are NOT of that nationality and therefore NOT aborigine.
So the net result is easy to determine if we employ the courage to tell these 'wanabees' that they are not aborigines but just another boring Australian, because obviously they regard them selves to be better than the rest of us 'mere mortals', when in fact the opposite is closer to the truth. Not long ago a well respected and well known 'Elder' said that all these people claiming to be aborigine, to stop it. They, he called them 'wanabees', were, 'stealing not only money and benefits from the true aborigines but also giving them a bad rep' for trying to capitalise on what was clearly a fraudulent or dis-honest act. The true number of aborigines can easily be found by removing anyone who did not come from a 'pure blood' aboriginal couple. End of story. This is just another example of 'political correctness'. I came from an Italian background. Both my parents lineage can be easily confirmed. I married an Australian, oh and I was born here also but in the 'correct' world my wife is Ausy, where-as I am (to be correct) Italian, I just happen to be born in Australia. So in conclusion all these 1/4, 1/24, 1/163 'cast', I'm sorry your not an 'ABORIGINE', so get off the gravy train and stop your criminal activity. BTW, my kids are regarded as AUSTRALIAN!

Rarely have I come across such unmitigated rubbish as that posted by ALTRAV. A great display of complete dearth of understanding about what it means and is to be an Aboriginal person (note the capital 'A') in Australia though. For starters there is a Federal Government definition that states to recognized as an Aboriginal person the following criteria must be met:

- being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
- identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person
- being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formerly lived.

All of these things must apply. The way you look, any percentage of ancestry or how you live are not requirements.

People with Aboriginal heritage/ancestors have a unique connection to over 60 000 years of ancient cultures in this nation. It matters not how far removed one is from their Aboriginal ancestors as the link is always there. Trying to compare that link to having ancestry with no connections to this ancient land is foolish and ignorant.

As to the 'gravy train' that comes with Aboriginal identity, it would be nice to know where the station is so those of us not on it can board it. Aboriginal people are recognized as being over-represented in lower socio-economic statuses, more likely to end up in jail, have far lower life expectancy, have lower educational attainment and more likely to get a number of life threatening diseases. Hell of a train to be on is that one!

Minotaur, I and millions, yes millions of Australians dis-agree with you and your assertions. You may not like it but that's the way it is. Your attempt to justify calling yourself an aborigine is nothing if not a pathetic attempt to explain an otherwise weak point. So according to you just having an ancestor is enough to choose what you want to be, because you, 'have a connection to the land'. You can abuse and insult me as much as you like it won't change anything. You see I know who I am and my self worth, it appears that in your case, you don't and are clutching at straws if you think we are somehow going to hold you in high esteem for being 'special'. As far as most of us are concerned you are Australian, and that's it! Why you get this special treatment is purely because some politicians decided it would make them look good to show they were helping to make things better for your people by throwing money and grants at you and your cause.
And has it helped? NO! I won't go into the reasons but suffice to say I believe the 'TRUE' aborigines should be given assistance towards a better life and living standards but not at the expense or detriment of the rest of us, who are the majority.

How about addressing my comments and points instead of making an ad hominem response ALTRAV? Or do you not have any decent counter points to make?

By the way, I don't consider myself special and nor do I get any special treatment. I've never sought to be treated differently than anyone else. For me, and I cannot speak for others, I take pride in my Aboriginal heritage as it makes me an Aboriginal Australian and the criteria in place says that is legitimate. And if a few million ignorant and racist non-Aboriginal Australians don't like it then too bad.

I note you could not answer my query about the 'gravy train' you allege exists.

Hi Joe, hope you recover quickly from the knee operation. Really appreciate your dissection of the statistics. Very interesting indeed!

manitaur, the gravy train I refer to comprises of billions of dollars and govt assisted benefits and hand-outs, such as cars and so on. There are too many to mention, and anyway you know exactly what I am talking about so don't try and push 'political correctness' down people's throats to justify your stance. 'the criteria in place that says that is legitimate', sure to people like you, but remember we didn't legitimise what you are trying not to say. The govt, in their twisted wisdom created this situation. And if it makes you and your followers happy and gets my point across, I don't mind being called a bigot, racist and every other name you can come up with because I just don't care. If I am so irrelevant why are you bothered to even post anything in response to what I may say or think. Here's a thought, just ignore me. I have the right to say whatever I want (within the terms of reference) and you and others have the right to ignore me.

ALTRAV it is interesting that instead of offering any details of the ‘gravy train’ you keep referring to that you simply offer a bland ‘comprises of billions of dollars and govt assisted benefits and hand-outs, such as cars and so on.’ Can you please tell me where I can get my free car? You may also know where I can the no interest home loans that are apparently on offer too.

On a more pertinent note, the main beneficiaries of that ‘gravy train’ are non-Aboriginal bureaucrats earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum and who have no connection to Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander people/communities. I would argue that there is corruption and fraud involved. That became evident during the initial ‘Intervention’ in the Northern Territory where housing contracts were awarded to those who blatantly rorted the system. Basic houses, which were unsuitable for the conditions, that should have cost around $250 000 to build were constructed and billed at up to half a million dollars…and many of them were so badly built they had to be demolished. There should be a Royal Commission into the wasted/rorted monies by white bureaucrats. I doubt any Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander person of intelligence and sense would object to it.

It is also interesting that you never addressed any of the disadvantages Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander people face/are subject to that I presented. I could write a 100 000 word thesis on the causes and affects. However, the core root of the issues still lies within the racist policies and restrictions put in place over almost two centuries of invasion/colonisation. Let’s not forget it was only in 1962 that Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander people were officially given the right to vote in federal elections (and even then it was optional while for non-Aboriginal people it was compulsory)…and in some states (WA and Qld) the right to vote in state elections was not given until as late as 1965. And it wasn’t until after the 1967 referendum that Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander people were officially counted in the census. I doubt you care though.

Finally we agree on something but I needed you to say it. YES you are correct that the govt and their mates rorted the hell out of the system because that's how they make big money. They hand out big money, manage it, siphon some etc, etc . I will not back off from my original claim though, because for this to work it needs bi-partisan support. Now if you want to know where all the money has gone, we 'mere mortals' are not privy to such information. I can't tell you 'where' to get your cars, houses, mobile phones and God knows what else that we 'mere mortals' can't get. I can't give you specifics you are one of the only ones who can. As for your assumption that we mortals are the reason you guys are being treated so badly, disadvantaged, invaded, colonised, so on. If you want to know part of the reason you feel you are being taken advantage of, is; you guys keep going on about being invaded' Whatever else the white man did from the first settlers. Well here it is. You may have been here when we turned up, fine , now we are here. It's only politics and greedy politicians and friends who are to blame for the current state of events. As far as I am concerned you are not entitled to anything more than we are. Sick and tired of hearing your bleeding heart stories. If you are all so smart get off your backsides and get in line instead 'cutting in' or demanding to be at the 'head of the line' because of some ancestral right. Enough of the 'stolen generation'. The people in question can now bang on about the 'injustice' of it all but I see some well presented, educated and articulate people that would not be so had they been left in their original environment and conditions. Before you carry on maligning me and the rest of Australia, whether you like it or not the 'stolen generation' are better off today because of the white man.

Hi Alt-Rave,

Fools rush in, ay ? So you've dipped your toe in the waters of Indigenous issues ?

Sit back, listen, read, and learn. Then get back to us.

Joe

loudmouth, I have NO idea of what you speak. If I get you right I will say this.
I have sat back and listened; to a lot of reasons why aborigines are special and deserve better treatment than everyone else, justified by words like heritage, oppression, downtrodden, ancestral rights, to name just a few.
Read; I am sick of reading about their hardships and I am sick of reading about the many, many acts of stealing, vandalism, un-provoked attacks on innocent people and the list goes on.
And as for learning; I don't think I want to learn about a bunch of people who conduct themselves more like criminals than the humble and kind people I was lead to believe they were. I have learned about the privileges that they are afforded over the rest of Australians. I have learned that ANYONE who thinks they are linked to an aborigine, even if they are 120th cast is somehow allowed to call themselves aboriginal when in fact they are AUSTRALIAN! So don't try to justify their current stance. I'm a realist and do not get swayed by sob stories or govt's and their lies, better described as 'political correctness'.

Well, confirmation of the racist ALTRAV. No point engaging with that type anywhere.

minotaur don't deflect. You challenged me and I responded. You don't like my response, well, surprise surprise. Fortunately I don't give a 'rats' whether someone 'thinks' I am a racist or any other demeaning categories you can come up with. This is not about me. I'll tell you who is a racist, anyone out there who is not a pure blood aborigine, yet has the affront to commit fraud, for profit or gain by calling themselves aborigine. Heck man, their own elder came out condemning the very people I'm talking about and he tagged them, 'WANNABEE's, and to stop it. 'Connections with the land'?, really? well guess what, plenty of us white fellas also have connections with the land. The difference is we had to pay for it through greedy bastards deciding to make money out of us. We say, we are here now, we have concurred this land and we all live happily ever after, but no. No one was stopping them from being 'connected to anything' if they are truly connected you don't need to make a song and dance and bang on about it. We respect the right of the individual and their beliefs. Too bad you don't.