Non religious, Atheist, New Atheist, Humanist, Mammon worshipper, Buddhist

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Humanists tell Non religious what they ought to put on the Census.

https://humanism.org.uk/2021/03/18/how-census-results-are-used-to-justify-discrimination-against-the-non-religious/

How is this not a complaint of persecution?

[Aruntraveller]

I think the clue is in the wording used.

It's a complaint about perceived discrimination.

[Gordon]

Can't see that highlighting that people with no religious affiliation should ensure that they specifically indicate this when answering the census questions should ever be an issue: after all, surely a census is intended to provide an accurate overview of the issues regarding which data is being collected, and especially so where the data analysis is used to make policy decisions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can't see that highlighting that people with no religious affiliation should ensure that they specifically indicate this when answering the census questions should ever be an issue: after all, surely a census is intended to provide an accurate overview of the issues regarding which data is being collected, and especially so where the data analysis is used to make policy decisions.

My understanding is that Humanist UK has not been satisfied with the census arrangements but all the suggested changes from them actually favoured an atheist agenda e.g. mapping belief and the decline in it rather than affiliation. Cerebral rather than social practicality.

[Gordon]

My understanding is that Humanist UK has not been satisfied with the census arrangements but all the suggested changes from them actually favoured an atheist agenda e.g. mapping belief and the decline in it rather than affiliation. Cerebral rather than social practicality.

In what way is seeking accuracy in this census an 'atheist agenda': would you not not agree that, as far as possible, no subset or group should be over or under represented in the analysis of data?

Would you not also agree  that, given the role that religious affiliation has had in cultural and social policy terms, it would be important to track any evidence of changes in religious affiliation compared to the previous census, which is surely one aim of conducting a census are regular intervals - and to do that it is important that respondents are encouraged to select the response that best fits their (in this case) religious affiliation, or absence of one.

[ProfessorDavey]

Humanists tell Non religious what they ought to put on the Census.

https://humanism.org.uk/2021/03/18/how-census-results-are-used-to-justify-discrimination-against-the-non-religious/

How is this not a complaint of persecution?

Nope - this is merely a response to a question widely accepted to be leading and biased, which implies a non-equivalence between having a religious belief and not having one.

The census question is: 'What is your religion?' - which is non-neutral with the inherent implication that people have a religion.

Other surveys ask a neutral preliminary question with a yes/no answer, such as 'Do you have a religious belief?', followed by a subsidiary question if you answer 'yes' in which you indicate what that belief is.

When the question is asked in a neutral manner there tends to be a reduction in those appearing to be religious of nigh on 10% compared to the use of the non-neutral census question.

The main justification from the ONS for the current census question is that it is short enough to fit within the space limits of the questionnaire, which seems doubly bizarre given that we are strongly encouraged to complete the census on-line where there are no such space constraints.

All HumanismUK is doing is to suggest that people who aren't religious say so, and not think they should respond to 'What is your religion?' by ticking the box of a religion they might have been brought up in by long since rejected.

What is the problem with trying to get accurate results in the census ... unless of course you are trying to preserve religious privilege on the basis of an over-inflated assessment of religiosity in the UK.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way is seeking accuracy in this census an 'atheist agenda': would you not not agree that, as far as possible, no subset or group should be over or under represented in the analysis of data?

Would you not also agree  that, given the role that religious affiliation has had in cultural and social policy terms, it would be important to track any evidence of changes in religious affiliation compared to the previous census, which is surely one aim of conducting a census are regular intervals - and to do that it is important that respondents are encouraged to select the response that best fits their (in this case) religious affiliation, or absence of one.

Prior to running the religion question in the census the ONS take suggestions from the humanists among others. The humanists have complained that the religious question is always a leading one, intimating substitution or deletion, recently they have suggested substitution by questions relating to beliefs rather than practical affiliation. The ONS have pointed out to the Humanists that beliefs do not impact directly on practical matters. The aim of those moving for change among the atheists as I understanding were motivated to flag up beliefs or the lack of them and the consequential marginalisation of religion in terms of social, representional and intellectual provision. A campaigning atheist stunt par excellence.

I would move that a totally non religious society is now the unabashed aim of the Humanist even if that means getting questions preferrential to atheism.

On the other hand the idea that Humanists or non religious are in Gross terms social discriminated against seems a bit far fetched.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I would move that a totally non religious society is now the unabashed aim of the Humanist even if that means getting questions preferrential to atheism.

Asking whether you have a religious belief at all before asking which religious affiliation you have wouldn't be "getting questions preferrential to atheism". 

Incidentally, if you actually did want to include a question preferential to atheism you'd just have to ask, "Can you think of any good reason to think that god(s) exists?". That way the census would record that the UK is 100% atheist.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Asking whether you have a religious belief at all before asking which religious affiliation you have wouldn't be "getting questions preferrential to atheism". 

Incidentally, if you actually did want to include a question preferential to atheism you'd just have to ask, "Can you think of any good reason to think that god(s) exists?". That way the census would record that the UK is 100% atheist.

The Humanist campaign sought to replace religious affiliation with belief. The ONS saw an important distinction. The Humanists wanted to use beliefs instead of affiliation to seek to affect practical and social consideration. The Humanists were trying to conflate the cerebral or philosophical with the practical. What they did and do like though was having huge, broad and vague labels for people and groups of people. Their campaign looks as leading as anything here, by trying to get people to eliminate any scintilla of religion from their profile.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you actually did want to include a question preferential to atheism you'd just have to ask, "Can you think of any good reason to think that god(s) exists?". That way the census would record that the UK is 100% atheist.

It might help if you were able to distinguish ''good reason'' from Philosophical empiricism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The Humanist campaign sought to replace religious affiliation with belief. The ONS saw an important distinction. The Humanists wanted to use beliefs instead of affiliation to seek to affect practical and social consideration. The Humanists were trying to conflate the cerebral or philosophical with the practical. What they did and do like though was having huge, broad and vague labels for people and groups of people. Their campaign looks as leading as anything here, by trying to get people to eliminate any scintilla of religion from their profile.

Paranoid nonsense. All they’re actually doing is encouraging people with no religion “to tick ‘No religion’ or ‘None’ on the Census”.

First, that would provide more accurate census results.

Second, it would limit the ability of those who would otherwise use inaccurate results to justify various religiously-inspired policies in the public domain.

What’s wrong with that?

[Gordon]

Perhaps 'belief' would be a better question then: after all someone could have a religious belief but not feel affiliated with any specific religion - make 'No' the first option (so that non-believers can quickly move on) and then given a series of options for those those who have a belief to categorise it (inc.'none of the above').

In the link in the OP it was noted that a couple of members in the HoL were arguing that the UK was a majority 'Christian' society based on the last census whereas other surveys show a decline in religious affiliation. Surely it is better to have accurate information regarding the extent and detail of religiosity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Paranoid nonsense. All they’re actually doing is encouraging people with no religion “to tick ‘No religion’ or ‘None’ on the Census”.

No, First of all ''religion'' is too broad a term to be making policy on unless you were a theocracy or atheocracy.

First, that would provide more accurate census results.

Vaguer terminology cannot possibly lead to more accurate census results.
Secondly, people using church infrastructure eg weddings, funerals, schools etc. have an affillation with religion.

Second, it would limit the ability of those who would otherwise use inaccurate results to justify various religiously-inspired policies in the public domain.
What’s wrong with that?

It's just the same Paranoid nonsense you decry in your opening for starters and secondly, what the fuck does it actually mean? Are you able to link the census with this mythical burgeoning theocratic threat you are imagining?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps 'belief' would be a better question then: after all someone could have a religious belief but not feel affiliated with any specific religion - make 'No' the first option (so that non-believers can quickly move on) and then given a series of options for those those who have a belief to categorise it (inc.'none of the above').

In the link in the OP it was noted that a couple of members in the HoL were arguing that the UK was a majority 'Christian' society based on the last census whereas other surveys show a decline in religious affiliation. Surely it is better to have accurate information regarding the extent and detail of religiosity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084

Perhaps they meant that the country was majority Christian affiliated if they were going by the Census.

You've rather answered your question that if it went by belief you would only register philosophy, opinion and emotions  which are less reliable in policy terms than affiliation.

You kind of open yourself to what I call the Ippy syndrome where you are forever looking for over 50% non belief so you can declare a Faragian landslide and finish with religion.

Asking people to go the whole hog and declare themselves as absolutely Non religious looks forced, false, desperate and frankly a bit oppressive but mostly a ruse by what Dawkins would term clever and mischievious atheists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, First of all ''religion'' is too broad a term to be making policy on unless you were a theocracy or atheocracy.

You may think so but we know already that there are those who would say, “the census says we’re still a religious country, therefore…”. For the purpose of, say, justifying faith schools in general the choice of religion on the form wouldn’t matter.
 

Vaguer terminology cannot possibly lead to more accurate census results.

Of course it can. This may have changed now, but back in the day I remember the passport application form box “Religion” followed by a series of options beginning with “CofE”. Most people would tick that one (on the basis that they weren’t a muslim, that that was the story in their school Christmas play etc). I believe there’s now an option “None”, so contrary to your assertion of course this “vaguer” option can lead to more accurate census results.   

Secondly, people using church infrastructure eg weddings, funerals, schools etc. have an affillation with religion.

Yes, lots of people think their local church is a prettier place to get married than the municipal registry office for example. That tells you sweet FA though about whether they actually subscribe to the faith, which is what the census is supposed to find out.

It's just the same Paranoid nonsense you decry in your opening for starters and secondly, what the fuck does it actually mean? Are you able to link the census with this mythical burgeoning theocratic threat you are imagining?

Try reading the link you put in your OP for the answer to that.

[Gordon]

Perhaps they meant that the country was majority Christian affiliated if they were going by the Census.

Then perhaps the census should ask people to indicate whether they regularly attend Christian services, or access them via media, so as to determine just how many active Christians there actually are - and if they now are a minority then clearly their influence should reflect that.

You've rather answered your question that if it went by belief you would only register philosophy, opinion and emotions  which are less reliable in policy terms than affiliation.

I didn't suggest that philosophy, opinion or emotion were the equivalent of organised religion(s) - you're making stuff up again.

You kind of open yourself to what I call the Ippy syndrome where you are forever looking for over 50% non belief so you can declare a Faragian landslide and finish with religion.

I suspect very few Scotsmen would see themselves as 'Faragian' - is this the replacement for your previous use of 'Stalinist? If so, then it is just as silly.

Asking people to go the whole hog and declare themselves as absolutely Non religious looks forced, false, desperate and frankly a bit oppressive but mostly a ruse by what Dawkins would term clever and mischievious atheists.

Why? It is no more forced than asking people if they are actively involved in ballroom dancing. It sounds to me like you'd prefer not to have it confirmed that Christianity is on the decline should that finding then indicate that its influence on social policy should also, as a direct consequence, be reduced. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then perhaps the census should ask people to indicate whether they regularly attend Christian services, or access them via media, so as to determine just how many active Christians there actually are - and if they now are a minority then clearly their influence should reflect that.

I think it already does, however their structural and cultural influence is what the census sets out to find out, belief is mostly of academic interest.

I would love to debate what and how much influence minorities should 'reflect' with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect very few Scotsmen would see themselves as 'Faragian'

What's that got do with it?

It sounds to me like you'd prefer not to have it confirmed that Christianity is on the decline should that finding then indicate that its influence on social policy should also, as a direct consequence, be reduced.

That's because your bias allows you to entertain such daft notions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think it already does, however their structural and cultural influence is what the census sets out to find out, belief is mostly of academic interest.

No it isn’t. The census asks factual questions, not qualitative ones.

I would love to debate what and how much influence minorities should 'reflect' with you.

Like the Christian minority you mean? Why?

[Gordon]

I think it already does, however their structural and cultural influence is what the census sets out to find out, belief is mostly of academic interest.

What if their structural and cultural influence is disproportionate to the size of their self-confessed believers? I'd say that would be an issue to the rest of us, and especially so if the rest of us are in the majority - for example, I can't see that the Church of England should expect to exert much influence here in Scotland any more than the Church of Scotland should expect to exert influence outwith Scotland, and in both cases whether they have cohorts sufficient to justify seeking a significant degree of influence at all.
in

I would love to debate what and how much influence minorities should 'reflect' with you.

I think it should be proportionate to their cohort size and their use of legitimate avenues of exerting influence (such as by seeking election).

[Gordon]

What's that got do with it?

No idea: but then you used the term 'Faragian', and I'm just noted that here is Scotland Farage isn't of any influence.

That's because your bias allows you to entertain such daft notions.

Nothing daft about recognising that Christianity is no longer a major influence: since if it was then Sex Marriage would still be illegal - and it isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What if their structural and cultural influence is disproportionate to the size of their self-confessed believers? I'd say that would be an issue to the rest of us, and especially so if the rest of us are in the majority - for example, I can't see that the Church of England should expect to exert much influence here in Scotland any more than the Church of Scotland should expect to exert influence outwith Scotland, and in both cases whether they have cohorts sufficient to justify seeking a significant degree of influence at all.
in
I think it should be proportionate to their cohort size and their use of legitimate avenues of exerting influence (such as by seeking election).

Tell me Gordon. Do you see the church as some kind of political party or a culture waiting to replace or a culture that has hegemony?

[Gordon]

Tell me Gordon. Do you see the church as some kind of political party or a culture waiting to replace or a culture that has hegemony?

The CofE already has a default role in politics: I rest my case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The CofE already has a default role in politics: I rest my case.

You said that as if it is a bad thing. Obviously your atheism took you to heights of outrage mine never. Had I looked beyond the obvious fault of the HoL to how many C of E Lords were there I wouldn't begrudge them that paltry amount.

My position now should be well known by now, If your going to have an HoL then a slightly expanded Lords spiritual which encompasses world views seems reasonable.
Arise Lord Dawkins.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea: but then you used the term 'Faragian', and I'm just noted that here is Scotland Farage isn't of any influence.

Nothing daft about recognising that Christianity is no longer a major influence: since if it was then Sex Marriage would still be illegal - and it isn't.

Maybe but what's daft is your harbouring a weird wee fantasy that I have some kind of Block on that recognition.
If anything publicly professing atheists like yerself are grossly exaggerating the power and influence of the church.