Census 2011 - Religion

[ATFC Seagull]

Not meaning you personally ATFCS, but there seems to be a confusion between "practice" and "belief". I agree that if someone believes in a god (be it the the Christian one or any other) then they should tick the box of that religion whether or not they practice.

The point of the campaign (and my own personal opinion) is that if you don't even believe that a particular god exists, then you shouldn't tick Christian/Muslim/Sikh/whatever just because you were brought up in that culture.

There does indeed seem to be a confusion - not least because the census doesn't state which it means!!

However, the website does say:

If you do not believe in a Christian God, OR participate in any religious practices now (e.g. choosing to take part in religious worship) then it is unlikely that you fit into the Christian category.

That to me is trying to lead people who don't practice towards ticking "no religion", which just isn't necessarily true.

 

[Gully]

Parent's rights v Children's rights. A child heading of to school at day 1 clearly isn't able to make a reasoned decision as to what religion they believe in/want to belong to. IMHO, the parent's "right" to choose their religion comes far behind the child's right to an education that would allow them to decide themselves when they are able. You say "the kids don't mind too much" - at that age they wouldn't know any better.

The childrens rights are important in my opinion, at what point does being raised in a household adhering to a certain religious faith (or indeed one without any) cross the line into brainwashing, and therefore technically speaking a form of abuse. Surely it is far more important to be brought up with an understanding of all faiths and be able to make a decision which to believe in, if any, when mentally capable of such an important decision.

 

[DTES]

That to me is trying to lead people who don't practice towards ticking "no religion", which just isn't necessarily true.

Yes, I can see your point there entirely. However, given that the figures will be quoted as the number of "religious" people in the country, I can understand the point behind the campaign.

I do agree though that the census question should be much more clearly defined.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Yes, I can see your point there entirely. However, given that the figures will be quoted as the number of "religious" people in the country, I can understand the point behind the campaign.

I do agree though that the census question should be much more clearly defined.

Something that gauges belief, practice and cultural affinity to a religion all separately would probably do the job! But its meant to be a quick snapshot! To be honest, theres a massive flaw in any government making an assumption that (for example) because people are a religion they favour faith schools, or that because they aren't they don't. I know many exceptions to both sides there. Religion is way too personal a thing to get a statistic on, no matter how much you narrow it down.

 

[DTES]

Something that gauges belief, practice and cultural affinity to a religion all separately would probably do the job! But its meant to be a quick snapshot! To be honest, theres a massive flaw in any government making an assumption that (for example) because people are a religion they favour faith schools, or that because they aren't they don't. I know many exceptions to both sides there. Religion is way too personal a thing to get a statistic on, no matter how much you narrow it down.

Quite - agree very much with this post

 

[The Brighton Bear]

Says on the front you can get fined ? surely can't do this

Have ripped mine up and put in the bin. Will just deny ever getting it unless they start sending recorded

Ooooh! What a rebel.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Living where I do (and having brought up three children here), it would have been nice to have had something other than a Church of England primary school available locally. The nearest alternative was (and is) six miles away.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

i think the beef is that they manage to get two bites of the cherry, private funding from the church involved as well as state funding. with selection by religion considered, they are in effect state funded private schools. if you had say a football focused school, a music school, a capitalist school, you wouldn't get the state funding (or allowed to stray far from the prescribed teaching guidlines). why are religious schools given this advantage? Yes, they are usually very good, its a pity other special interest groups cant do the same.
.

Strange way of looking at it.

Voluntary aided schools are still largely state-funded, but the religion (or other group) picks up a massive wedge of the bill. Given that these are schools that would be necessary anyway (e.g. Cardinal Newman in Hove takes over 2000 kids from this area), the religious backers are basically helping out the taxpayer by contributing to the local education provision. You're wrong to say that they are selective - most faith schools are required to take students from other backgrounds. And even if they were, how wrong is it that (if there is a large enough demand in a particular area), a particular faith group are prepared to pick up a section of the bill (which isn't the case at normal state schools) for the running of a necessary provision, in return for a small say in the way the school is set up?

 

[oldham gull]

NB - I'm not advocating bringing up all children as atheists and telling them all religions are false - but giving them an education where they learn each religion equally in RE lessons - and only about science in science lessons. A recent doc. on C4 showed creationism being taught as a valid scientific theory in faith schools, which is nothing short of disgraceful.[/QUOTE]

Interesting point. In what way is teaching the theory of creationism any more 'disgraceful' than teaching the theory of evolution? Just wondering like!

 

[Cosmic Joker]

Creationism is not scientifically proven according to the scientific method, so it is wholly inappropriate to pass it off as valid scientific theory by teaching it in science classes. Evolution was proposed and demonstrated according to the scientific method and continues to be confirmed by scientific observation and research. It's fine however to teach Creationism in RE class as what it is: a religious viewpoint held by a minority subset of Christians, known as "Creationists", without any basis in rational scientific observation and analysis.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It's fine however to teach Creationism in RE class as what it is: a religious viewpoint held by a minority subset of Christians, known as "Creationists"

That seems to me to be a very perverse way of running an RE class ... teaching the beliefs of a "minority subset of Christians" who have such a narrow understanding of religion that they imagine it to be all about explaining how the universe came into being. The diversity of Christian traditions suggests that there's much more to Christianity than worrying about the answer to that particular question.

Add in the diversity of other faiths and you're getting close to making RE interesting - even to people who might describe themselves on a census form as having "no religion".

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

Lapsed atheist?

Ticks all the wrong boxes!

TNBA

TTF

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Lapsed atheist?

Ah, but ...

Who or what is the god that you didn't used to believe in?

A creator? A kind and loving redeemer? A vengeful and authoritarian judge of behaviour? A plastic idol who brought you good luck?

 

[Superphil]

I quite enjoyed this letter in the paper today

.

 

[clapham_gull]

I was accosted in Manchester once and was asked to take part in the testing of an exciting new fish based taste sensation for a major fast food chain.

I seem to recall the working title was the "Ocean Finger".

Anyway - after tasting the questioning went like this:



To start off did you find the special breadcrumb coating:

1) Very Crunchy
2) Crunchy
3) Slightly Crunchy
4 ) .. or not crunchy at all.

Thank you for your response, if we could now move onto the optional sachet of spicy tomato sauce. Did you find it:

1) Very Spicy
2) Spicy
3) Slightly Spicy
4 ) .. or not spicy at all.

Lastly (as an overall taste experience) did you find the Ocean Finger:

1) Very Tasty
2) Tasty
3) Slightly Tasty
4) .. or not tasty at all.



Surely this simple but effective four level system could be applied to religion on the census ?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I quite enjoyed this letter in the paper today

.View attachment 22141

It says ... if you're Armenian, we ain't interested in how you travel to work.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

Ah, but ...

Who or what is the god that you didn't used to believe in?

A creator? A kind and loving redeemer? A vengeful and authoritarian judge of behaviour? A plastic idol who brought you good luck?

It was a reference to a Monty Python line.

Still makes me chuckle....

The church religion is rubbish but the church music is brilliant.

TNBA

TTF

 

[Arthur]

really, i dont know why anyone doesnt want to fill it in, can only help if government know the demogrpahic makup of the population.

Have you seen how long it is?

Bollocks to that, rather pay a grand than wade through all that bollocks!

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Have you seen how long it is?

Bollocks to that, rather pay a grand than wade through all that bollocks!

That's what I liked about the United States census I filled in last year - 1 page with 10 questions, easy. I think they have a rule where they must declare how much time they estimate it will take to complete an official form so they would have to justify anything taking an excessive amount of time to complete.

 

[mistahclarke]

2011 Census help - Your legal responsibilities

Your legal responsibilities

You must be included on a 2011 Census questionnaire.

The legal requirement to complete a census return, for England and Wales, is set out in Section 8 (1) of the Census Act 1920 and in the Census (England and Wales) Order 2009, Census (England) Regulations 2010 and Census (Wales) Regulations 2010.



What happens if you refuse to complete a 2011 Census questionnaire?

Everyone living or staying in the UK on census night must be included on a census questionnaire. Refusing to do so may result in prosecution.

Householders are legally responsible for completing a census questionnaire and for including all appropriate household members and visitors.

What happens if you don’t complete a questionnaire:

1. If a questionnaire is not returned, reminders will be sent out to households, and census staff will visit and offer to help householders complete their questionnaire

2. If the householder continues to refuse, information will be forwarded to the census office. A letter will be sent, along with a replacement questionnaire, to enable householders to complete the questionnaire

3. If the householder continues to refuse, census officers will make a final visit. They will offer to help the householder complete the questionnaire

4. If the householder continues to refuse, the case will be referred to solicitors. Prosecutions will take place in magistrates’ courts. Successful prosecutions will result in a fine of up to £1,000 and a criminal record

Information from household members

It is illegal for a member of the household to refuse to provide the householder with the information necessary for completing the household questionnaire.

If a member of the household wants to keep their information private, they can request and complete an individual questionnaire. But they must still provide some basic information – such as their first name and last name – to include on the household questionnaire.

doesn't say anything about completely it TRUTHFULLY!

I just filled mine in, and thought the name and address of my employer is stretching the personal boundaries for me. For a census it should have been to tick a business sector.