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

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If anything publicly professing atheists like yerself are grossly exaggerating the power and influence of the church.

Collective acts of worship in schools mandated by law, holiday dates determined by religious edict, buildings with models of a blood sacrifice on many street corners, open door media access, automatic places in the legislature...

...sounds pretty influential to me.     

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

The census also shows religious affiliation declining rapidly too, just like other surveys with a more neutral question. The issue isn't the trend, but the absolute level. Asking the non-neutral census question adds about ten percentage points to the numbers of people who indicate they have a religious affiliation compared to a neutral question.

And why that is important is that the last census continued to suggest a majority christian population (59% in 2011, although massively down from 71% in 2001). I don't think a neutral survey (e.g. the British Social Attitudes survey) has come close to suggesting a christian majority for a long time, and typically shows a majority are non religious.

Surely it is better to have accurate information regarding the extent and detail of religiosity.

Absolutely - and you will only get accurate information if you ask the question in a neutral manner.

[Gordon]

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.

I'm a Scot, Vlad: as you know - would you care to explain why CofE clerics in the HoL can in any sense represent me (even if I was a Scottish theist). Or, perhaps, you could explain why the views of various clerics are regarded as being newsworthy when the views of the local chair of the local Scottish Country Dancing club (assuming there is one) seem to be less relevant for media coverage when moral and ethical issues are being discussed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm a Scot, Vlad: as you know - would you care to explain why CofE clerics in the HoL can in any sense represent me (even if I was a Scottish theist). Or, perhaps, you could explain why the views of various clerics are regarded as being newsworthy when the views of the local chair of the local Scottish Country Dancing club (assuming there is one) seem to be less relevant for media coverage when moral and ethical issues are being discussed.

Probably they can represent you in the same way that a hereditary scottish lord can represent me, Or a Tory banker, or Richard Dawkins if he ever takes the ermine.
I see no link between the local chair of the local Scottish dancing club and a Bishop.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Collective acts of worship in schools mandated by law, holiday dates determined by religious edict, buildings with models of a blood sacrifice on many street corners, open door media access, automatic places in the legislature...

...sounds pretty influential to me.   

Open door media access?........Tell on.

[Gordon]

Probably they can represent you in the same way that a hereditary scottish lord can represent me, Or a Tory banker, or Richard Dawkins if he ever takes the ermine.

In what way could a CofE cleric represent me: I'm not a member of that club and I don't wish to be associated with their ideas and core purpose (of proselytising religious superstitions).

I see no link between the local chair of the local Scottish dancing club and a Bishop.

When it comes to having any moral authority, neither do I: that was my point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way could a CofE cleric represent me:

I've already kind of answered that. The church isn't a ''club'' of the type you are talking about.

[Gordon]

I've already kind of answered that. The church isn't a ''club'' of the type you are talking about.

I am not part of their constituency so they cannot presume to represent me: I presume the CofE have members - yes?

[jeremyp]

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?

Telling people to be honest on their census form is complaining about persecution now is it?

Wow.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Telling people to be honest on their census form is complaining about persecution now is it?

Are you saying that people who only claim have some affiliation with a religion have been lying on the census?

As far as I can see the census questions obtain the information useful for planning and policy and those proposed by Humanist UK don't.

And I can see why because imho the humanist uk line of enquiry picks up merely what is intellectually and emotionally held rather than the practical connections people have with religion.

In other words when people say they are not religious that could cover up use of churches for baptisms, weddings and funerals, attendance at church events, use of church schools, use of church halls etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am not part of their constituency so they cannot presume to represent me: I presume the CofE have members - yes?

As far as I know Peers do not represent constituencies.

[Gordon]

As far as I know Peers do not represent constituencies.

You do know that 'constituency' has a meaning other than specified geographical areas for voting purposes?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are you saying that people who only claim have some affiliation with a religion have been lying on the census?

No, he’s saying that the way the census is structured biases toward false positives.

As far as I can see the census questions obtain the information useful for planning and policy and those proposed by Humanist UK don't.

Then you’re not seeing clearly. The Humanist UK proposal would precisely give information useful for planning because that planning would be less likely to be justified by false positives   

And I can see why because imho the humanist uk line of enquiry picks up merely what is intellectually and emotionally held rather than the practical connections people have with religion.

Gibberish. The Humanist UK “line of enquiry” is simply intended to enable the census to reflect more accurately the public’s religious beliefs (or lack of them).   

In other words when people say they are not religious that could cover up use of churches for baptisms, weddings and funerals, attendance at church events, use of church schools, use of church halls etc.

No it wouldn’t. If the census authors wanted to know about the use of church buildings for some reason they could ask that question. That’s not what they do though – they actually ask about religious beliefs, and their results shape policies. And the problem with that of course is that someone with no religious convictions at all but who’d rather get married in a pretty church than a grim registry office would find himself part of the constituency used to justify faith schools, bishops in the HoL, legally mandated acts of worship in state schools etc.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do know that 'constituency' has a meaning other than specified geographical areas for voting purposes?

And what do you mean by it? When someone is made a peer what constituency do they represent in your understanding?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, he’s saying that the way the census is structured biases toward false positives.

Then you’re not seeing clearly. The Humanist UK proposal would precisely give information useful for planning because that planning would be less likely to be justified by false positives   

Gibberish. The Humanist UK “line of enquiry” is simply intended to enable the census to reflect more accurately the public’s religious beliefs (or lack of them).   

No it wouldn’t. If the census authors wanted to know about the use of church buildings for some reason they could ask that question. That’s not what they do though – they actually ask about religious beliefs, and their results shape policies. And the problem with that of course is that someone with no religious convictions at all but who’d rather get married in a pretty church than a grim registry office would find himself part of the constituency used to justify faith schools, bishops in the HoL, legally mandated acts of worship in state schools etc.     

The Humanist proposals have been considered and found wanting for the reasons I have outlined. What I am getting from you is that there is some conspiracy going on. That is not the case.

It is obvious that to substitute belief as a focus would not be at all useful.

An all encompassing yet not entirely accurate term like Not religious though is extremely useful to the campaign aims of Humanist UK, powered in respect of the census as they are by R.Dawkins.

[Gordon]

And what do you mean by it? When someone is made a peer what constituency do they represent in your understanding?

Read back, Vlad: my use of 'constituency' (in #32)was in response to your point about the church and, given your response, you clearly weren't aware that 'constituency' was a term that can have a meaning other than voting areas (see #36).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Read back, Vlad: my use of 'constituency' (in #32)was in response to your point about the church and, given your response, you clearly weren't aware that 'constituency' was a term that can have a meaning other than voting areas (see #36).

I'm not asking why you used it. I want to know what you mean by it, if not some kind of political constituency.

[Outrider]

As far as I can see the census questions obtain the information useful for planning and policy and those proposed by Humanist UK don't.

As well-informed as you undoubtedly are, the opinion of well-established psephologists and professional bodies working in the area that the question on the census is not well-phrased and is likely to lead to an artificial inflation of the count of the religious is probably at least worthy of consideration.

And I can see why because imho the humanist uk line of enquiry picks up merely what is intellectually and emotionally held rather than the practical connections people have with religion.

Those 'practical connections' are a result of the continuation of religious influence through society in excess of its representation of actual believers - yes, that's exactly what's being targeted by Humanists UK.

In other words when people say they are not religious that could cover up use of churches for baptisms, weddings and funerals, attendance at church events, use of church schools, use of church halls etc.

Yes.  Why are they having to use religious establishments for these sort of events - because the state doesn't invest in secular equivalents because they keep issuing census questions that over-inflate the relevance of religion and then allow the religious establishments to monopolise those areas of life.  It's small-c conservative resistance to change, but the change is going to have to be accepted because it's happening regardless of whether it's being well measured or not.

O.

[Gordon]

I'm not asking why you used it. I want to know what you mean by it, if not some kind of political constituency.

Are you especially dense today, Vlad, since you seem to have missed that I've made it clear (more than once) that my use of 'constituency' had noting to do with elections and voting. So here's what to do: look up a definition of 'constituency' and see if there is a usage that doesn't apply to voting and elections, and then consider how the non-voting usage could be applied to the 'church'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As well-informed as you undoubtedly are, the opinion of well-established psephologists and professional bodies working in the area that the question on the census is not well-phrased and is likely to lead to an artificial inflation of the count of the religious is probably at least worthy of consideration.

I am aware that the inadequacies of this part of the census are known. I also understand that the suggestions from Humanist UK would have proven more inadequate for the purpose.

Those 'practical connections' are a result of the continuation of religious influence through society in excess of its representation of actual believers - yes, that's exactly what's being targeted by Humanists UK.

Yes the Humanists have a target which the ONS has decided is incompatible with it's own

Yes.  Why are they having to use religious establishments for these sort of events - because the state doesn't invest in secular equivalents because they keep issuing census questions that over-inflate the relevance of religion and then allow the religious establishments to monopolise those areas of life.  It's small-c conservative resistance to change, but the change is going to have to be accepted because it's happening regardless of whether it's being well measured or not.

I think your statement here exemplifies the difference in target between the Humanists UK and the ONS.
You are expressing a partisan view of how things should be not how things are. Secondly you seem to be completely discounting the fact that people might want their children Baptised. Might want their kids in church schools, might want a church wedding and a funeral.
 Thirdly is it psephologists who work on census or do they work on voting? If I was a census questionnaire creator. Your target would I imagine look like a gripe which I couldn't satisfy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you especially dense today, Vlad, since you seem to have missed that I've made it clear (more than once) that my use of 'constituency' had noting to do with elections and voting. So here's what to do: look up a definition of 'constituency' and see if there is a usage that doesn't apply to voting and elections, and then consider how the non-voting usage could be applied to the 'church'.

You are determined to get me to do your job aren't you.

[Gordon]

You are determined to get me to do your job aren't you.

Not really: I already know what the term means when used other than in elections and voting (as does BHS - see #37) - you clearly don't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The Humanist proposals have been considered and found wanting for the reasons I have outlined.

And that have been falsified. The “Humanist proposals” are intended to ensure that the census reports public attitudes more accurately than will be the case with a question biased toward false positives. Why are you opposed to a more accurate census? 

What I am getting from you is that there is some conspiracy going on. That is not the case.

Whether the bias in the question is conscious or unconscious doesn’t matter much – it’s still bias.

It is obvious that to substitute belief as a focus would not be at all useful.

The census already asks about beliefs. The problem is that it’s framed in a way that’s biased against reflecting accurately the views of people without religious beliefs.

An all encompassing yet not entirely accurate term like Not religious though is extremely useful to the campaign aims of Humanist UK, powered in respect of the census as they are by R.Dawkins.

Bizarre. “None” simply says that the respondent has no religious beliefs. It’s “useful” in the sense that any other answers are useful – they tell us something about current beliefs and attitudes and that helps frame public policies better to reflect those beliefs and attitudes.

Why are you opposed to that?

[ProfessorDavey]

The Humanist proposals have been considered and found wanting for the reasons I have outlined.

No they haven't - as far as I'm aware the only objection to the humanist suggestion for the census question is that there isn't enough space on the form.

Indeed the ONS seems to accept that their question is far from ideal - their justification is that it is the best they can think of that will fit into the space available (space which isn't sufficient to allow a neutral yes/no initial question, followed by a subsidiary question for those that answer yes to 'do you have a religious belief?').

So both accuracy and fairness are sacrificed on the altar of space on the form. In a way fair enough if we are trying to save the planet by wasting less trees on a paper form. But as far as I'm aware everyone is now encouraged to fill in the census on-line, with paper forms now only available on request. So the 2021 must be massively less impactful on the planet in terms of physical forms and surely that should permit a slightly longer but more accurate and less biased question to be asked.

[Owlswing]

No they haven't - as far as I'm aware the only objection to the humanist suggestion for the census question is that there isn't enough space on the form.

Indeed the ONS seems to accept that their question is far from ideal - their justification is that it is the best they can think of that will fit into the space available (space which isn't sufficient to allow a neutral yes/no initial question, followed by a subsidiary question for those that answer yes to 'do you have a religious belief?').

So both accuracy and fairness are sacrificed on the altar of space on the form. In a way fair enough if we are trying to save the planet by wasting fewer trees on paper form. But as far as I'm aware everyone is now encouraged to fill in the census on-line, with paper forms now only available on request. So the 2021 must be massively less impactful on the planet in terms of physical forms and surely that should permit a slightly longer but more accurate and less biased question to be asked.

Sorry, but I am a little baffled by the highlighted comment as I was under the impression, from the letter I have received and as noted by you, that the Census form was available on the internet - which would seem to have no limit in the size or the number of questions and answers.

Owlswing

)O(