|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK census results are published
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
The Office for National Statistics has published the (headline) results of the 2011 census. They have a video on youtube detailing some headline info on religious affiliation.
The number identifying as Christian is down from 72% to 59% since 2001, with the number claiming "no religious affiliation" increasing from 15% to 25% over the same period
Quite why it matters is an interesting debate, as there clearly aren't 59% of the country filling the churches each Sunday. But this year there was a big campaign slogan "If you're not religious, for God's sake say so" to encourage people to say they weren't religious if they thought they weren't. So I think it's more of a political thing to chip away at the establishment, bishops in House of Lords etc.
Will it make any difference there? What other interesting points are there?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm not sure of the value of a simple "religion" question in a census. So much depends on precisely how the question is asked. Does it, for example, ask about indentification, adherence, belonging, practice, or what? Also, what matters in your life as a result of your answer? In the case of a census, nothing - but ask the samne question of, say, parents who are wanting to get their children into a church school, and watch those percentages climb!
I've worked at the same hospital now for 9 years. Our rule is, only the patient has the right to say what their religion or worldview is. Nine years ago, the number identifying as Christian was in the lower-eighties per cent. Last month, it was ... wait for it ... in the lower-eighties per cent. Make of that what you will.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
If the results of the census influence public policy - which, of course, they must, otherwise the exercise was a complete waste of time - and given that we live in a democracy based on the triumph of majority opinion, i.e. 50.1%+, then our society has no other choice but to accept that this is 'officially' a Christian nation (based on people's 'vote' in the census, with levels of religious commitment being irrelevant). The fact that there has been a demographic shift towards non-religion should be noted of course, but, as I say, in a democracy this should not undermine the stated position of the majority.
The British Humanist Association may claim some great victory, supported by their 'insight' into the real attitudes and motives of a great many of the 'Christian' 59%. But this is completely irrelevant. In a democracy we should listen to both majority and minority opinion, but certainly the views of the majority must be upheld and this majority is established on what people say about themselves - nothing more. In a ballot someone may vote for a particular party, but we don't question the legitimacy of their vote, because we suspect that that person isn't really committed to that party (and may perhaps have just voted tactically). Now, of course, a census is not a ballot, but it performs a similar function, in that the statistics affect public policy.
So for the humanists to start making great claims about what the role of religion (specifically Christianity) ought to be in our democratic public life, is rather ridiculous given how democracy is supposed to work. Therefore, since Christians (as officially stated) are still in the majority in this country, then no change in public policy (such as for faith schools) is required. Or are we to change the definition of the concept of 'majority' to suit the humanists?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
Our authority (Blaenau Gwent) is the only one in Wales where fewer than 50% self-identify as Christian. Since there is little ethnic mix here, it is easy enough to draw conclusions both true and false, and it is a reminder to the Church at large that this is missionary territory.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems to be a very nominal Christian identity that is being referred to in the census. I have never experienced this country as a Christian one; but then I grew up in a tough area of M/c, where there were hardly any religious people at all.
Now that I have migrated to posh middle class areas, it still strikes me as a kind of minority pursuit; and there is no point in bigging it up, is there?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
@EtymologicalEvangelical:
There's all manner of flaws in your argument.
Firstly, it assumes there is a coherent "Christian" view on any given subject. The huge debates within churches, amongst Christians on DH subjects surely give the lie to that. Or to take your example, I'm a Christian, but would generally be opposed to state funding for faith schools (or if it must happen, then there should be state funding for all state schools of all faiths).
Secondly, it assumes that all those who ticked or wrote "Christian" on the census form would agree with that view. Again, for the reasons given above, I'd highly doubt that's the case.
Thirdly, as mentioned upthread, it leaves undefined what is meant by Christian (or even religious). A practising Christian? Someone baptised as a baby but who's never been to church since? Someone who ticked "Christian" because we live in a Christian country and so they must be?
Fourthly, to say that democracy works by "triumph of majority opinion" is simplistic at best and probably not right, at least in the case of the UK. When was the last time we had a government that had been voted in by the majority of the electorate (I'm not including coalitions that are formed after the election if they didn't stand as a coalition during the election)?
We're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Put simply, we elect MPs, representatives, and then they're (formally speaking) left to get on with making the decisions on our behalf. And if there's a clash between party loyalty and loyalty to the wishes of the electorate, then it's up to them entirely which way they go (though I'd imagine the pull of the whip would lead them in one particular direction).
We don't make decisions on the basis of what the majority says - that would be a recipe for all sorts of unfairness and injustices. You can't run a country like that.
And what would happen if, in 10 years' time, Christians were shown to be in a minority? Presumably you'd be equally happy for "Christian" policies to be dropped as the majority no longer supports them - as your logic here would suggest?
(Oh, and fifthly, my understanding of the purpose of the census was that it's not so much to influence public policy as the provision of public services - though I may well be wrong on that.)
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
(Oh, and fifthly, my understanding of the purpose of the census was that it's not so much to influence public policy as the provision of public services - though I may well be wrong on that.)
I don't think it's possible to separate policy from public services.
Taking the issue of public transport provision as an example, there's no automatic progression from census data (or some other collection of relevant data) revealing a transport pattern to a new tram line or railway station being built. It only happens when that information is used to justify a policy to serve that need, something which may or may not happen depending on other factors influencing the formation of policy.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I don't think it's possible to separate policy from public services.
No, you're right, and I kinda thought that after I'd pressed "post". I meant it more in relation to the census and how the data is (or should be used), in that it it's primarily about allocating resources etc. based on the data collected. And though it must be used in the formation of policies (otherwise how do they make sure policies have some relation to people's needs*), I saw EE's post about "Christian" policies as slightly different - one particular group campaigning for its views to be acted on on the basis of census data. Which happens, of course, and is part and parcel of political life, but doesn't seem to me to be the point of the Census.
But as you say, they're very closely related, as this post is amply demonstrating! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
*Cynicism turned off momentarily
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If the results of the census influence public policy - which, of course, they must, otherwise the exercise was a complete waste of time - and given that we live in a democracy based on the triumph of majority opinion, i.e. 50.1%+, then our society has no other choice but to accept that this is 'officially' a Christian nation (based on people's 'vote' in the census, with levels of religious commitment being irrelevant).
Nonsense. A census isn't a vote for anything.
Anyway, our country is an officially Christian nation already, and a Protestant one too, by acts of Parliament. Whether or not that's a good idea is a different question.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Nonsense. A census isn't a vote for anything.
Which is what I was trying to say in my final point in my first post here. Except ken did it well and coherently and stuff...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
Statistics can be interpreted in lots of different ways. The BBC chose to report these results as a fall in the number of Christians. They can also be used to argue that people who see themselves as Christians are very much in the majority.
They do show that those who see themselves as Christians significantly outnumber those who see themselves as non-religious. When the BHA tries to ignore this fact by saying only about 6 million go to church regularly, they never follow up with their total membership of less than 28,000. I do get hacked off by the BHA saying, on the one hand that they want to be guided by an evidence based, empirical approach to life and then try to make out that Christianity is a minority interest compared to secular humanism. If they were honest they should say "the majority see themselves as Christians, and active churchgoers significantly outnumber signed up secular humanists". Because that's what the statistics indicate.
On a different tack, are there any other significant statistics on identity which could claim 59% or more of the UK population? White/British certainly would be greater, but you don't have much choice on that. Are there any markers of identity that we can choose for ourselves that score higher than 59%? With politics, if a political party gets around 45% of those who turn out to vote they consider it a major victory. Why should the BBC report so pessimistically on 59% identifying themselves as Christian?
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie
There's all manner of flaws in your argument.
...based on a misreading of what I wrote. I made it abundantly clear that a census is not a ballot.
Admittedly my comment was a response to something I read on the British Humanist Association website concerning the census, and I guess I should have made that clearer.
In the light of this, I was making a general point about the nature of our society. Let me look at your arguments:
quote:
Firstly, it assumes there is a coherent "Christian" view on any given subject.
That seems to be the way the British Humanist Association and other advocates of non-religion or anti-religion see it, in the context of the direction of our society. The way they talk about religion, it is as if they are describing something homogeneous that is saying 'something' about reality that has serious (or, for them, dire) social consequences.
Here is a quote from the BHA website:
quote:
‘Religious practice, identity, belonging and belief are all in decline in this country, and non-religious identities are on the rise. It is time that public policy caught up with this mass turning away from religious identities and stopped privileging religious bodies with ever increasing numbers of state-funded religious schools and other faith-based initiatives. They are decreasingly relevant to British life and identity and governments should catch up and accept that fact.’
Then you say...
quote:
Secondly, it assumes that all those who ticked or wrote "Christian" on the census form would agree with that view. Again, for the reasons given above, I'd highly doubt that's the case.
Nevertheless, their act of identifying with Christianity does say something general about their affirmation of 'religion', which, as I have mentioned, seems to mean something to groups like the BHA, who think that this influences public policy.
quote:
Thirdly, as mentioned upthread, it leaves undefined what is meant by Christian (or even religious). A practising Christian? Someone baptised as a baby but who's never been to church since? Someone who ticked "Christian" because we live in a Christian country and so they must be?
I addressed this very point in my post. The point of an official census is that it has influence on policy in some way or other, otherwise the whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money. That is why I loosely compared it to the electoral process, which is also an exercise in garnering people's views with the aim of governing society in a particular way. If you or Ken cannot see the parallel, then I assume you think the census was merely a frivolous information gathering exercise?
Of course, most of the information on the census does not depend on changeable personal views, but the religion question certainly does fall into this category. And given that the government chose to ask this question, and the asking of any question on a census costs money and time, then presumably it is designed to have some kind of influence on the way society is run. If that really is not the case, then the census may be useful for pub quiz purposes but not much else.
So to answer your third point, this is I wrote by using the ballot analogy:
quote:
In a ballot someone may vote for a particular party, but we don't question the legitimacy of their vote, because we suspect that that person isn't really committed to that party (and may perhaps have just voted tactically). Now, of course, a census is not a ballot, but it performs a similar function, in that the statistics affect public policy.
The question of level of commitment is irrelevant in this kind of public exercise. We don't ask for this kind of information in an election, when people state their political preference, and so why should this idea be considered in a question concerning personal convictions in a census? If a political party wins an election, we don't ask: "Ah, but most of those who for voted for this party were not committed members." Why is it, therefore, that we accept a system whereby power is invested in an organisation (and ideology) voted for by people, most of whom may not be particularly committed to it? And many would vote for a party for purely communitarian or cultural reasons.
I reiterate that a census is not a vote, but the information that people choose to share influences the way our society is run, otherwise what is the point of the exercise? For that reason, my analogy is sound.
quote:
Fourthly, to say that democracy works by "triumph of majority opinion" is simplistic at best and probably not right, at least in the case of the UK. When was the last time we had a government that had been voted in by the majority of the electorate (I'm not including coalitions that are formed after the election if they didn't stand as a coalition during the election)?
Did you not bother to read what I wrote? I qualified my statement with:
quote:
In a democracy we should listen to both majority and minority opinion, but certainly the views of the majority must be upheld and this majority is established on what people say about themselves...
I will concede that perhaps the word "triumph" was not the best word to use, but certainly democracy works on the basis of the concept of "majority win". You are disputing this fact by citing the example of a particular voting system, in which a party wins power that has not been chosen by a majority of the electorate. But whatever the system, the party with the most of whatever the definitive unit is, wins. Or perhaps the use of the word 'majority' is not the best. Let me use the simple word 'most' then. Democracy works on the basis of the views of "the most" within the system in operation, whether 'most' refers to votes or seats. This is the basic point I was making about democracy. We talk about winning and losing in a democracy. On what basis? Obviously on the basis of numbers.
In the census, the particular religious view that most people have identified with is Christianity. It is totally patronising to start saying to such people: "Ah, but you are not really Christians, or you don't really think that, do you?" We don't treat people like this when it concerns politics in an election, so why act like this when it concerns a census? But that is exactly how the BHA is carrying on. It's pathetic.
To sum up: we live in a democracy in which "the highest number" holds sway (while seeking to respect minority positions); the census was conducted for a reason, and was not a frivolous exercise; the religion question was the one which offered people the opportunity to express a personal opinion, and therefore a respondent could not be found to have given a 'wrong' answer; therefore since the census influences policy in some way or other, it follows logically that the religion question must be designed to have some kind of influence on government thinking; thus the election analogy has validity; and finally Christianity is the religious position chosen by the largest number of people. Therefore, nothing has actually changed from the previous census in terms of whatever the government ought to think about Christianity in our society - and any policies that flow from that (such as the funding of faith schools, for example). This is in stark contrast to the spin of the BHA - see the quote above from their website.
quote:
Originally posted by ken
Nonsense. A census isn't a vote for anything.
See explanation above. Next time try to take someone's words in context instead of indulging in selective quoting.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
Statistics can be interpreted in lots of different ways. The BBC chose to report these results as a fall in the number of Christians. They can also be used to argue that people who see themselves as Christians are very much in the majority.
But this is the problem! I don't give two hoots whether Christians are a majority or a minority - the fact that we've lost 4,000,000 sheep in 10 years is of concern. Jesus was concerned about a single lost sheep from a flock of 100.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The point of an official census is that it has influence on policy in some way or other, otherwise the whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money.
Says who? Who defines the some way or other? Can you really see no other options?
Most importantly, can you come up with a single practical policy you believe should be promoted based purely on the these results from the religion section of the census?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The point of an official census is that it has influence on policy in some way or other, otherwise the whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money.
Says who? Who defines the some way or other? Can you really see no other options?
Most importantly, can you come up with a single practical policy you believe should be promoted based purely on the these results from the religion section of the census?
The disestablishment of the Church of England?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
Statistics can be interpreted in lots of different ways. The BBC chose to report these results as a fall in the number of Christians. They can also be used to argue that people who see themselves as Christians are very much in the majority.
But this is the problem! I don't give two hoots whether Christians are a majority or a minority - the fact that we've lost 4,000,000 sheep in 10 years is of concern. Jesus was concerned about a single lost sheep from a flock of 100.
I agree with you, I'm more interested in the quality of faith in peoples lives, not the number of people with nominal faith.
But I do get tired of the constant repetition, whether in the media or by lobbying groups such as the BHA, that Christianity is a minority concern, that churches are empty and that Christianity should therefore be marginalised within the UK. Because churchgoing is the largest participation activity in the UK, and the number of nominal Christians (at least in the 2011 Census) is significantly larger than any other nominal group. Anyone basing their arguments on the belief that Christianity and churchgoing are the pre-occupation of a tiny minority is starting from a false premise. By all means argue that Christians are wrong, that they are prejudiced, that they don't know what they are talking about, but don't start by arguing that they aren't significant in society - and certainly don't cite the 2011 Census to make that point.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby
Most importantly, can you come up with a single practical policy you believe should be promoted based purely on the these results from the religion section of the census?
Ah I see. You are deviously asking me to defend a position I never advocated. Nowhere did I even suggest that a policy would have to be based purely on the results of the religion question. I used the word 'influence' which does not equate to the kind of exclusive conditionality of your question.
If the results of the census do not influence anything that the government does, then presumably this exercise was a grotesque waste of time and money. As a tax payer I wouldn't mind a refund.
By the way... I did actually give a practical example (one that the BHA and NSS tend to get stewed up about).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The point of an official census is that it has influence on policy in some way or other, otherwise the whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money.
Says who?
Says Andrew Copson, Chief Exec of the British Humanist Association, for one. His interpretation of these Census results are as follows:
"It is time that public policy caught up with this mass turning away from religious identities and stopped privileging religious bodies with ever increasing numbers of state-funded religious schools and other faith-based initiatives. They are decreasingly relevant to British life and identity and governments should catch up and accept that fact."
I don't think he's noticed that 75% of the population has some sort of religious identity, and an argument based on weight of numbers (which he is trying to make) can't escape that fact.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby
Most importantly, can you come up with a single practical policy you believe should be promoted based purely on the these results from the religion section of the census?
Ah I see. You are deviously asking me to defend a position I never advocated. Nowhere did I even suggest that a policy would have to be based purely on the results of the religion question. I used the word 'influence' which does not equate to the kind of exclusive conditionality of your question.
If this question is to influence anything, it must provide some relevant information that would otherwise be lacking. What information is that, and how is it relevant?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Interesting that Knowsley has the highest proportion claiming to be Christian. I bet it's got one of the lowest proportions of church attenders.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby
If this question is to influence anything, it must provide some relevant information that would otherwise be lacking. What information is that, and how is it relevant?
Well, without this question the government would not know the religious make up of the country. That is rather obvious, don't you think?
And it is relevant, because religious ideas and values are part of our multi-cultural society. Therefore it is not unreasonable for the government to have some idea as to the make up of society, so that it can make informed decisions in any areas which happen to involve religion. (You can find a list of some of these areas of policy on the BHA website here)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
It's interesting to see what the data tells us about attitudes to spirituality. Whilst only 47% of 18-34 yr olds claim to have any religious affiliation, 67% say they occasionally or regularly pray.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
To sum up: we live in a democracy in which "the highest number" holds sway (while seeking to respect minority positions); the census was conducted for a reason, and was not a frivolous exercise; the religion question was the one which offered people the opportunity to express a personal opinion, and therefore a respondent could not be found to have given a 'wrong' answer; therefore since the census influences policy in some way or other, it follows logically that the religion question must be designed to have some kind of influence on government thinking; thus the election analogy has validity; and finally Christianity is the religious position chosen by the largest number of people. Therefore, nothing has actually changed from the previous census in terms of whatever the government ought to think about Christianity in our society - and any policies that flow from that (such as the funding of faith schools, for example). This is in stark contrast to the spin of the BHA - see the quote above from their website.
Apologies if I did misread your first post. However, I'm not sure you got the gist of mine.
The point of my first three points (if you see what I mean) was that "Christian" can cover a whole range of opinions, practices and theologies from Pope through to "baptised as a child and never been to church since" and almost anywhere in between. I'm not trying to criticise anyone who holds any of those views - if pushed, I do have problems with "nominal Christianity" but that's not the point.
The point is, to say that the 59% of people who identified themselves on the census represent a homogenous view on anything, like the issue of faith schools that you cite, which can then be used to show that the government either should take up or should continue to follow a particular policy is unsustainable. There could be a wide range of views within that 59% on probably any issue you care to raise. There is no such thing as "a Christian view".
Furthermore, I don't think it's the job of Christians to seek to have this kind of influence. It's not our job to lobby government to make them do things our way, even if we could agree what that is. That, ISTM, is not what Jesus was on about when He called us salt and light. Without treading on the toes of the thread that's about this, our influence should be of a different kind to "you must do it our way".
And I don't care what the BHA say, I really don't. I don't want my faith and the way I practice it in private or in public to be defined by them. I don't agree with them about faith being a declining force (though I do agree with them to some extent that the state should be broadly secular in nature, bearing in mind that secular =/= atheist). But the paranoia about the BHA, National Secular Society and other similar groups among some Christians matches their paranoia about Christianity and religion in general - it doesn't seem healthy.
I don't know what the point of the religion question is: it might be simply so the government knows what they're dealing with. It might be to allow politicians to get a handle on how certain issues will go down (though I'm not sure about that). But to say a crude percentage expressed through the census results mean the government should follow a particular direction does seem simplistic to me.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
But this is the problem! I don't give two hoots whether Christians are a majority or a minority - the fact that we've lost 4,000,000 sheep in 10 years is of concern.
If in fact we have. In fact, I suspect the shift is partly due to a generational shift in attitudes which in part doesn't naturally associate Christianity with English-ness, coupled with the census being done at a time when the 'Christianity' in general had had a run of negative publicity and scandal.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, without this question the government would not know the religious make up of the country. That is rather obvious, don't you think?
And it is relevant, because religious ideas and values are part of our multi-cultural society. Therefore it is not unreasonable for the government to have some idea as to the make up of society, so that it can make informed decisions in any areas which happen to involve religion. (You can find a list of some of these areas of policy on the BHA website here)
No, try again. I asked for specific policies that you think should be influenced by this decision. You've explicitly acknowledged that this isn't a poll and doesn't tell us anything about how people would prefer the country to be run, you've tacitly accepted that this is a question that's going to be answered in all sorts of different ways by all sorts of different people, but you're still pushing this idea of a "Christian majority" that should be determining how the country's governed.
I want specific details for the same reason that I think you're refusing to give them - because we both know that as soon as you commit to any specific policy or approach, your "Christian majority" will crumble into dust as lots of Christians (whether practicing, lapsed or census variety) tell you loudly and firmly that they don't want anything of the sort.
I may be wrong - you may have some genuine, sensible proposals that follow from the census results. But until and unless you put the dogwhistle down and start describing them, your contributions on this thread are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Great Gumby
No, try again. I asked for specific policies that you think should be influenced by this decision.
Again, you are twisting my words. I never said anything about "specific policies that should be influenced by this decision". Please could you go back over my posts and find any comment I made that supports this assertion.
I don't see why I should feel under any obligation to defend a point I never made. Your response to me is disingenuous, to say the least. You seem to have an understanding of the word 'influence' that demands a direct causal relationship between two specific factors. In the real world, 'influence' is far more diffuse, and, in this instance, may concern the way we view morality and its justification.
As a society, should we give credence to principles that are generally considered to be part of traditional Christian morality, or should we pursue what is often called "secular morality"? How the country formally identifies itself will inevitably speak into this.
quote:
You've explicitly acknowledged that this isn't a poll and doesn't tell us anything about how people would prefer the country to be run, you've tacitly accepted that this is a question that's going to be answered in all sorts of different ways by all sorts of different people, but you're still pushing this idea of a "Christian majority" that should be determining how the country's governed.
Clearly the concept of 'analogy' is difficult for you to grasp. Don't blame me for your own intellectual shortcomings. If you want to believe that the information in the census is of no use, then presumably you agree that the whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money? If not, then I assume you also agree with me that the government intends to use this information to guide their thinking in some way or other?
As for my pushing the idea of a "Christian majority", well, it's funny but I always thought that 59% was a majority. Perhaps your understanding of mathematics is a little different from mine. Do feel free to enlighten me.
quote:
...your contributions on this thread are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Well, at least I can comfort myself with the thought that I can actually count, and that I have some nodding grasp of the meaning of the word 'influence'.
But, hey, if you want to claim victory, then go ahead. It doesn't alter something known as "the facts".
[ 12. December 2012, 09:08: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've worked at the same hospital now for 9 years. Our rule is, only the patient has the right to say what their religion or worldview is. Nine years ago, the number identifying as Christian was in the lower-eighties per cent. Last month, it was ... wait for it ... in the lower-eighties per cent. Make of that what you will.
I've been in legal practice now for over 45 years, with a very large proportion of it in litigation. When I started, somewhere around 90% of those giving evidence would have taken a Christian religious oath; about 5% Jewish and only 5% a secular oath. The proportions have not changed much since except that there are now a few taking a Moslem oath. The choice of oath is, of course, entirely a matter for the witness.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for my pushing the idea of a "Christian majority", well, it's funny but I always thought that 59% was a majority. Perhaps your understanding of mathematics is a little different from mine. Do feel free to enlighten me.
Perhaps you could tell us what version of 'traditional Christian morality' you believe that 59% are in support of?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
But hang on... you yourself mentioned a specific policy in your first post, when you gave the example of faith schools. Is it so unreasonable to infer from this that you had more than just "influence" in mind? If you didn't why mention a specific policy then?
And how does "influence" work out if not through specific policies anyway?
quote:
As for my pushing the idea of a "Christian majority", well, it's funny but I always thought that 59% was a majority. Perhaps your understanding of mathematics is a little different from mine. Do feel free to enlighten me.
But the point that's been made here is that that 59% you quote is probably meaningless in signifying anything like the "Christian majority" you claim it for, even in terms of the broadest possible influence on, say, the role of Christianity in the public sphere: I'd hazard a guess that it covers a full range of opinions from those who would push for Christianity to have a great influence to Christians who would argue for complete secularisation. So I really don't think it carries the influence you claim it should.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And no sensible government would use the 59% figure as a baseline for deciding what the population would like politically, since, as stated already, it does not compute like that. Perhaps some of those 59% want faith schools and oppose abortion; but then again, perhaps some of them don't want faith schools, and support abortion. It's an empty statistic in terms of political consequences.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As a society, should we give credence to principles that are generally considered to be part of traditional Christian morality...
Such as?
When most people hear "traditional Christian morality" being trotted out in discussions of what should influence national policy, the inevitable mental link is to the various Dead Horses. Are they the sort of things you're talking about?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sorry, EE, I've read your post several times and cannot see what you wrote as being misconstrued by ken or Stejie. It may not be what you meant, but it is a fair interpretation of the content.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've worked at the same hospital now for 9 years. Our rule is, only the patient has the right to say what their religion or worldview is. Nine years ago, the number identifying as Christian was in the lower-eighties per cent. Last month, it was ... wait for it ... in the lower-eighties per cent. Make of that what you will.
Means mostly only Christians get sick? Might be something in there re God's displeasure.....
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie
But the point that's been made here is that that 59% you quote is probably meaningless in signifying anything like the "Christian majority" you claim it for, even in terms of the broadest possible influence on, say, the role of Christianity in the public sphere: I'd hazard a guess that it covers a full range of opinions from those who would push for Christianity to have a great influence to Christians who would argue for complete secularisation. So I really don't think it carries the influence you claim it should.
But exactly the same argument can be used with regard to those who claim 'no religion'. Only 13,832 people explicitly identified themselves as 'humanists'. I am not sure of the figure for 'atheists'. So it cannot be assumed that the UK is made up of 25% atheists. It is quite possible that a great many of those who claimed to have 'no religion' may have been thinking in terms of conformity to a particular religious institution, but it says nothing about personal beliefs. So for the humanists to start claiming some great victory for atheism / humanism / secularism on the basis of these figures is quite ludicrous.
Either we accept the figures at face value or we do not. If we do not, then, firstly, we have to be consistent in the way we analyse the figures and secondly, we have to accept that the information is effectively redundant, unless it is 'clarified' by a whole host of other less comprehensive surveys (usually carried out by organisations with some agenda).
Suppose 59% of respondents claimed 'no religion'. You can be sure that the BHA and other such bodies (such as the NSS) would be celebrating the emergence of a majority atheist nation, and any Christian who suggested that 'no religion' does not equate to committed atheism would be brushed aside. Of course, I am speculating, but with good reason. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate to that scenario from the way the current statistics are being interpreted.
Honesty demands consistency of interpretation. On the basis of the census - which is the only official and comprehensive survey on which we can base our views - very few people identify themselves as atheists and humanists (if they do then why not explicitly say so - they had the opportunity!), about a quarter do not identify with any religion, which can mean anything and nothing and well over a half identify with Christianity in some way or other ranging from nodding cultural respect to deep commitment. And then, of course, there are those who identify with other religions.
This is the official picture of the religious make up of the country. Inevitably these statistics will be taken into account by politicians as they engage with various policy issues. I am not suggesting that the support for faith schools is based entirely on the mere fact of a nominal Christian majority, but the identification of most people with religion (a huge percentage if all religions are included - 75%) provides a context in which the existence of faith schools makes sense within this country. To abolish faith schools on the basis that a mere quarter of the population do not personally identify with any religion (which does not necessarily imply antagonism to religion) seems to me to be a travesty of democracy. But this seems to be the arrogant and demographically ludicrous position that the BHA is promoting.
Now of course, I realise that some of the 75% religious people may not agree with faith schools, but it is also probable that some of the 25% non-religious do agree with their existence. These statistics only give a crude picture. It is the best we can do in an imperfect world, in which we do not possess complete information about people's views. To suggest that sociological realities (including trends) have no bearing at all on policy decisions - which is what certain contributors to this thread seem to be suggesting - is quite baffling. Why bother with a census at all?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
A lot of CofE faith schools round here are 40% Muslim.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
@EE:
First of all, I don't care what the BHA or NSS says. I don't see our mission as Christians as being a battle against those two societies for influence in the country; neither do I think it's our mission to somehow protect the UK as a "Christian country" (I mean that in the cultural sense, rather than the legal sense that ken referred to). If that's what this is all about then I'm not interested.
Secondly, you say:
quote:
I am not suggesting that the support for faith schools is based entirely on the mere fact of a nominal Christian majority, but the identification of most people with religion (a huge percentage if all religions are included - 75%) provides a context in which the existence of faith schools makes sense within this country.
But I don't see that - I really don't. You simply cannot read off a percentage figure from the census and say that percentage gives credence to a particular action (or inaction) by the government. Unless the existence of faith schools is an intrinsic part of the faith(s) of those 75%, or the 59% who identify as Christians, you simply can't make the link that you're trying to make here. (The same goes for any aspect of "traditional Christianity morality", whatever that rather vague phrase may be). All of that 59% may be opposed to faith schools, or only in favour of faith schools for their faith.
I doubt very much that's the case - but it does nothing to show that the existence of faith schools "makes sense" in this country. The existence of faith schools may simply be down to government ministers who think they're a good idea, or powerful lobbying by religious leaders who want them to promote their own faith - and similar caveats would apply to any aspect of "traditional Christian morality".
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
This is from the official Office for National Statistics website.
Why we have a census
quote:
The census provides information on housing and population that government needs to develop policies, and to plan and run public services such as health and education.
Isn't that what I have been saying?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Yes and of course I don't disagree. But that's a long way from the argument you've been making here that the 59% of people who ticked "Christian" provides a context in which a particular policy can be followed or continue to be followed. It's a fairly useless statistic for applying to specific policies (which, again, was at least implicit in your first post). You need to know a lot more than "59% ticked Christian on the form" to get that sort of information.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie
Yes and of course I don't disagree. But that's a long way from the argument you've been making here that the 59% of people who ticked "Christian" provides a context in which a particular policy can be followed or continue to be followed. It's a fairly useless statistic for applying to specific policies (which, again, was at least implicit in your first post). You need to know a lot more than "59% ticked Christian on the form" to get that sort of information.
Well, clearly the government thinks otherwise.
The phrase "The census provides information on housing and population that government needs to develop policies" seems to me to suggest that all the information contained in the census will be needed by the government to achieve the stated end. And, as far as I remember, no supplementary census was circulated to glean the extra information that you feel is required.
I am simply drawing out the logical implications of this purpose for the census. Perhaps my 'mistake' has been to take the agenda of the government too seriously and to speculate as to how the religion stats will be used. Presumably you can explain why the government's stated aim for the census shouldn't be taken seriously?
Presumably you have some inside knowledge about the real purpose of the census that eludes most of the rest of us?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've worked at the same hospital now for 9 years. Our rule is, only the patient has the right to say what their religion or worldview is. Nine years ago, the number identifying as Christian was in the lower-eighties per cent. Last month, it was ... wait for it ... in the lower-eighties per cent. Make of that what you will.
Means mostly only Christians get sick? Might be something in there re God's displeasure.....
On a slow day we've been known to play the game of "who's God smiting this week?"
Actually, there is a factor here. Insofar as religion is linked to culture, ethnicity and lifestyle, you do sometimes find certain religions over- or under-represented in certain classes of disease.
There's probably a very dull research paper in there somewhere...
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
@EE:
What I mean is this: if the government said "because 59% of the country declared themselves 'Christian' on the census, we're going to do x, stop doing y, and carry on doing z no matter what the BHA say", they have a very weak basis for those decisions. It tells you nothing about any kind of context for those policies, apart from Britain is a "Christian country" in a very loose and almost meaningless sense of the word. It says nothing about whether there would be majority in favour of those policies or not (and actually, in terms of our democratic system in the UK, it wouldn't need to - as long as Parliament passed it, it would be legally legitimate).
Now I don't know the ins and outs of how the government will use this data beyond the catch-all statement you've quoted from the website and I haven't the faintest how they'll use the religious data at all; they may do it in the way I've described above, if so, I think that's not a great use of that data. They may do research, they may just carry on doing what they were going to do anyway. I don't know - I suspect you don't either.
Oh, and please don't try and paint this as a Stejjie vs "us" issue - several people have been arguing with you on this thread, so it ain't just me. And there's still a number of points from those posts you haven't addressed yet.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The phrase "The census provides information on housing and population that government needs to develop policies" seems to me to suggest that all the information contained in the census will be needed by the government to achieve the stated end. And, as far as I remember, no supplementary census was circulated to glean the extra information that you feel is required.
Interestingly, the U.S. Census does not gather information on self-proclaimed religious affiliation. Might be one of those distinctions involved in having an officially mandated government religion in part of the U.K. If the government is in the "religion business", I can see why data on the subject would be of interest to the state.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[Interestingly, the U.S. Census does not gather information on self-proclaimed religious affiliation. Might be one of those distinctions involved in having an officially mandated government religion in part of the U.K. If the government is in the "religion business", I can see why data on the subject would be of interest to the state.
No, its new. We never used to do it. I suspect it was nothing more a CYA move by the Blair administration to support their airy-fairy policies on "faith communities".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
So this is probably the last census where the majority of the population considers itself christian!
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
Statistics can be interpreted in lots of different ways. The BBC chose to report these results as a fall in the number of Christians.
...whereas the Grauniad chose to report the catastrophic decline in the number Jedi Knights...
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
[tangent]"Fictional good guys"? I thought Darth Vader was a jedi?[/tangent]
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Our authority (Blaenau Gwent) is the only one in Wales where fewer than 50% self-identify as Christian. Since there is little ethnic mix here, it is easy enough to draw conclusions both true and false, and it is a reminder to the Church at large that this is missionary territory.
Seems to me that any mission to increase belief in God and a resurrected Jesus Christ is on very slippery ground indeed, because no evidence can be produced for the reality of these claims. They can only call on the thoughts and writings of people, and for none of this is there objective evidence.
For any other product or non-god idea, independent evidence can be produced which can be checked, and then believed or not as the 'buyer' chooses. And in this country there are not many who are unaware of how to do this.
[ 14. December 2012, 08:14: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Stejjie
Applause and 'hear, hear' to your post ending with:
quote:
Oh, and fifthly, my understanding of the purpose of the census was that it's not so much to influence public policy as the provision of public services - though I may well be wrong on that.)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
So this is probably the last census where the majority of the population considers itself christian!
It's impossible to say. The religion question has only been asked twice, and is an optional question anyway. So at the moment, all we have is two rather dubious points on a graph from which to work. And as any good scientist will tell you, you can't deduce anything from two points on a graph. (What that says about those scientists who have been deducing things from the data, I'll leave up to you to decide.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Celtic Knotweed
Shipmate
# 13008
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
So this is probably the last census where the majority of the population considers itself christian!
It's impossible to say. The religion question has only been asked twice, and is an optional question anyway.
Personally, I've opted not to complete it either time, as I fail to see what business it is of the government if/what/who I believe in. Unable to check the site from work as lunch is about to end, but does the ONS website include the data of what % actually responded? Or are they assuming an even distribution of the 'none of your business' people across all other categories?
--------------------
My little sister is riding 100k round London at night to raise money for cancer research donations here if you feel so inclined.
Posts: 664 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
So this is probably the last census where the majority of the population considers itself christian!
It's impossible to say. The religion question has only been asked twice, and is an optional question anyway. So at the moment, all we have is two rather dubious points on a graph from which to work. And as any good scientist will tell you, you can't deduce anything from two points on a graph. (What that says about those scientists who have been deducing things from the data, I'll leave up to you to decide.)
Well, it is impossible to say that this is CERTAINLY the last census where the majority of the population considers itself christian, but it is not impossible to say it is PROBABLY. In fact, that looks plain obvious.
It´s not only about the census, but the general trend of decline is supported by churches own data. And you ignore the fact that those who consider themselves christian are, in average, much older then the general population is. Of course we might pretend that the absence of youth in the church will have no demographic impact on christianity but that would be just plain stupid. I´ve been hearing churches and denominations to blame polls methods for years.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
