You have to remember the religious tend not to let reality affect their beliefs.

Despite the slow but pervasive trends described in the article we are still awash in 'rivers of religion'. If it's not school chaplains, it's a superstitious PM praying for rain (presumably God controls time, so maybe he should be praying for past rain not a future deluge) and government activites in drugs policy, employment and education being sub-contracted to church businesses that are allowed to descriminate of basis of religious beliefs.

Now in NSW we have a Police Commissioner-designate who's appointment announcement highlighted his religious beliefs as credentials. Silly me, I thought policing was supposed to be evidence based.

Supposedly the US Republicans lost the mid-term Congressionals because of their over the top religiousity as witnessed by Bush's public policy but I can't see such electoral pressure here. We prefer to see our Christians happy and clappy in the kitchen whilst their men-folk get on with the (very much) business of saving souls.

A lot of issues and ideas are in play here.

What I would like to see now is another discussion, of what the Census data tell us about whether there is a return of ethical values to politics? It seems to me that more people these days - both religiously affiliated and secular - are calling for a return to a sense of community responsibility and a linked concern for future generations. Such concerns, I think and hope, increasingly unite folk of many religions or no religion ay all.

What does the recent census say about the appeal of such ideas in Australia today ? Does it tell us anything at all? Probably not, as the census questions do not interrogate ideas and values - only stated religious affiliations.

I hope that as a society we are becoming less selfish, less focussed on "me", less inclined to say, like Groucho Marx, "Why should I worry about posterity? What has posterity ever done for me?"

Is there any statistical data to back up or oppose that more optimistic view?

TonyKevin1
you would like to see a return to ethical values in poltiics.
So would I.
They say power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, well.. 'corrupt' is a word which refers to an ethnical/moral baseline.

To use power for the benefit of ones family, supporters, unionists, Employer group at the clear and unmistakable unfair expense of other groups is one result of the intoxication of too much power.

Most people face situations in life where they absolutely KNOW that if they cross this or that line it will go against their conscience, but also, they can see the benefits/rewards (financial, sexual,political) which are on the other side of that line. When drunk with power, our ability to comprehend the negative side of things is dulled in my view.

Hence, in order for ethics to return to politicians, they also need to return to we who elect them.

THE BASELINE for ethics and morality.

What is it ?

MIUAUG...or.. some values system which we can agree on.
Sadly, in a democratic society, the loudest voices and most generous pork barrellers tend to prevail.

The most simple and all encompassing baseline is "Love your neighbour as yourself". But sadly also, without any reference to the Almighty, who's grace and strength we all need in ORDER to live in that 'golden rule' mode, we are back to loud voices, and financial inducements to vote or act in a certain way.

UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS are as universal as those who agree with them.
So, if only 20% of the world agrees, then, the 80% will simply go it alone. There is no mandate whatsover for them to change, because those alleged 'rights' are not linked to a power who is above us all.

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. In conjunction with the above, there is the aspect of religious aggression against others. If a group believes it has a divine right/calling to invade and take over a country purely to install Gods rule, what interest will they have in 'Human Rights' apart from how they define them?

The census data can't tell you anything about ethics or value systems of the population because the only relevant question asked what religion respondents followed. Perhaps you can assume that respondents follow the teachings of their religion.

Boaz: "RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE"

Well I guess Boazy would know all about that, eh? IMHO, I think it's the activities of loopy evangelists, sanctimonious politicians, meddlesome clerics and lunatic terrorists that are driving the declining participation in organised religion that is evidenced in the latest ABS stats.

They say every cloud has a silver lining.

The religion of secular humanism (that man is a god) seems to be more prevalent than any other in this country. If people were honest enough to look at their own hearts they would see what a con this evolutionary based religion is. It is true that most people want nothing to do with personal commitment to Christ but on the other hand thousands upon thousands who are not commited to 'religion' want their children to receive religous values rather than the hopelessly flawed secular values or lack of taught in most State schools.

Good to hear Mr Rudd is now going to give an address to the Christian church regarding his policies. He obviously sees the need to uphold Christian values or is he just pretending?

"But I’ve always been struck by Guy Rundle’s argument in his Quarterly Essay a few years ago that Howard was holding back a dam of social liberalism"

I hadn't thought of it that way before but it makes a lot of sense coupled with your rearguard argument.

The accumulating results from the AES demonstrate that Australians generally have far more progressive views than the morality minders in the current government. One of Howard's ploys has been to accuse Labor of being held hostage by noisy minorities, but his government is surely in the same boat, just different minorities.

Interesting article Mark. Thank you.

Does anyone know how the ABS categorised the response "Jedi" in the 2001 data? They have clearly decided to bury it, but I bet the numbers are in there somewhere.

I like Mark’s article because it sheds some light on some apparent contradictions in the attitudes of our citizenry. This came to me when unexpectedly caught in the throng heading for a Hillsong event a few months ago. There were crowd control guards for blocks around the site. It was like a rock concert from my youth – but these young people were going to church! Impressive as such events are, as an uncommitted but interested observer of popular religion (especially TV evangelists); I am struck by the apparent superficiality of the current wave of enthusiastic evangelical religion. I wonder just how deep it goes.

Perhaps the enthusiasm of the throng surging towards these new and groovy churches, which often feature very traditional or fundamentalist doctrines, is more about belonging and affirmation than it is about belief. I reckon it goes like this: “The world might be headed for some environmental/work choices/union boss/ peak oil/Muslim hordes/terrorist-inspired Armageddon, but I’m part of something and I’m saved – just don’t ask me what I believe”.

Do people really need religion to hold a moral line as BOAZ suggests? It sounds good but I can’t see much evidence that it’s worked thus far in human history.

Runner similarly misrepresents secular humanism. It’s not a religion and does not, as suggested, make man a god. It’s about people taking responsibility for their actions as adults. It is nothing like the type of “rule book” religion you apparently endorse in which people take no responsibility for their decisions and act properly only because they might get into trouble from God if they don’t (in other words “wait till your father gets home”). I think I’d prefer my public schools to teach the secular human bit. We’ll leave the rest for the Julie Bishop fan club.

DamienJ

You claim secular humanism isnot a religion and then go on to say that its about people taking responsibility for their actions. Thats a bit rich when humanism leads to a dead conscience. Humanisn leads to men behaving like animals and having no feelings of remorse. We saw that in Germany when humanist doctors and psychciatrists practiced euthenasia on the most vulenrable before Hitler made it public policy. This is very similar to how the humanist have happily allowed thousands of unborn babies to be murdered without conscience.

I am yet to meet a secular humanist who takes responsibiliy for their own actions. They want to blame Government, their parents or their environment for their bad behaviour.History clearly shows that man has little goodness. Man's heart has a bias towards evil and like it or not humanist are no exception. Thank God for Jesus who is able to change a person's heart as man can not

Runner. Yes Dear!

DamienJ, I reckon you've hit the nail on the head. “The world might be headed for some environmental/work choices/union boss/ peak oil/Muslim hordes/terrorist-inspired Armageddon, but I’m part of something and I’m saved – just don’t ask me what I believe”.

So many "believers" don't know what they believe - they just can't think for themselves, and want to be part of a club.

But it's not just confined to the "groovy churches", as you put it. Rather, I'd suggest that the supermarket Catholics are a good example of what you've described. I have encountered so many "Catholics" who would identify themselves as such in a census, and involve themselves in other club activities like inflicting religious rituals on tiny babies, but who do not adhere to even just the big ticket tenets of their "faith".

And the same goes for members of other mainstream religions.

As much as I have a huge problem with the way Pell conducted himself when wading into the debate about the recent conscience vote on stem cell research, I have to admit he's got a point. If you don't actually believe large chunks of the club's teachings, and if you don't want to adhere to their rules, you should opt out. (I reckon if people were honest with themselves in this regard, we'd see some very interesting figures in the next census...)

But that's cool, as long as they don't try to inflict their "beliefs" on me. Which brings me to the whackos who argue that secular humanism is a religion. Pay no heed - they're just trying to drag you down to their level. They can't seem to grasp the idea of simply not following a religion at all - of opting out altogether, instead of just picking a different club from the next bloke.

Hey Damian J.. firstly welcome. I've not seen your posts b4, maybe they are on different threads.

Speaking as an evangelical conservative myself, I can emphathise with your 'stand back and observe' approach. At least you did express 'interest'. My prayer is that your basic interest will not be like a candle blown out by the big wind of televangelists trying to wind you and other viewers up just b4 they hit you with the plea for support dollars.

A lot of contemporary Christianity is VERY superficial and shallows, and is comparable to a social club with a bit of a spiritual flavor.

A reminder of our Lords call to discipleship would shake some of them in their boots. "If any man would follow me, let him satisfy himself and take his ROLEX and come with me down to the Mall" Wait..there is something wrong with that :) aah..got it.. "let him deny himself and take up his CROSS and come after me" now that is the reality, the other vesion seems to be trotted out by many high profile TVangelicals.

Don't let the superficiality of some, become a barrier for yourself finding Christ as Lord of your own life.

Must have something to do with congregations understanding what clerics don't - even though it is mentioned in the bible on a number of occasions - no worship - just a life well lived.

When you've learnt the lesson - "The Golden Rule" - treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated, there is no need to keep going to school. The only reason religion is so much in the news these days is because George Bush - quickly followed by his 'cousins' Howard and Blair, hoisted the 'Christian' flag to summon support for an illegal war. Dog-whistle politics requires so little from politicians as explanation for their decisions.

One day - real justice will prevail - but not whilst the West is lead by such a shower of self-interested bigots. The biggest laugh of all is Christians going to war. Obviously none of them really understood what Christ's life was all about - but they do know there is a potentially large constituency of support if they can summon it without having to get too deep about being *Christian*.

Damien,

I know what you mean about the Hillsong/evangelical phenomenon.

To me it's like a big AMWAY convention, but instead of selling soap, they try to sell hope.

This type of motivational influence depends on the presence of a massed crowd to make the individual feel more insignificant while also being in the presence of great power. If they sat in total silence it would not work as well.

Hi Rache - completely agree with your comment:

"If they sat in total silence it would not work as well."

Ironically, this is where someone is most likely to find 'God'/peace.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments from DamienJ, Rache: BC2 I wholeheartedly concur re: the "if you don't like the rules, why stay part of the club?' argument... as far as I can see, any rational Catholic can feel entitled to throw out the bathwater that constitutes the shemozzle that is modern Catholicism, without fearing much in the way of baby collateral.

Rache, I have though of the AMWAY argument myself as it pertains to the new breed of happy clappies, as exemplified by Hillsong.
Alas, he who claim to be suspicious of its lack of depth (BOAZ) appears unable to resist the attempt to proselytise at every bloody opporunity he gets, however irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

BOAZ do you ever consider the convenience of the fact that this incredibly annoying, self-righteous, holier-than-thou inbuilt proselytism, so integral to your faith (and Islam), also happens to maximise the chances of whatever cult that one happens to belong to, garnering the greatest membership, power, wealth and influence possible? Sounds more like a well-constructed marketing plan than genuine belief to me, and is remarkably consistent between faiths.

As for runner, your ignorance never ceases to astound me. You have not the faintest idea of the contribution secular humanism has made to dragging the world from the mire of religious dogma and ignorance (nor how to spell, apparently) - go play with the other kids in the sandpit while the big people talk

Hi Sticky :)

You said: (Proselytism)

"also happens to maximise the chances of whatever cult that one happens to belong to, garnering the greatest membership, power, wealth and influence possible"

Hmmm... *ouch*.... I have no idea how you derived THAT from my post.
Specially the 'wealth and power' bits. I give WARNings in my post "about" that very thing, am constantly rebuking such attitudes within Churches.. yet.... you still manage to think that inviting people to Christ is about 'wealth and power'.

In my post I specifically mentioned Jesus 'cost of discipleship' saying to COUNTER that thing, but ... u can still find it :)
You should be a prospector mate.. nothing will dim your spirits or enthusiasm "But.. I'll check that next river or creek..and THEN I'll find gold..because I KNOW it's there"

Bear in mind, its not about 'me' or any particular denomination ok....
I invite people to the simple truth of a relationship with God, through Christ. I don't care WHERE they express that relationship.
(in denominational terms)
Further..if you accept the invitation, and then 'UNaccept it, no one will hunt you down and kill you' (like Islam will) So, please cease drawing similarities between Christianity and Islam.

Sticky.. if you get riled by my calls to faith.. 'change the chanel' .... or ignore my posts. It's not hard.

blessings 2 u anyway.

G'day BOAZmeister (since we are getting all familiar ;)

I must admit, of the monotheistic faiths, I DO find Islam the most worrisome due to its current inability to coexist with other faiths peacefully (though clearly that trait has existed from time to time in mainstream Christianity too, I am sure you will grant me). The comparison I drew was in terms of the inbuilt proselytism of both, nothing more, nothing less.

As for you, my objection is purely with your insistence on managing to turn EVERY freakin' thread into an opportunity for proselytism, in the same way that poor, deluded runner manages to turn his every post into an anti-evolution rant - NO-ONE WANTS TO HEAR IT!

The original article was about whether or not there is currently a trend back toward religion or if the apparent resurgence (as exemplified by Tony Abbott et al) is actually counter-trend. So why don't you try to stick to topic? And please don't try to post-justify what you wrote as relevant, cos it wasn't.

If I want to hear how to find the love of the good lord Jesus, I'll be sure to give you a call, OK?