Census 2011 - Religion

[Elvis]

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.

Out of interest Lyndhurst, How do the yanks deal with the religion question?

 

[beorhthelm]

1. You can have a religion without practising one - so they are asking people to do the same (albeit vice-versa) of what they claim to be fighting against. That whole website is basically humanists proselytising - trying to encourage people who may have a fleeting religious observance to declare that they have none - which is ticking their box.

well we obvisously differ, but i dont think you can have religion without practicing it somewhat, even if tiny amount. really, i dont see how that site is going to convince anyone who holds some believe in God and the possibility of the afterlife to change their minds and say "no religion". its asking those that dont even have a fleeting interest to not default to a learnt cultral default. the underlying purpose is to advocate that religion should be opt in, rather than opt out.

Strange way of looking at it.

im not necessarily against faith schools, or selection, just pointing out the objection. but there is a point, because it seems unfair to non-religious special interest groups that dont have a similar ability. and, while there are many that have open doors, lets not ignore that many faith schools do operate a strong selection policy, with only the blessing of the local church/synagogue/mosque granting acceptance. its fundementally unfair that this is permitted for this group but a school that wants to select on say, ability, cant usually do so with state funding.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Out of interest Lyndhurst, How do the yanks deal with the religion question?

They don't include anything on religion only stuff about your ethnic background

 

[Albion Rob]

im not necessarily against faith schools, or selection, just pointing out the objection. but there is a point, because it seems unfair to non-religious special interest groups that dont have a similar ability. and, while there are many that have open doors, lets not ignore that many faith schools do operate a strong selection policy, with only the blessing of the local church/synagogue/mosque granting acceptance. its fundementally unfair that this is permitted for this group but a school that wants to select on say, ability, cant usually do so with state funding.

I think quite a few Jewish schools have fallen foul of the Admissions Code. Some of the entry criteria included whether or not a family had a TV in their home and whether either parent had converted to Judaism later in life.

In terms of special interest groups setting up schools and deciding who they invite to fill them, isn't that what the Government is pretty much allowing to happen? Frightening educational times - with Toby Young as the poster boy!

 

[Arthur]

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.

A4 booklet is 32 pages! 14 questions on the household then 43 questions per person up to 6 people.

If the government doesn't know 95% of the questions it's asking me then I'm worried! I guaranty credit reference agencies would know most of it.

 

[Albion Rob]

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.

Interesting point but where does it stop? If you're brough up i9n an ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative household then you will more than likely follow that path - and such perspectives definitely shape your life and are pretty much as central to who you are (in my opinion) as your faith, if any.

Maybe we could extend it to football teams too - my daughter may have a pretty strong case against me in future years if she has to endure half of what I've had to endure folllowing the Albion!

 

[DTES]

Interesting point but where does it stop?

At school - which is the point. You wouldn't send your child to a school which exclusively taught either ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative views as fact, so why would you send your child to a school that teaches a religion (any religion) as fact?

 

[Jimmy's gonna get ya!]

Sorry to lower the tone of this rather interesting theological debate, but hyperthetically....

Could "Albion" become a religion if enough of us put it down

 

[Gully]

Interesting point but where does it stop? If you're brough up i9n an ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative household then you will more than likely follow that path - and such perspectives definitely shape your life and are pretty much as central to who you are (in my opinion) as your faith, if any.

Fair point, but speaking personally, I was brought up by very conservative parents, when it comes to behaviour and attitudes. I am sure that I don't have the same political affiliations as my parents and I certainly don't have their religious convictions. So I guess you are right that their perspectives defined my life, but in the fact that I reject (but respect) their views and am now an almost complete opposite.

 

[DTES]

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

Put simply: because it is not a valid scientific theory. It is based upon an ancient book, and is contradicted by all evidence - evidence which is available to anyone wiling to open their mind and actually look & learn.

As I say, teaching creationism as a belief in RE lessons is fine - but to teach it as fact, in science lessons, when it has been absolutely proven false is the problem.

 

[DIRK STEELE]

At school - which is the point. You wouldn't send your child to a school which exclusively taught either ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative views as fact, so why would you send your child to a school that teaches a religion (any religion) as fact?

Mr Dawkins... He equates the religious teaching of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins considers the labels "Muslim child" or a "Catholic child" equally misapplied as the descriptions "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", as he wonders how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it.

Although I would accept the school that teaches all the religions (but then I am a theology graduate...) but never in a science lesson!

 

[Gully]

Although I would accept the school that teaches all the religions (but then I am a theology graduate...)

So would I, as long as it were from the viewpoint that all are of equal merit, as is the view that there is no God. When it comes to creationism, that should definitely belong in RE and not science as it is a religious theory, scientific evidence suggests it did not happen.

 

[Solid at the back]

Havent you got anything better to do?

 

[beorhthelm]

what i find appalling about the effects of religion on schooling is that it is given its own subject at all. its fine to teach about religion, but it should be as part of a broader Philosophy subject. i think education would be alot more productive if we all learn some of the basic ideas and critical thinking that follow through to other subjects.

 

[Albion Rob]

At school - which is the point. You wouldn't send your child to a school which exclusively taught either ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative views as fact, so why would you send your child to a school that teaches a religion (any religion) as fact?

I think that if they exist (existed), plenty would.

I'll come back to Toby Young and also that school in west London which has become known as "the bankers' school". Hard to imagine they'll be preaching the benefits of redistributing wealth to those who have not had equal chances in life. Yet they're already looking at massive oversubscription as parents in the catchment areas scramble for places. Incidentally, I think they have excluded a primary school in a poorer district despite being closer than a chosen 'feeder school' in a richer area.

On creationsim, of course evolution should be taught in science and creationism should be taught in RE. Evolution in scientific theory and creationism is religious theory. Really can't see why that has to be such a hot topic - both are just theories after all, not like any of us was there to see it all happen!

 

[adrian29uk]

What a waste of time and money. What are we going to get by filling this in? Absolutely naff all. I really cant be bothered with more form filling to be honest. i just looked at the questions and put the thing back in the envelope until I am the right frame of mind.

 

[jimhigham]

I shall be entering "No Religion" and would have done so regardless of whether or not there was a campaign to this effect. This is simply because it is a perfectly accurate representation of the religious views of everybody in this household.

Accurate statistics in this regard are useful to government. For example, there was a fairly large drive toward faith schools on the part of the last government and this has been unchecked by the coalition. To "attack" religion is seen as a potential vote loser. Were a government to find that a considerable proportion of the nation did not subscribe to any religion then it might give them pause for thought. In short: it matters.

On a purely personal level, I would like to see all schools to be secular and have no affiliation to any religion. Religious Education should still exist within the curriculum and all major faiths should be taught within it. There is no sense in denying the existence of religion and people need to comprehend it in order to better understand the world about us. Children are ultimately likely to opt into the religion of their parents (if they choose a faith at all) but I would contend it is better for everybody if they have at least conducted some form of comparative analysis. We also hear much of "social cohesion" and the like. I don't see how separating children out at an early age and reinforcing their differences serves to bring us together.

And don't even start me on unelected bishops sitting in the House of Lords and having a say in the laws of the land. I know that's our constitution. I just wish that it wasn't. That said, I should be careful what I wish for. Weirdly, the US constitution declares a "separation between church and state" and yet religion has intruded into political life in a big way, policy makers being in thrall to the three Gs: God, Guns & Gays.

 

[jimhigham]

I think that if they exist (existed), plenty would.

I'll come back to Toby Young and also that school in west London which has become known as "the bankers' school". Hard to imagine they'll be preaching the benefits of redistributing wealth to those who have not had equal chances in life. Yet they're already looking at massive oversubscription as parents in the catchment areas scramble for places. Incidentally, I think they have excluded a primary school in a poorer district despite being closer than a chosen 'feeder school' in a richer area.

On creationsim, of course evolution should be taught in science and creationism should be taught in RE. Evolution in scientific theory and creationism is religious theory. Really can't see why that has to be such a hot topic - both are just theories after all, not like any of us was there to see it all happen!

Having just chucked in my fairly long and rambling piece, I could have simply said "this".

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It was a reference to a Monty Python line.

You quote Monty Python. I quote Catch 22.

 

[NMH]

I'd put "I lost my religion when I saw this census".