Don’t tick the religion box unless you really mean it

Sceptic says:

06:48am | 09/08/11

...and they let him teach ‘ethics’ to children.

Tedd says:

07:12am | 09/08/11

There is a strong correlation between those that cannot comprehend science, particularly the relatively-new, integrated field of climate science, and those that envisage an as-yet-undetected entity that is purported to control the world. The god-botherers do not bother to engage rationally or deeply in science.

The scientists are less likely to envisage said entities, or engage in ad hominem digs.

gobsmack says:

07:45am | 09/08/11

@Erick
1.  So what’s your point?  Seems to me that reducing energy consumption isn’t such a bad thing whatever one’s views on AGW.  You seem to be comparing apples with eggs.
2.  Do you keep some sort of data base of every article on Punch?

Henry Lawson says:

07:55am | 09/08/11

Yep; thats him.  I am sure every Muslim will be ticking the box even the secular. And since the taxpayer doesnt fund the building of churches I can only wonder why he chucked that example in.

Erick says:

08:50am | 09/08/11

I thought the point of my comment was so obvious that it didn’t require explanation, but evidently not.

In one article, Mr Gomez urged his readers to act on the basis of his beliefs, even if the readers didn’t share those beliefs.

In the other article, Mr Gomez urged his readers not to act on the basis of their own beliefs, unless they were true believers.

This appears to be a sign of inconsistency.

Aaron says:

09:36am | 09/08/11

@Erick, I can see your point. It does seem a little inconsistent. This article had a very “doom and gloom” feel when I read it. It’s not like it’d be the end of the world. If

@Tedd, many “classic” scientists were also christian. Newton, for example. I’m not saying that means that science = religion, but I find it quite odd that you think christians are incapable of comprehending science (I’m a christian, and an aerospace student. I understand many sciencey concepts).

As to the comment on climate change. I personally think that we’re having an effect, not as much as is believed, but I will confess that I haven’t fully checked the evidence, the reason? Oil is a huge problem, and we should switch to more renewable sources so that families don’t become so poor as they try to pay for fuel as supplies run dry.

Rick says:

10:03am | 09/08/11

“In the other article, Mr Gomez urged his readers not to act on the basis of their own beliefs, unless they were true believers.”

Surely you wouldn’t be ticking that you had a religion unless you were a “true believer” in any case? I doubt think the author was inciting anyone to tick “No Religion” if they actually consider themselves as practicing in a particular religion.

Tchom says:

10:08am | 09/08/11

Right, so he’s written one article saying we should support reduced energy consumption and another saying you should fill out your census form accurately. I don’t think he’s out to get you guys…

gobsmack says:

10:16am | 09/08/11

@Erick
I don’t see any contradiction.
The heading of the earlier article (which I see now is easily found) states “Act on climate change, even if you don’t believe in it” but the content of the article is about the precautionary argument for acting on climate change.  So the heading probably should have been “Act on climate change, even if you’re not totally convinced it’s going to happen”.
To give an analogy, I might believe it highly unlikely that I will be burgled but because I have extremely valuable things, I nevertheless take out insurance against theft.  If newspoll asks me if I believe that crime is a problem in my area, I can answer “no” even though I’ve insured against the eventuality of being a victim of crime.  (Also, I might answer “no” because I know the survey result will be used to push through draconian law and order legislation).
I think where you are mistaken is that you characterise both of the above quotes as suggestions to take concrete action.  The first does.  The second involves only a suggestion to truthfully indicate what your beliefs are.

Frank says:

11:11am | 09/08/11

Census results are not political….the results are fact…it’s what the people do with the results after they are released which politicises the numbers…don’t make the assertion that a non-paritisan Government Agency is pushing a political agenda..none of them do..the Treasury does what it’s told and presents the facts…then the Liberals take those numbers and say hey wait they are saying that our policies are crap not because we don’t know economics (or trust economists) but because they have an agenda…grow up… and start listenining to the Experts who when the GST was being crafted would have been hailed as geniuses are now being denegrated as Labor stooges…

Tom says:

11:31am | 09/08/11

Many of the principles that underly the Australian ethic of “fair go” and “decency” are also expressed in the Christian teachings. Australia is a pretty good place and many people are escaping from war-torn s**t-holes to get here. Does anyone have a problem with Australia being a great place to be in the world at the moment?

Some people believe Australia is a great place because these ethics are born of a Christian culture, while others think that these ethics would survive if Christianity were to be wiped out. This is the crux of the argument.

Leah says:

12:25pm | 09/08/11

“The god-botherers do not bother to engage rationally or deeply in science.”

Wow, I guess that must account for all the “god botherers” with advanced science degrees and who work for significant scientific companies (not to mention those who have actually MADE significant scientific discoveries like Isaac Newton and Galileo).

Go ahead and criticise the “god botherers” if you like, but don’t make downright false claims like that which are easily disproven.

Hamish says:

12:23pm | 09/08/11

Very good point Erick. Why don’t we just add AGW alarmism to the religion box and allow Frank to express his own beliefs? I think that’s really what this article is about.

Also as the state doesn’t fund churches, I’m really not sure what he’s that upset about. Wasn’t everyone talking about how stupid all the racists were being for suggesting that a mosque would be built on their street corner because of all the muslims filling in the census? I guess Frank’s not racist though, it’s only ‘racist’ to bag religions which aren’t Christianity. 

I’m going to tick Protestant on the census just to annoy people like Frank. Atheists are the new God-botherers. I preferred the ones who actually believed in something.

Paul Murray says:

12:29pm | 09/08/11

“Many of the principles that underly the Australian ethic of “fair go” and “decency” are also expressed in the Christian teachings.”

And the heretic burnings? The witch hunts? The crusades? John Calvin’s Geneva? The homes for wayward women in Ireland? The church’s unflagging support for the institution of slavery right up until the moment when it became impossible to sustain?

If christians didn’t get those ideas from christian teachings, where *did* they get them from?

Kassandra says:

12:34pm | 09/08/11

Will there be a religion box to tick for those that believe in climate change?

Hamish says:

12:39pm | 09/08/11

Pop quiz Paul, of which religion were the people who abolished slavery? Seriously what’s the deal with Christian-haters?

Cly says:

01:06pm | 09/08/11

Leah, people who rely on Newton and Galileo as examples of religious scientists really make me laugh. It’s shows your vast ignorance. Next you’ll be quote mining Einstein.

Potato says:

01:06pm | 09/08/11

“...of which religion were the people who abolished slavery?”

Christians used the bible for hundreds of years to JUSTIFY slavery, and then argued to KEEP slavery…

Only once the rest of the world moved on did Christians come out and say ‘we helped abolish slavery…’ 

Actually, Christians do this a lot….

Stick to old fashioned and outdated ideas… 

How many examples do you want??...

Right the way back to arguing that ht worlds was flat and that the world was the centre of the universe
Christians argued to keep slavery, until the world moved on
Evolution or the age of the earth– some Christians still can’t accept the evidence
Christians argued that women should NOT get to vote (as it would lead to breakdown of family values – you see, up till then the idea was one house, one vote)

Right now many Christians are arguing against change that may be good for the world….

Objecting to ethics classes in schools (re: Fred Nile last week)
Objecting to use of contraception despite raging HIV epidemic in Africa
Objecting to stem cell research that may provide cures for cancer, dementia, spinal injuries, alzeimhers (spelling??)
Objecting to gay marriage
Objecting to pretty much any good cause in the world for some wacky religious reason or another…

Over time the world will move on, and the world will find a place for all these things

And Christians, after decades of lobbying against them will claim to have been supporters all along…

Just like they do now with slavery
Just like they do now with women voting
Just like they do now by claiming that evolution is consistent with their teachings
Just like 3 years from now when they say ethics classes where their idea….

LeftRightOut says:

01:07pm | 09/08/11

Hey, Gomez! I’ll tick whatever box I bloody well like… you just worry about your own form and leave people to make up their own minds.

Another lefty, with the same old lefty topics, trying to influence people in their fashionable direction… same goes with his AGW column, Erick is damn right, though stopped short of calling BS specifically. He was clearly too subtle for some here.

Rick says:

01:14pm | 09/08/11

@Hamish

You’d probably find if the Christians kept their Christianity out of our governments, schools, coffee shops, light entertainment programs, doorsteps, dinner time conversation etc etc, they’d receive less hate. Note that the religions with the most haters are the ones that are all up in our business… and not the ones who keep it in house.

yasha says:

01:19pm | 09/08/11

If I tick the no religion box, there is no further choice available - where does Frank get the idea that - “in which case they can choose between Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism and Rationalism” ? Or does he have a different census form than me?

Tom says:

01:25pm | 09/08/11

Paul Murray, ... “If christians didn’t get those ideas from christian teachings, where *did* they get them from?”

I had a look in the New Testament of the bible and could not find any of them. I guess they are not Christian teachings.

You should add that some priests are pedophiles [So are some politicians]. Some Christians commit adultery. They are not Christian teachings. Beats me where they came from.

... so how come Australia is such a good place?

Matthew says:

01:37pm | 09/08/11

“As to the comment on climate change. I personally think that we’re having an effect, not as much as is believed, but I will confess that I haven’t fully checked the evidence, the reason? Oil is a huge problem, and we should switch to more renewable sources so that families don’t become so poor as they try to pay for fuel as supplies run dry.”

I think that’s almost everyone’s point of view.  Even those hard for or against are still just arguing for the sake of arguing, not because there’s some concrete evidence that says otherwise.

That’s also why everyone is worried about the carbon tax.  At the end of the day most think it’s a very drastic action for something that’s probably not really a big problem and is going to be a big problem financially (despite what the government tells us…since after all, they’ve lied before).

And Erick is right, it’s a bit hypocritical.  But it’s mostly because Frank’s first article was ethical wrong.  Trying to push your views onto someone else for any reason is just plain rude.  Of course, today’s article could easily be “Don’t tick the No Religion box unless you really mean it”.

fml says:

03:01pm | 09/08/11

Hamish,

Zoroastrians (persians) were probably the first when Cyrus the great captured babylon and freed the jews.

Do i win a cookie?

Thomas Anderson says:

03:05pm | 09/08/11

But Christians are not good, they burned witches and rode their horses to the crusades. Yeah, it was hundreds of years ago, but that doesn’t matter.

I know they gather and sing about love and respect, but we all know that deep down, they just want to kill Muslims with swords.

My atheistic argument is the best because it’s original.

AdamC says:

03:27pm | 09/08/11

Potato:

“Only once the rest of the world moved on did Christians come out and say ‘we helped abolish slavery…”

That is completely wrong. Not only, as Hamish said, was the emancipation movement led by Christians, it was actively inspired by Christianity.

Hamish, I agree. There are a lot of people who style themselves as ‘atheists’ who just have a major chip on their shoulder about Christianity. That, and they expect everyone else to and think it is OK to use unnecessarily offensive language.

Rick:

“You’d probably find if the Christians kept their Christianity out of our governments, schools, coffee shops, light entertainment programs, doorsteps, dinner time conversation etc etc, they’d receive less hate. Note that the religions with the most haters are the ones that are all up in our business… and not the ones who keep it in house.”

I think you are seeing things that aren’t really there. And I’m not talking about God. And, just BTW, not proslytising to the gentiles hasn’t helped the Jews avoid the haters.

Tedd says:

04:12pm | 09/08/11

Aaron says: 09:36am

“@Tedd, many “classic” scientists were also christian. Newton, for example.”

Yes, many were. They had to be or they suffered the same fate as Bruno or Galileo .

Mind you, I should have said “The god-botherers today are less likely to bother to engage rationally or deeply in science.”

As far as Frank Gomez’s urging on climate action - he is not just advocating people follow his beliefs, he is urging them to follow formally-argued, reasoned scientific evidence and consensus.

The climate change deniers just complain about and around the debate - they do not engage in the meat of the debate.

Aaron says:

04:18pm | 09/08/11

Excuse me? What is it with you people arguing over slavery? Yes, many christians backed it. Many, who most likely were christians simply because it’s the organised religion. However, William Wilburforce (who I would argue is the single biggest contributor to the abolishon (sp?) of slavery in the British empire) was inspired by his readings of the bible to move to rid the world of slavery.

I am sorry for the crusades, and the witch hunts and other atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, but please understand that these were acts of people, people with a distorted view of the bible.

I think that Christians in general should keep their heads out of politics (as in political parties) and follow the teachings of the bible (which are actually good teachings). People tend to screw things up pretty good. The bible is no exception.

Timmy says:

05:24pm | 09/08/11

Problem with the idea of ticking “no religion” is the atheists have already told everyone that they want to use an increase in the “no religion” religion to increase the political influence of the “no religion” religion.

Rick says:

05:49pm | 09/08/11

“I am sorry for the crusades, and the witch hunts and other atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, but please understand that these were acts of people, people with a distorted view of the bible.”

Much like the bali bombings and other events used to demonise muslims in below comments

SydSteve says:

03:43pm | 10/08/11

“Problem with the idea of ticking “no religion” is the atheists have already told everyone that they want to use an increase in the “no religion” religion to increase the political influence of the “no religion” religion. “

Yo Dawg, I took the religion out of your religion so you could practice no religion while practicing religion.

debbi says:

11:38pm | 10/08/11

O’h no I think I got it all wrong. I ticked that in our house we are all Anglican even though we’re atheists. Apparently - a friend told me -if you don’t do that someone will build a mosque in your garden!!

Ian Campbell says:

10:08am | 09/08/11

Nice to hear from a fellow Pastafarian.

Al Chunk says:

11:31am | 09/08/11

I cannot believe I am living in country where I am not allowed to acknowledge my religious beliefs.  Religious suppression by the state, I hope the Americans can come and save us from our oppression.  Not good enough for FSM then the state must not acknowledge any other religion.

BJ says:

06:32pm | 10/08/11

Ramen, bless his noodly name.

Tina says:

08:53am | 09/08/11

18 kids…. damn. I wonder if that poor woman could still walk after having delivered 18 babies.

Aaron says:

09:40am | 09/08/11

Who is this priest? I find these views a little…. odd…

Alterans says:

11:39am | 09/08/11

I used to be an altar boy in a small Cathlic chruch, and everybody who died, not matter what was always portrayed as a great admirer of the Virgin Mary. Why? Because the local priest was a Marist. 
My brother, who was also altar boy of course, and I vowed that should something happen we would make sure that we would not be sent to the grave as “great admirers of the Virgin Mary”. Because we weren’t.
The lesson? Once the you admit to be catholic, the clergy will determine what you officially believe. You can’t be bothered if gays marry or not? Sorry, the church twill claim that you think otherwise. And lobby on your behalf.

Tom says:

02:55pm | 09/08/11

“encourage her husband to go the pub and hopefully he would be too drunk to ‘perform.’ ” Most Aussie blokes don’t have to be encouraged to do this. They know instinctively that it is a very thoughtful and considerate act.

Mayday says:

03:34pm | 09/08/11

Aaron, this was between 1910 and 1930 in Liverpool, England when every local Catholic priest visited the houses in the neighborhood to check up on what was going on and get a “donation.”  They also ran all of the local schools and had a huge influence over the children.

The Catholic church has always used guilt to keep their flock in check so the house visits provided them with plenty of information which they used to their own ends.

Tina my grandma was an amazing woman and lived to 70 years of age.

Dan says:

03:41pm | 09/08/11

So religion ruined your mothers life ?!!!!!.....give me a break.
RIP to your mum though (and mine)

Mayday says:

05:00pm | 09/08/11

Dan @ 3.41 Lots of suppositions there?!  Are you a Catholic?

Religion didn’t ruin mum’s life, she saw from her mothers life that you made your own rules and didn’t need the church to be a good person.

Neither did my Nan, she loved her kids and never ‘hated the church’ she just became disaffected, her husband probably caused her most of her pain and living in an extremely poor area.

PW says:

12:46am | 10/08/11

Mayday, it is entirely possible that your mother discovered the truth very late in her life, didn’t need the help of a priest, and chose not to share her discovery with you. Maybe the same will happen to you.

wearestardust says:

07:48am | 09/08/11

Frank Gomez has answered your question.  Religious groups, particularly those like the ACL, use census data on religious affiliation to promote the idea that Australia is a religious country and that religious ideas and rules should be imposed on society.  Sometimes at a cost to your taxes.

Recruiter says:

08:18am | 09/08/11

Whoever is asking for your religious affiliation in any form for your job/job interview is breaking the law.

Tubesteak says:

08:45am | 09/08/11

wearestardust has got it right.

The census should nto be used as evidence of religious affiliation. Most people ticking a religious box don’t even practice their faith all that closely. For example, you’ll get Catholics using birth control and very few religious people attend church every week or believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago in the space of a week.

Either the religious question needs to be removed from the census or more questions need to be asked to follow up on that first question in order to dig a little deeper to determine the level of true religious affiliation.

For too long churches have distorted the truth of religious involvement in this country based on census data. It’s time this stopped.

Brendan says:

09:04am | 09/08/11

So don’t fill it in because a lobby group might use the information but answer no because a different lobby group said so.

Aaron says:

09:45am | 09/08/11

@Tubesteak. As a little bit of a tangent, the contraception thing is catholic thing, not christian. One which I don’t understand. From what I’ve read they view it as a kind of abortion, because you’re “potentially stopping a life from happening,” but doesn’t abstaining from sex do the same thing? I’m christian, and do believe that christians should save sex for marriage (if you’re not a christian, then go for it), but that’s just a little too “religious” if you know what I mean.

Mouse says:

10:43am | 09/08/11

Aaron, I think the reason with Catholics and the pill is that the pill doesn’t actually stop a woman getting pregnant, it stops the fertilised egg attaching to the uterine wall, ergo the body will abort the egg. Catholics are anti-abortion so that is why they are against the pill.  I can see their argument. I personally don’t agree with it but that’s my cross to bear.  I also think it is a wonderful committment you have made to yourself and future partner, stay strong to your beliefs!

RachB says:

11:48am | 09/08/11

Wrong Mouse. The Pill tricks the body into thinking the woman is already pregnant, so no ovulation occurs (no eggs are matured & released).

It has nothing to do with abortion, I think you are thinking of the ‘morning after pill’ instead.

They obviously want Catholic parents to raise as many Catholic children as possible to keep thier membership numbers up (just the same as Islam).

Vance says:

01:26pm | 09/08/11

Recruiter : “Whoever is asking for your religious affiliation in any form for your job/job interview is breaking the law.”

Except if you want to work in a public school as part of the National School Chaplaincy Program.  Then, it’s perfectly acceptable for a qualified youth worker to be rejected because they don’t have any religious affiliation.  A disproportionate 98% of school chaplains are Christian, most of them evangelicals.  Another good reason why non-religious people should mark ‘No Religion’.

Mouse says:

04:46pm | 09/08/11

RachB, glad you picked that up and what you say is absolutely true.  What I wrote was what that church preached at Sunday school and Religious Instruction in the local schools when I was young.  So for all my friends and me as we were growing up, this was “gospel” and is why we thought that the pill was bad.  Thank goodness most people are a little more educated now. :o)

NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

05:57pm | 09/08/11

Hi there,

I certainly do appreciate all the information & insight you have provided!!  I truly believe religion is so powerful that it can actually make people blind to what is actually going in our world.  It has been very educational & a bit like a crash course in religious studies.  I certainly hope that I have had a chance to learn from you all.

I personally hope that we do not live our lives according to some harsh doctrines & we do have a chance to choose what we believe in ideally!!  To me, the message of all religions should be peace, harmony & goodwill.  After all the purpose of religious faiths is actually to make us better human beings, right?? This is my personal opinion, anyway!!  Thanks once again!!

Horse says:

08:26am | 09/08/11

Good points - it is the few extremists* that wreck it for the vast majority of moderates

* the Jim Wallace’s & their ACL subversives and associates, Fred Niles, George Pells, Jensens, Harts, etc

Chris_D says:

08:40am | 09/08/11

Well said Tina.

kris says:

09:37am | 09/08/11

Agree Tina and Horse. You don’t have to go to church to call yourself a christian. Churches are generally boring and out of touch or hyped up and feel very false. Regardless of where the church is at you can still believe. I have no denomination because I don’t consider myself belonging to a religion (religion being a man made institution-depends on your definition of religion) but I do believe. Should I be answering ‘no religion’ then or choosing ‘other’ and writing christian? Why is it not a question of ‘belief’ where you could put down what you believe wether that is a spiritual or humanistic belief etc? Isn’t the point to get an accurate picture?

sludger says:

09:39am | 09/08/11

@Tina, great point.  I am a Christian who does not go to church as I am not a theist.  It is a shame many people who like to have a go at Christians do not understand this very simple point.

Aaron says:

09:50am | 09/08/11

I’m a practicing christian, and I don’t agree with many ACL policies or practices. That said, can you blame them for using the census data, it is census data. I guess it’d kind be like asking “Do you have macca’s every week” and a lot of people ticking yes, because they do enjoy the odd 30c cone. Then Macca’s using the data for their evil world domination plots. These “official” statistics are what these guys use because a “news.com.au” pole generally doesn’t quite meet these standards.

Brian says:

10:21am | 09/08/11

Saying you are “loosely Christian” is like saying you are a little bit pregnant. You either believe in it or you don’t.

Tina says:

10:30am | 09/08/11

@ Brian

I dont agree. I consider myself Christian, but I dont just blindly agree with everything that is labelled Christian. I am independently thinking - more or less. And every person shows their religious affiliation differently. Some pray, some dont, some go to church, some dont. Who sets the rules?

Chris_D says:

10:37am | 09/08/11

@Brian, you don’t “believe” you are pregnant, you either are or you aren’t, while faith based belief is exactly that.

Try harder.

Tim the Toolman says:

11:18am | 09/08/11

@sludger

You’re a christian, but you don’t believe in a god, ergo, christ.  WTF?  I’m a millionaire! (even though I don’t have the money…)

Brian says:

11:39am | 09/08/11

So you’ve made up your own version of Christianity? Just like Sludger who is a Christian but not a theist. Who sets the rules? The Bible perhaps? Smells to me like you’ve used your independent sense of morality to cherry pick which parts you subscribe to. By that logic, I am also “loosely Christian”, as there is some crossover between what I consider right and wrong and what the Bible considers right and wrong. I’m probably also loosely Muslim, loosely Wiccan, and loosely Scientologist.

@ Chris_D: You could “believe” you were pregnant, it wouldn’t make it true. Just like “believing” in a God doesn’t make it true. Who would I be to tell you what you can and can’t believe?

Tina says:

12:13pm | 09/08/11

@ Brian

That is absolutely correct. I cherrypick what I agree with. Not only in religion. When I dont like an aspect I leave it out.

Anne71 says:

12:26pm | 09/08/11

Excellent point, Tina. I suppose I am a Christian in that I try to follow the teachings of Christ - compassion, tolerance, love,  peace and so forth - but I certainly don’t subscribe to any organised Christian religion. Mainly because they are anything but compassionate, tolerant and loving. I will leave “peaceful” to the individual to decide.

John the Zombie says:

03:07pm | 09/08/11

@ Brian so lets get this write unless you follow the teaching of your religion you are not that religion for example you use Christianity. Ok

Well in the Koran it states that believers most convert all non believers or they must be put to the sword and the believers should go to war with all non believers.

No does this mean Brian that all muslims must follow this or do they have a choice not to, and if they choose not to does this then make them athiest as your agruement put forwars.

NB: Moderator I am just pointing out a fault in Brians arguement that if you dont go to church and follow the Christian bible to the letter you are not a Christian.

Brian says:

03:49pm | 09/08/11

@John

What it means is that they are cherry picking. If the basis for a religion is its holy book, what right do its followers have to pick and choose which bit they think are nice and which bits aren’t? Surely if you truly think a book is the inerrant word of your god you would not dare ignore parts. I wouldn’t say these people are now atheists, they’re just wishy washy. Ignoring the tenets of their books does not make them atheists, they’re just huge hypocrites and (by their own rules) destined for hell.

All religious people pick and choose, which is proof that we have morality in spite of religion, rather than because of religion.

Chris_D says:

04:12pm | 09/08/11

@Brian, yes, your response to mine makes sense, but you have to understand and accept that the whole point of “faith” is believing without proof.  If we had proof there was a God of any type, I’m sure we’d all quickly jump on the bandwagon and follow the rules.

John the Zombie says:

06:06pm | 09/08/11

Brain, so you are saying all Moderate muslims, christians and other relgions are athiest.

You know this arguement reminds me of the south park epsiode (told ya everything can be linked to south park) were athiest took control and the world all became athiest but the funny thing was even athiest could not agree and lead to war.

Brian says:

08:21pm | 09/08/11

@John.

I don’t quite now where you’re getting that from. Read what I wrote, then look up the definition of atheism.

Being picky and choosy doesn’t make you an atheist. It makes you a half-assed follower and likely condemned to whatever hell it is your religion preaches. Yes, based on the internal logic of these religions, most moderates are probably destined for that hell.

Chris_D says:

10:30pm | 09/08/11

@Brian, I see being picky and choosy as having enough intelligence to see through the dogma and be able to rationalise what is required to be a good person in your chosen Gods eyes.  I would suggest it is the extremists who hold your view (either end of the spectrum), and hence the reason most people prefer not to associate in those circles ie. be regular church goers which puts them in the immediate vicinity of the tirades, or bother to argue with those who have no interest in their view.

PW says:

12:52am | 10/08/11

@Chris_D You want proof? Open your eyes mate.

marley says:

08:22am | 09/08/11

Well,  I don’t know about that.  Before the monotheistic religions, people believed in sun gods or attributed supernatural powers to thunderbirds or serpents.  The default position seems to be an inclination to find an explanation for the world around us - and in the absence of science. .Zeus hurling thunderbolts from Olympus is as good an explanation as anything for a thunderstorm.

Seanr says:

08:32am | 09/08/11

“it could be missed”..seriously, you obviously saw it as would everyone else who can read.  This will be the excuse from atheists if a lot of people still identify as religious.

Ando says:

10:56am | 09/08/11

Marley,
I think he means default position now, not in ancient times. Also people weren’t born to believe in Sun Gods back then either, someone got in there ear back then too.

Ras Putin says:

11:17am | 09/08/11

I agree with you Scrappy—if the no religion box was top choice it would probably get the most votes..After all,from what i hear,most people put down what mum said they were many years ago!

Likes Joining Dots says:

06:15pm | 09/08/11

Just completed my online census (truthfullly) and this comment from Scrappy, which I had read this earlier morning now makes sense.

Why add a lonely radio button way down there and after the text field? I can’t recall other questions having the same layout. Since I can’t do it again, can some posters who do the census next check if the other radio button questions use the same format. It’s no biggy, no conspiracy theory, it just struck me as odd.

hendrikus says:

08:14am | 09/08/11

that is what the religious orders have been stealing for years

marley says:

08:24am | 09/08/11

What?  Err, what is the “atheist” political agenda, other perhaps than ending the tax exemption of religious institutions?  Atheists no more have a single political agenda than Lutherans do.

Horse says:

08:32am | 09/08/11

Atheists want “More funding”? They don’t get any now! apart form a grant from the Victorian govt towards their 2012 convention that will bring in about $6m in visitor/tourist $$.

It is not about acquiring funding. It is about pointing out the funding to religious entities is skewed in their favour.

AliceC says:

08:35am | 09/08/11

Easy to turn this argument around:

People need to realise that the campaign by Christians/Muslims/etc. is about money and political power. What the Christians/Muslims/etc. want and what they are advertising for is your tax dollars. They want to use the census results to acquire more funding and to drive the political agenda in this country.”

Expat Ozzie says:

08:51am | 09/08/11

Dash: I’m Atheist and I don’t want your tax dollars and I’ve never seen any concerted campaign by Atheists for power or money either. Is this another New World Order conspiracy that I’m not aware off??

hendrikus: You can add art and the money of there followers to that list as well.

Voxpop says:

08:51am | 09/08/11

People need to realise that the campaign by Christians is about money and political power. What the Christians want and what they are advertising for is your tax dollars. They want to use the census results to acquire more funding and to drive the political agenda in this country

There fixed that for you   They’ve been doing it for a long time now and know they’re on a winner.

The Christians don’t mind using a fear campaign for their recruitment drive - not surprising given their history.

Elphaba says:

09:11am | 09/08/11

@Dash, I’ve got to disagree with you on this one.  It’s not about getting funding, it’s about asking the question of why must religion be tax exempt?

I can think of no good reason why…

Mattb says:

09:32am | 09/08/11

Haha, yeah dash, that’s right, whatever you say dash

Next you’ll be claiming it’s

‘atheism dressed up as census data’!....

Tubesteak says:

09:44am | 09/08/11

Funding for what?

Science?

Maybe that’s a good thing. But it would be specious to argue that all atheists want funding for science.

Until atheists organise themselves as some sort of body with defined rituals and beliefs and promote it’s adherents to act accordingly and seek special favours from government I don’t think your agument has any weight.

Aaron says:

09:59am | 09/08/11

Um dash, I (a christian) don’t particularly agree with this. I think the campaign is more about churches using their tax exempt status in an unethical manner, ala sanitarium, it is my opinion that should tax exemption be lifted, certain parts should still remain tax exempt, mainly the money spent on charitable works.

I think that was the idea in the first place, and possibly because churches derive their money from giving of their congregations, who’ve already paid tax on said money, but mostly the charity idea.

Citizen says:

10:58am | 09/08/11

Hi Dash - i am an atheist. I do not believe in supernatural gods. I believe in critical thinking and humanism. I have no agenda but i do not want religious beliefs in the public space (in fairness to all the religious groups in our country who find christianity offensive- and atheists) - like no smoking really. - i dont want any tax dollars (as opposed to all the tax breaks religious groups get). I have a PHD and i teach history at usyd. I think your response smacks of someone who is living in paranoid fear- without any basis in rational thought or appreciation of the fact that there are large numbers of citizens who do not think like you at all.- ‘Drive the ‘agenda in this country’ - where do you get this crap? My mother is a deeply religious woman- she would find your views not just abhorrent but just plain stupid.

Mankind says:

04:41pm | 09/08/11

Bwhahahahaha….

Good one dash. Funding for what? Or Whom? The church of Atheism? Oh wait that would be silly no such thing….what about the United Atheism Front (not to be confused with the Front of United Atheists…splitters!)...oh wait they don’t exist either.

This scare campaign is even weaker and sillier than the one about Mosques.

Unless you were trying to be funny in which case you’re too good because I missed the joke.

Chris L says:

09:24pm | 09/08/11

Amygdala overload in progress!

wearestardust says:

09:34am | 09/08/11

Leaving aside your playing the (increasingly standard) Islamaphobic card, I don’t get your point.  The ‘tick no religion’ and similar campaigns ask people to fill in their census forms correctly including that if they don’t have a religion, tick the no religion box.  The target audience of the campaign particularly includes people who were brought up a religion

What is you problem with that? If people have faith, then tick the appropriate box.  If they don’t, tick the appropriate box.  Other than countering the Islamic ‘threat’, I’m not clear why you seem to be implying that you want people to answer the census incorrectly.

Boort says:

01:10pm | 09/08/11

@JustMEinT, you display a preference to a community based on individuals that meet your requirements - based on your article, you dont really feel there is a place for same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, legalised euthanasia etc… is there anything that you do support??  Your comment of: ‘Already vaccinations are being made compulsory’ shows a complete lack of intelligence and disregard for the community - knowing that people like you would be happy for children to become sick and potentially die needlessly is disturbing.  you also comment that ‘I prefer natural health and healing to pharmaceutical drugs.’ - despite ‘alternative medicine’ having been proven NOT to work, or NOT proven to work. To quote Tim Minchin: Do you know what they call alternative medicine that actually does work?? Medicine.  Your opinins of society are not far different to those of Germany 1939

TChong says:

08:16am | 09/08/11

“I am a jedi, like my father before me “
Thats a classic d !
Very pharkeen funny !!!!!!!!

Jazet says:

09:28am | 10/08/11

Help me d for you are my only hope.
Those sandpeoples are increasing in numbers; just ask the ABS.

the apologist says:

08:39am | 09/08/11

some believe that religion and science are non-contradictory

A Dose of Reality says:

10:18am | 09/08/11

Ted Flack,

It is a common mistake - but you have the definition of ‘agnostic’ wrong.  It means ‘not knowing’ (in reference to a ‘god’), so your ‘not knowing’ the word’s meaning is a rather funny irony.

Also, people do not ‘believe in’ (they do not have ‘faith in’) science.  Religious fanatics use the semantics to push agendas (such as George pell pushing the view that atheism is a ‘religion’ - from a doctorate of theology!!!!!!).

Shifter says:

11:42am | 09/08/11

Some might also be offended by the use of the term supernatural in relation to their God(s)

the apologist says:

01:36pm | 09/08/11

@A Dose of Reality: Everyone puts their faith in something. For example, an atheistic naturalist puts their faith in their belief that the universe is solely made up of matter and that every event in the universe has a cause that exists within the universe of matter. Like to see them try to prove that the universe is naturalistic. And yet, the majority of scientists operate on this premise. It’s unprovable of course, and the evidence doesn’t lend itself to the universe being a naturalistic one, but they don’t let that stop them pretending they have some sort of scientific objective standpoint. From that perspective, atheists do operate in terms of their faith.

Science isn’t neutral, it is always conducted in terms of the presuppositions of the scientist. It requires ‘faith’ to meaningfully function.

marley says:

07:07pm | 09/08/11

@the apologist - might I suggest you look up the scientific method some time, and try to understand it.  Yes, you might have a preconception - but if you’re a scientist you test that preconception.  With experiments.  And if the results show that your preconception isn’t repeatable scientifically, you trash it.  And if it works some of the time but not always, you refine it.

Chris L says:

09:29pm | 09/08/11

Woah up there Apologist! What evidence can you point to that doesn’t lend itself to the universe being a naturalistic one? Seriously, I’d be curious to know what you have discovered.

the apologist says:

09:53am | 10/08/11

@marley: how can you test effectively the presupposition (preconception is an opinion formed before hand; presupposition is an opinion assumed and then actions taken on the assumption that the opinion is correct) that the universe is naturalistic? At best, any one scientist can only observe an infinitesimal portion of the universe even in a lifetime – and cannot even begin to plumb the breadth of human experience and observation. I am well aware of what scientific method is, but you don’t seem to be aware of the faith-based presuppositions that everyone (including scientists) operates in terms of before they even come to the science table.

@Chris L: Well, the problem of biogenesis is quite convincing. On the simplest level we can find it, life is enormously complex. A simple cell, for example, is made up of many many many parts that all depend upon one another to function. Take the parts away, and it ceases to function. The problem is only intensified as more complex lifeforms are examined – all the parts need to be present for it to function. Naturalism posits that natural, unintelligent causation was the reason for the formation of life. Scientists on the naturalistic side of the fence have not come anywhere near close to even forming a believable theory on how life might result out of dead matter. The most logical suggestion would be that all the parts where present from the point of biogenesis.
I think it’s mindblowing that people cannot instantly recognise the fingerprints of God in the design and intricacy of Creation (the Scriptures say that all of Creation proclaims the wonder of God in Psalm 19, don’t tell me you haven’t noticed it!). Having a Creator to establish life instantaneously is a very logical explanation for life as we know it.
Allow me to use an illustration. It’s like seeing a piece of paper, a quill, and a bottle of ink. All the material components of a Shakespeare manuscript are present. But the script will not form no matter how many times you drop or drip ink onto the paper. The arrangement of the material requires the intelligence of Shakespeare to be in operation. So too the cell. You could bring all the materials together, but there’s no way that they could possibly assimilate simultaneously into life if the universe is naturalistic. Just no way. It takes more faith to be an atheist my friend!

Jake says:

05:56pm | 10/08/11

@the apologist
“how can you test effectively the presupposition (preconception is an opinion formed before hand; presupposition is an opinion assumed and then actions taken on the assumption that the opinion is correct) that the universe is naturalistic?”

It is not a pre-supposition which requires testing, it is the only option which does not require assertion of outside influence, which is exactly why it is the default position.

If we cannot find evidence of outside influence on a system (i.e. spontaneous creation by a deity), then it is unreasonable to suggest that, given no other evidence, we should assume such influence. Especially when the behavior of of the influencing agent diverges significantly from observed laws of the system in question.

Think about a puddle. The water fits the hole perfectly - of course. Is it an unreasonable pre-supposition to deduce that the water - behaving exactly as all other water which you have observed in your life - has naturally shifted to fit the shape of the hole? Would you consider it more likely that non-naturalistic processes were responsible for the perfect harmony of water and hole?

Given any situation, if naturalistic processes can adequately explain the scenario, then it is illogical to posit external agency unless evidence specifically points to it.

You may argue that there is evidence for god - but I’m not addressing that in this particular comment. I’m simply explaining that what you call a “faith-based presupposition”, is actually the only logical starting point for scientific investigation, and the means by which we “test effectively the presupposition”, is by searching for anything which does not fit within that default framework.

Jake says:

06:05pm | 10/08/11

@the apologist
“Naturalism posits that natural, unintelligent causation was the reason for the formation of life. Scientists on the naturalistic side of the fence have not come anywhere near close to even forming a believable theory on how life might result out of dead matter.”

Well that may be your opinion, however the field of Abiogenesis has made some extremely interesting findings, not in the least being the creation of the building blocks of RNA under conditions similar to those which likely existed on early earth.

They have yet to create fully-fledged life, and they may never do so. This, of-course, does not invalidate the theory any more than our inability to generate gravity invalidates that theory. There are still many questions in the field, however the statement that they have not come close to forming a believable theory is unreasonable.

Just because you don’t personally believe it, does not imply that the theory is not sound.

“The most logical suggestion would be that all the parts where present from the point of biogenesis.”

This is an oft repeated claim, however it is not congruent with reality. In order for this statement to be correct, one of two premises would need to be shown to be true. Either:

1. Evidence exists linking the structure to a specific creator. For example a watch. We have seen many watches and we understand their purpose and history within the context of our civilization. We can posit a high likelihood that any given watch was designed by a human because we have empirical evidence to back it up. However we do not have any verifiable examples of design by a deity to compare a natural structure to, so the empirical argument fails.

2. The structure can be shown conclusively to be impossible to create by naturalistic processes. Unfortunately this is essentially impossible for the same reason we cannot conclusively prove that any given deity does not exist. The “irreducible complexity” argument (simply another term for the argument from incredulity) does not imply that a given structure could not form naturally, only that we cannot, given our current knowledge, devise a cogent explanation for it’s formation. This was once true for the sun but, as our scientific understanding moved forward, we were able to posit a solid theory for how stars form.

So the most logical suggestion isn’t that “all parts were present from the point of biogenesis”. It is far more logical to simply state that the process by which the structure formed is unknown and to start looking for evidence.

“I think it’s mindblowing that people cannot instantly recognise the fingerprints of God in the design and intricacy of Creation”

That’s an interesting choice of words. The only way we can identify the fingerprints from a crime scene is if we have a verified example of them on file. If we have never seen them before, we cannot attribute them to anyone in particular. It would be illogical to take a set of fingerprints and simply attribute them to an arbitrarily chosen person.

“Allow me to use an illustration. It’s like seeing a piece of paper, a quill, and a bottle of ink. All the material components of a Shakespeare manuscript are present. But the script will not form no matter how many times you drop or drip ink onto the paper.”

The only reason you can know this is because you know in advance how the script was supposed to end up. Much like the watch example above, you can attribute an intelligent agent to the creation of a Shakespearean play because you have empirical evidence.

However your only reference for how the universe is “supposed” to be, is from a book which states - effectively - that the universe is the way it is because that’s how god meant it to be.

For your illustration to be an effective analogy, you would need to show not only how the universe would have otherwise been without god’s intervention (a blob of random ink on a page by your analogy), but you would also need to be able to show - in advance - how it is supposed to be (Romeo and Juliet). Otherwise you have no basis for claiming that it isn’t the way it is simply because that’s how it naturally ended up (See: weak anthropic principal).

the apologist says:

02:57pm | 11/08/11

@Jake: re. your first post.
Thanks for the extensive comments – I appreciate them. But in the spirit of rigorous debate and in the interests of truth (and truth seeking) I would make the following comments in response.
Saying that it is not a presupposition which requires testing is a cop-out. From the position of the empiricist, it begs belief that all ‘knowledge’ is established in terms of the presupposition, but that the presupposition itself is somehow beyond question. Sounds like dogma to me.
The reason that you gave for defending the untouchable status of the naturalistic view of the universe assumes by default that there is no outside influence (and by outside influence I presume we’re covering everything from the Christian position on who God is to other non-human entities in the universe itself).
By assuming this default position, what has been positively asserted is that there can be no outside influence on life as we know it. This is an intensely arrogant and vastly ignorant position to take and is not empirically established.
You then seem to claim that the behaviour of the outside influence being posed (e.g. God) diverges significantly from observed laws of the system in question. I couldn’t disagree more.
Everything we observe in the system in which we live suggests that the unintelligent movement of matter (e.g. a wave crashing, meteors colliding, water running down a creek bed, right through to the subatomic movement of matter) does not produce complexity, working systems – in short – it has never been observed to produce the complex arrangement of matter into what bears the hallmarks of intelligence. In digging up even the most basic of artefacts (e.g. a rough clay bowl), we intrinsically recognise that unintelligent natural causes do not make bowls, and rightly surmise that this is evidence of former human civilisation.
Naturalistic process simply cannot adequately account for the vast complexity of even the simplest cell (which is infinitely more complex than anything that humans have ever created, and yet if I told you I’d found a watch that had naturalistically formed you’d call me insane!), and yet naturalistic scientists dogmatically deny that it is evidence of a Creator – in spite of the fact that the very possibility of its formation runs counter to everything we observe in the system.
You say that naturalism is the only logical starting point for scientific investigation. Even if I granted that (which as you can see above I don’t), there is yet another presupposition that you are resting upon in that statement. The assumption of the legitimacy of logic and reason has been assumed.
Very well, prove to me the validity of logic and reason. Not only can you not do this without engaging in circular reasoning, but your very assumption that the universe is naturalistic defeats your position on the authoritative use of logic. Show me the laws of logic. Prove them to me. Do they exist? Can you run diagnostics on them? Logic is a non-material reality.

the apologist says:

02:58pm | 11/08/11

@Jake: re. your second post.
You say my statements on biogenesis are merely opinion, but it’s a problem well recognised even by naturalists. I read in the Australian newspaper just the other day an article on the subject by a naturalistic scientist. I quote that he said even the simplest cell is so ‘fiendishly complex’ that historically and today there is simply no naturalistic answer for it. If you think otherwise, please point me in the direction.
You equate my position with my personal beliefs, but there is a lot more on my side to suggest that the evidence based position is that naturalistic processes cannot account for life. Even you admit that the process is ‘unknown’.
You say that such a claim is not congruent with reality (even though I’ve heard plenty of naturalists admit it), and that I need to: a) link the evidence to a specific Creator, and b) show that the structure cannot be created by naturalistic process.
Well, as I’ve argued, the evidence (i.e. creation) – bearing the hallmarks of an intelligence incomprehensibly greater than our own – soundly testifies to an outside force. The question of how we can know this God is another issue, but I won’t open that can of worms unless you wish to.
Your second criteria – as you say, I cannot prove that the structure found in all creation cannot be caused by naturalistic means. To do so would require absolute knowledge of the universe. However, based upon your own tests – my position is overwhelmingly a more logical one. There is no evidence in the system that has been observed to suggest that inanimate matter and the movement thereof can result in complexity and order that is the hallmark of design. On the contrary, it is safer to assume that the complexity of e.g. the cell, was designed. All observation of natural forces suggest that only chaos is the result. Again then, a Creator being the obvious conclusion, the question remains how can we know this Creator if at all?
In relation to your comment on fingerprints, you say we’ve never ‘seen’ the finger prints before, but you are wrong. We see the finger prints of intelligence in all human activity (in greater and lesser degrees). It doesn’t take Einstein to look at all of Creation and see the fingerprints of intelligence on everything. Either intelligence is the cause or blind force is, and as I’ve stated, blind force observably results in only chaotic unordered movement.
In relation to the way the universe is supposed to be, let me lay down the gauntlet plainly. If this is the naturalistic universe which you suppose, you’re basically left with the monumental failure of suggesting that everything came from nothing (which Hawkins was happy to argue). It is ludicrous. Every observable piece of reality suggests that it’s impossible; the law of entropy testifies to the failure of natural causes resulting in higher levels of order; there is no evidence to suggest that complex working systems can come about based upon unintelligent movement.
Atheists stubbornly demand evidence for God, and argue against all reason that He is not there (they hate Him and the implication of His existence) – and yet every iota of matter in the universe pours forth a testimony to His existence. Our human experience, your ability to think at all, the taste of food, the enjoyment of music, the richness of relationships, the existence of right and wrong and the testimony of your conscience – it all reflects the richness and glory of our Creator.

d says:

08:22am | 09/08/11

Universities came from Catholicism?

Yes the earth is flat and the center of everything, it was created in 7 days….

STD’s have increased? well if the church let us use protection..

Murders have increased but people being turned to stone has decreased so thats a good ting

I believe in things i cannot see, i believe the speed of light in a vacume is 3x10 to the power of 8 meters per second.

The church tryed its hardest to stop innovation and change. do you believe the earth is round? well then my boy here is a nice fire for you, fire clenses all.

Sam says:

08:33am | 09/08/11

And the award for least accurate screen-name ever goes to…

Huey says:

08:34am | 09/08/11

WOW! WOW! WOW! all these things were present before the birth of Jesus

marley says:

08:35am | 09/08/11

@Deepthinker - you may find this difficult to believe, but non-Christian peoples have hospitals, schools and universities. The Churches did indeed establish quite a few, but so did Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and completely secular institutions. Welfare as we know it was introduced by the remarkably secular Otto von Bismarck.  While the great constitutions of the world may refer to god in their preambles, I don’t recall a single one that was produced by a Church.  Certainly not the French, American, German or Canadian ones.  Secular, all of them.

As to the riskiness of society, oh, I don’t know - science, not medicine, allows children to live past the age of five, and adults to have a life expectancy of 80, not 60.  Homosexuality is about where it always was but just more visisble,  violent crime is down, not up, and while the youth may lack respect for their elders, I don’t see much respect coming from you towards us “dimwits.” 

As for air, well, I may not be able to see it, but I can prove it exists.  I can’t see thunder, either, but that exists too.  And I can explain what it is.  God, not so much.

Grant says:

08:44am | 09/08/11

You can make up stuff all you like mate, but at least know some people are going to call you out on made up information.

- Crime is down in westernised countries.
- Life isn’t more risky, its much safer now. 

You have a common belief called ‘risk of crime victimization perception’. 
Basically, a fear of crime and the fear of being victim against the probability of actually being a victim.

Standards in the western culture are actually far better now.  We have better better health care outcomes, life expectancy increases, better social services, increased rates of standard and higher education outcomes (more people finishing Uni and highschool), increased wages and living standards.

- In Australia, teen pregnancy and abortion rates have declined significantly. 
- Murders have decreased in Australia and throughout the western world.

Checkout the ABS and other organisations: Office of Crime Statistics and Research (Office of the Attorney General), NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the Australian Centre of Policing Research, Australian Criminology Research Council.

Skogan, W. (1986) ‘Fear of crime and neighborhood change’. Crime and Justice
Jackson, J. (2006). Introducing Fear of Crime to Risk Research, Risk Analysis
Rollinger, P. (2008). Experience and Communications as Explanations for Criminal Risk Perception’
Maguire, M. Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (1997). Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University

bleD says:

08:45am | 09/08/11

We would have more money for schools, hospitals, etc. if the taxfree status of religious organizations were abolished.

MarkS says:

08:48am | 09/08/11

Bulldust

hendrikus says:

09:04am | 09/08/11

hardly deep thinking,slavery was encouraged in the bible and jc stands condemned not for what he sad but for what he did not say.
there is no commandment that forbids slavery,
As to education we have that in spite of religion not because of it.
Remember keppler,gallileo,spinoza and countless other who suffered at the hands of the religious.
The secular society is the only safeguard we have against a christian version of the taliban re emerging.
As for the air we breath, what a lame example, breath some toxic gas you can not see and you will die.
there is ample proof of that, there is none for some bearded man in the sky directing our affairs.

Mayday says:

09:06am | 09/08/11

Sam @ 8.33am excellent comment, as deep as a puddle!

Universities started with the Church because they were oh so powerful and rich.
Chapels, churches and cathedrals were the at the centre of communities at the time and the propaganda they preached and the occasional food they handed out enthralled the uneducated masses.

The alter in a church is called that for one reason only, to alter a persons outlook, the entrance to the church was named to do just that, to entrance people as the entered these amazing edifices.

Think about the stained glass windows, in their day they would be as the equivalent to Hillsong today, mind blowing to some.

I believe in love, trust and respect all of which aren’t tangible in the sense you are taking with your last sentence…...dimwit hey, hmm.

wearestardust says:

09:27am | 09/08/11

And that’s an excellent example of why people should answer the census accurately - to counter the influence of ignorant, factually incorrect, homophobic views like this.

Aaron says:

10:05am | 09/08/11

Deepthinker, this is exceedingly judgemental and arrogant, reminds me of the pharisees. Jesus didn’t like them much, despite their ‘righteousness.’

James1 says:

10:35am | 09/08/11

So, are you saying we shouldn’t criticise Christianity because it allowed us the freedom to criticise Christianity?

Mattb says:

10:51am | 09/08/11

You write this paragraph of absolute rot and then dare call us ‘dimwits’ because we ‘can’t believe in something we can’t see’. WTF???... Where do these ‘deepthinkers’ come from?

fml says:

11:07am | 09/08/11

The father of modern medicine was Avicenna, a muslim.

As for not being to see air, i can feel it when i wave my hands around. next? electricity, nope i can see and feel that.

Roy says:

06:53pm | 09/08/11

Deepthinker
The only hospitals around here run by christians, are the private ones!
You have to pay through the nose for treatment, the rest of us have to use the public hopital.
FYI I just ticked the “no religion” box X 3, and I dont claim any tax free status, Unlike the religions who receive loads of free govt cash and don’t pay tax on their huge land holdings. What do they do with our tax money it, is it even audited!
Here pauper have a bowl or rice, and this bible.

Disraeli says:

08:56am | 09/08/11

Agree, wholly.

And given the ABS has asked the question in every Census, I dare say choosing and ordering the main answers has been given some thought. They do test the thing each time.

Just what the numbers means is anyone’s guess, unless ABS has done some deeper study of how the question is understood or the quality or meaning of replies. I’ve not bothered to check.

ibast says:

09:32am | 09/08/11

The census allows for a free-form answer of “other”.  If I don’t associate with any of the standard responses, how am I to know what is acceptable?  Furthermore, what right has the ABS got to call into question my religion based on their own limited understanding of the universe.

wearestardust says:

09:47am | 09/08/11

@ ibast: the ABS will have a data dictionary for the freeform field which will list a wide range of religious beliefs.  In my limited experience with the ABS the things that have most impressed me are their thoroughness, attention to detail and fanatical dedication to technical correctness (those who intimate that the religion question has been formulated so as to skew the answers clearly have never met an ABS officer )

As far as I know the only ‘religions’ that the ABS discounts are the ‘joke’ ones.  I am aware that some people push to have pastafarianism recognised so as to make an ironic point (eg Austrian colander guy) but anyone who seriously believes in the FSM is not getting it in the same way as people who set up real-life fight clubs weren’t getting it.

Tubesteak says:

09:57am | 09/08/11

My religion is Misanthropia

It’s an all-inclusive religion that is ironically polytheistic.

Rev says:

10:10am | 09/08/11

@wearestardust - I refer you to Tina’s post above, my good fellow.
It isn’t the answer that is the problem, but the use of the statistic.

Patsy says:

10:22am | 09/08/11

I have just rang the Census Inquiry Service and was assured that my “other” choice if religion will be accepted. I am a HERETIC as I follow the teachings of Jesus but, not the Roman Catholic church. So burn me at the stake.

Anne71 says:

12:56pm | 09/08/11

@Patsy - One of my proudest moments was when I was called a “heretic” at the age of 16 by my Religious Education teacher because I refused to accept Creationism over Darwinism. Apparently fossil records are not an acceptable argument compared to a story from a 2,000 year old book. Sigh.
I have no problem with Creationism, if that is what a person truly believes. I just don’t like the name-calling that ensues if you don’t agree with them.

Patsy says:

01:52pm | 09/08/11

@Anne71. You’re right. I also think Creationism, Darwinism or evolution could be the same thing if you don’t take the Old Testament literally and that the world was not created in seven days in a row but rather, over millions of years.

Anne71 says:

05:05pm | 09/08/11

@Patsy - I’ve often wondered whether “days” was a misinterpretation and they were meant to represent periods of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of years.
I believe the Mayan calendar refers to “days” and “nights”, however the earlier ones lasted for several thousand years.  Perhaps it’s a similar thing?

julie says:

08:51am | 09/08/11

yep. Or just like any survey, if the above options dont sit comfortably with you, having to label yourself something,  why wouldnt you not tick anything?  I’m wondering whether I can create my own ‘label’, such as spiritualist. Will that be treated the same as Jedi? I better wiki it in case I accidentally define myself as some kind of cult first .....

fml says:

11:09am | 09/08/11

Its about time we lifted the religious persecution of the pastafarians and the jedi’s in this country. Out country was raised on these values.

Chris L says:

09:41pm | 09/08/11

@Julie, I think spiritualism is still considered a religion. After all, the Punch just recently pointed out that our second Prime Minister was a spiritualist.

Jedi will not be. Anyone putting it there as a joke should not be surprised it is taken as a joke. Anyone putting it there, but not joking…. well, who are we to judge.

marley says:

08:26am | 09/08/11

Oh, heck, how is ticking the “no religion” box going to increase the number of mosques around?  First, government doesn’t use the census to decide how many churches or mosques it will allow to be built.  Second, your ticking the “no religion” box doesn’t mean there will be more Muslims recorded, it means there will be more people who don’t want any kind of religious intrusion in their lives.

TChong says:

08:30am | 09/08/11

“was that a mosque I saw”
Could have been, whats it matter to you?
How could it possibly affect you that these people have a place to worship their god?
So much fear, for so little reason.

Horse says:

08:34am | 09/08/11

Ticking No religion will also produce effect you desire, Brenda.

Budz says:

09:04am | 09/08/11

Looking at the trends in religion in Australia I’d be more worried about the increase in Buddhists than Muslims!

Brenda says:

09:26am | 09/08/11

I meant that I will tick one of the Christian religion boxes in an effort to counter-balance approximately 1 million Muslim ticks. If I tick “no religion”, there will still be approx. 1 million Muslim ticks. The local Christian church around here bothers no-one. The mosque 2 miles from my relatives’ home outside London has RUINED their peaceful family home life, and also their neighbours’ lives.
Government DOES use the census to influence future planning policy and local authorities refer to census statistics when considering applications for developments by various population groupings.
T. Chong: It does matter to me, my family, my neighbours, and I’m entitled to an opinion.  Ask any Briton about what you foolishly describe as “fear”, and see what they have to say. Divisive religiously extreme changes crept up on unsuspecting Britons who will tell anyone who will listen how much they regret their earlier complacency. Britons are being culturally, socially and residentially displaced against their wishes.
I just don’t want our country stuffed up like Germany, France and UK.
And if that is a mosque on CHRISTmas Island to worship their God, who paid for its construction? 
CHRISTmas Island.

Ella says:

09:27am | 09/08/11

That doesn’t make sense. Assuming that census data is used to decide when and where to build mosques,  when making such a decision they won’t take into account how many christians there are, they will take into account how many muslims and how many non- muslims. And since no religion counts as not a muslim, if you are no religion you should tick no religion. That way you also won’t have to deal with noisy church bells either.

Voxpop says:

10:04am | 09/08/11

“And since no religion counts as not a muslim, if you are no religion you should tick no religion. That way you also won’t have to deal with noisy church bells either. ”  Yep

And the evangelical christians are the worst with their extremely loud singing and exclamations of ‘God is within me praise be!’  they confuse going to church with a music festival and wake everyone up when trying to get the only sleep-in their working week allows.

Mattb says:

10:25am | 09/08/11

Ella
“And since no religion counts as not a muslim, if you are no religion you should tick no religion. That way you also won’t have to deal with noisy church bells either.”

Ella, exactly, well said.

Brenda, do you understand this statement?. Read it until you do and you will eventually realize how backward your thought process has become.

RyaN says:

10:46am | 09/08/11

@TChong: “So much fear, for so little reason. ” You don’t think the Bali bombings, 9/11, the Kenya bombings etc.. weren’t just little reason?

fml says:

11:11am | 09/08/11

@brenda,

Ok, so you dont want any mosques being built, how do you feel about muslims moving in to already standing structures?

Brenda says:

12:08pm | 09/08/11

Ella, can you please give me an example of church bells disturbing the internal environment of clustered suburban family homes - 5 times every day of the week?

marley says:

01:13pm | 09/08/11

@Brenda - you still don’t get it, do you?  No matter what a non-Muslim puts on his form, it isn’t going to increase the percentage of Muslims in the total population.

Glen says:

01:30pm | 09/08/11

Me too.  I lived in England, I’ve seen what has happened there and it is not pretty.  If taught me that multiculturalism has failed there.  Since returning home to Australia I’ve met many that have left England because of the fracturing of their society due to the influx of foreigners that inflict their beliefs on others and do not seek to assimilate.  I’ve seen increasing evidence of it here.  I do not want the violence, intimidation, lies and corruption of these people for my family.  Not all of them are like that but many are, one faith in particular.  It should be of concern that they are increasing faster than any other faith and already pressing for Australia to fall into line with them, not them falling into line with Australia.

Rick says:

02:16pm | 09/08/11

@Brenda Please, stop. You tried hard, but this post is what happens when you take your views on current affairs from a Facebook status. Listen to Ella, she is completely correct.

If our goverment insists on holding people in prison like conditions on Xmas Island for multiple years, perhaps they thought the least they can do is provide a place of worship for these people.

Also, the people of Launceston would love the church there to ring the bells less often and quieter.

@RyaN Those things bother me when considering muslims as a whole as much as the Crusades or any other religious extremist event throughout history.

Brenda says:

03:21pm | 09/08/11

Rick, I have know idea what your Facebook comment means.
I absolutely agree with Ella 100% about modern-day racket from church bell noise also town clocks that ruin people’s restorative sleep (night and day).  It’s mostly unwanted, uninvited and in modern times people working 7 days a week can live without that bell racket on Sunday mornings. The lesser evil with church bells is that they are not ringing out across hundreds of townships 5 times a day, 7 days a week, making people angry and dividing communities.  If you can’t see how that repetitive religious custom negatively affects the wellbeing of local residents, then you wouldn’t understand why I, an atheist, decided to tick a Christian religion box. That’s just my personal thoughts on the census story today.
Also,  please excuse my unwillingness to take orders to stop participating in the discussion.  I thought this was an open forum where interested people are welcome to politely join the conversation, whether or not others agree. If you tell people to stop joining in Rick, you are dictating terms.  Unfriendly attitude.

RyaN says:

03:59pm | 09/08/11

@Rick: the crusades happened during your lifetime? I am sure you would say the same had you lost a brother or sister, mother or father in the Bali bombings huh?

Rick says:

04:02pm | 09/08/11

Brenda, The Facebook comment comes because the views you are posting here are just regurgitated from a number of Facebook statuses being circulated in the last couple of weeks, pushing the same strange agenda.
I’m not sure what townships in this country you’re referring to, but I don’t know of any where Mosques are “ringing out across hundreds of townships 5 times a day, 7 days a week, making people angry and dividing communities”, in fact as you freely admit, there already exists that problem with church bells and clock towers, yet you don’t feel motivated enough about these to start an online campaign to fill in your census form incorrectly. In fact, you seems to assume that because this is (reportedly?) a problem in the UK, then it must be an approaching issue here, with the increase of Muslims. I’m not sure why you’d think this - do any of the existing mosques play loud ” call-to-prayers” currently? Why would they start?

I certainly agree that repetitive religious custom negatively affects the wellbeing of local residents, but I’m not sure why, if others are in agreeance, there aren’t online campaigns to stop Mormons learning Vietnamese and prowling around North Richmond looking for poor Vietnamese people to prey on, or why people aren’t petitioning the Punch to get that crazy guy at the train station to move along with his sandwich board and rapture predicitions. Personally I’m far more annoyed (read: negatively affected) by these people in my day to day life, than normal, everyday muslims going about their lives - not negatively affecting me in any way.

You are correct though - I just can’t see any rational reason as to why a atheist, clearly smart and coherent enough to access and post on a discussion website on the internet would feel that ticking Christian on their census form would be in any way be beneficial, nevermind some sort of one-up over the muslims.

Lastly, my suggestion to stop was a suggestion made in attempt to help you save face - by all means continue on.

Rick says:

04:20pm | 09/08/11

@RyaN

No, the crusades didn’t happen during my lifetime, but the point I was making is that they are as much attributable to the wider community of Christians as the Bali bombings are to the wider community of Muslims. ie not at all. Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a few extremists is not good reasoning, or a healthy way to live your life.

Brenda says:

05:30pm | 09/08/11

But Rick, there you go again, preaching from the pulpit of superiority, wanting to help a perfect stranger “save face”.  I’m old enough, experienced enough and wise enough to express an opinion and accept in good spirit the opinions of others. To begin with, I merely stated how I took up a suggestion to counter-balance statistics that can and do impact on local planning decisions. If you would be happy with a mosque and its minaret in your locality then that’s your choice, but most people I know definitely wouldn’t want them popping up like daisies as they have in Europe’s large and small countries.
If you haven’t lived around the outskirts of London in recent years, or have no relatives to tell you about the English towns that are now acoustically and socially alien to British culture,  then I don’t expect you to understand why I would not want Australia to fall into complacency.
This is only my opinion, it doesn’t have to be yours.  I wouldn’t know what “campaign”  is “regurgitated” on Facebook or anywhere else because I don’t go there. I simply commented on the census story here in relation to its questions about religion, and exercised a democratic right to do so.
Peace.

Rick says:

06:01pm | 09/08/11

But Brenda this is this issue - you won’t be counter balancing anything - as already pointed out in your thread and many others - whether you tick no religion or christianity makes no difference to how many muslims there are. So changing your religion from none to Christianity won’t make a lick of difference even if the government did concern themselves with building mosques. Hopefully you can see why there’s no point lying on this question, and that the country would get far more benefit from the census if people would just answer the questions truthfully, and not in line with some agenda they’re trying to push.

The other problem there is bigotry towards a particular religion, but it’s clear we won’t be making any inroads on that subject today.

Brenda says:

07:37pm | 09/08/11

Rick, I KNOW that ticking a Christian religion box on the census form didn’t make any difference to the total numbers of any other religion.
If you now want to impolitely introduce the subject of bigotry, just start defending religious zealots who loudly, unashamedly label atheists and Christians as infidels, and we can explore the meaning of “hypocrite”.
The agenda you are now pushing Rick is one noticeably common in men of very short stature. 

Say around 5’8” or less?

marley says:

08:56am | 10/08/11

Oh Brenda.  You claim to be an atheist but are going to lie on your census form for no logical reason that you have been able to articulate.  Whether you tick Christian or no religion will not affect one iota the number of Muslims in this country.  If every single non Muslim ticked Christian, it still wouldn’t change the number of Muslims in this country.  If every single non-Muslim ticked ” no religion”, it wouldn’t change the number of Muslims in this country. If planning decisions are based on the census (which they’re not), then the proportion of Muslims in the population, and their relative influence and weight, isn’t going to be affected at all by you and your ilk putting “Christian” on your census form.  You’re lying for no reason at all.

By the way, do you have the faintest idea how many Muslims there actually are in Australia?  According to the last census,  340,000.  Not one million.  Not even close.  Do you seriously believe that a population group that small is going to be taking over the cities and building mosques on every corner any time soon? 

And please don’t tell me that we should be worried because Islam is the fastest growing religion in Australia.  It isn’t growing nearly as fast as hinduism or buddhism, so why don’t you start worrying about hindu temples?

Chris_D_fan says:

10:13am | 10/08/11

@Brenda
Wow. Such obstinate stupidity is rarely so sustained.
Are you really Chris_D?

Rick says:

01:45pm | 10/08/11

Sorry Brenda, at this point it’s quite clear that you DON’T understand how the census works, and that would seem to be consistent with your lack of understanding of other cultures as well. Thanks goodness we don’t provide people like you with many chances to influence the rest of society.

Tina says:

08:40am | 09/08/11

That is correct. And since noone knows the motivation behind your choice, noone should be entitled to use it for future lobbying. Just because you generally share a belief doesnt mean you share all aspects of it and support them.

down with big brother says:

08:43am | 09/08/11

On that point, I was very annoyed with the entire census in that I felt the government was forcing its way into my life and extracting information which I didn’t want to give. Particularly when I know all the information will be used as a political weapon.

marley says:

08:58am | 09/08/11

Well, personally, I think I can guess the motivation behind being a “bacchanalian.”

Budz says:

09:31am | 09/08/11

@Tina: Tell that to the Australian Christian Lobby! They believe they speak for a majority of Australians because our census last time said 64% of us are Christians.  So it does make a big difference.
http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/about-acl/
And their current campaigns.
http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/featured-campaigns/

Disraeli says:

09:33am | 09/08/11

The Census simply isn’t a Right Left thing.

Over the last 100 years, we’ve done it successfully 16 times as one of the few truly national events we all do together.

By the ABS, for every government of every flavour we’ve ever had.

And the results are there for everyone to use, in understanding or country and our community. From every one. And its free.

It’s not a Right Left issue, no matter how hard DWBB and others try. Pointless to try and make it one, in fact.

Tina says:

09:38am | 09/08/11

@ Budz

And that is exactly the thing that upsets me. There is a difference of asking for your number of kids than asking for your religious affiliation. Its a complex thing that cannot be answered by ticking a box. And then the information ends up being misused.

wearestardust says:

09:39am | 09/08/11

These comments apply equally to any part of the census. 

@Tina: indeed.  But that doesn’t mean that the data won’t be so used.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record (young folks look up “record” in wikipedia), answer correctly.  If one has faith, one should answer accordingly.  If one doesn’t one should answer accordingly.

Aaron says:

10:35am | 09/08/11

While I do understand that this article refers to people ticking “christian” when they’re not, I think that a better title, and better stance shouldn’t be “The christians are using the census data to steal our tax money,” it should focus more on “Let’s give the ABS ACCURATE data.”

My question is, after this campaign if, say, 50-60% still say “Christian” will atheists claim that the people didn’t understand the census properly? Or will you accept that there is a possibility that a large number of people think differently to you? (I think that the percentage of practising christians would be around 20-30% with another 10-15% being christians who aren’t affiliated with a particular church)

Tina says:

09:02am | 09/08/11

How rude to tell people if they dont exactly agree with your 2-lines argument then they shouldnt call themselves Christian. Your narrow mindedness is the reason so many dont like to refer to themselves as Christian in oder to not get mistaked for people like you.

Aaron says:

10:41am | 09/08/11

Actually, Tina. As much as I hate to “Box” people in, that is the ONE thing that defines christians, is that they believe that Jesus was killed on a cross by the Romans for sins and didn’t stay dead. If you believe in the christian “God” without believing that then that technically wouldn’t be christianity.

Tina says:

10:55am | 09/08/11

@ Aaron

Then according to your definition I am not Christian. I dont literally believe in the “story” of Christianity and I think a lot of people dont.

Chris_D says:

11:00am | 09/08/11

@Joan & Aaron, yes, you are correct, but if one practices Christian principles but doesn’t follow all the dogma, can they not consider themselves Christian?

Miles says:

11:59am | 09/08/11

Chris_D, this would mean they have high morals, but they are not technically christian.  Following a lifestyle is not christian - belief in the faith (and other dogma) is what technically defines ‘christian’.

steve says:

12:36pm | 09/08/11

@Tina, But that is what a Christian is, someone who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God.  If you don’t believe that you aren’t a Christian, simple as that.

Tina says:

12:49pm | 09/08/11

@ steve

And what do you gain by telling me I am no Christian? I consider myself Christian. It is part of my culture, heritage and values. You are right in saying by definition I am not Christian. I dont think any of the “Jesus story” is true, I think it is a fictional story to guide people. I wonder how many people really believe they way you say is the only way to be Christian.

But going back to Census, this debate already shows that asking people for their religion will not get accurate results in any way as they have left it to the individual to define what they are.

Aaron says:

04:36pm | 09/08/11

I don’t mean to tell anyone what they are or aren’t, just that my understanding is that to be a christian it is necessary to believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for sin.

Budz says:

09:10am | 09/08/11

That your religion is Schumacherist?

adam says:

09:13am | 09/08/11

Brockianism. Or maybe Webbertarian

JuzzyD says:

12:49pm | 09/08/11

I’ll reply with Stonerfarian to ensure the track is dual purpose and has gravel traps so I can get the bike out there. Wait, hang on, they might mistake what I mean by “Stonerfarian” and I’ll get raided instead of a race track.

Chris_D says:

10:54am | 09/08/11

@Barry, exactly mate, I tried to make similar points yesterday, but apparently that makes me a “racist looney”.

Ando says:

11:17am | 09/08/11

No religious person will tick the no religion box because Frank suggests if you dont believe dont tick it. He’s only talking to none believers, thats obvious.
On the other hand Brenda (above) is the exact target of the Facebook phrase which is designed purely to encourage people to lie in order to combat the Muslims.

Tina says:

09:19am | 09/08/11

This article does in no way attack any religious beliefs. And I wasnt aware that there is some global “this is the most important topic so we have discuss this and nothing else” list.

Ice Tray says:

09:32am | 09/08/11

Agree, we’re at the dawn on the next dark age, and they post articles attacking the only people who hold the values that could prevent our demise.

TChong says:

09:44am | 09/08/11

What Ice Tray?
Thats outrageous! ?!
How dare anyone attack International Rescue !
Lets hope Virgils Thunderbird 2 will have something in a pod to save us all from ” them.”

Chris_D says:

09:50am | 09/08/11

@Dan.  Thanks, I was thinking I was the only one.  The Punch is quickly turning into the same tabloid journalism that it used to lampoon.

Mayday says:

09:54am | 09/08/11

Dan the Census is TONIGHT a good reason for the article TODAY!

Dan says:

10:05am | 09/08/11

@ Tina
Yes it is an attack on religion by an Atheist who can’t stand the fact that religion still has influence (Look at his posts on The Punch).Pushing hidden agendas doesn’t make much of an “ETHICS” teacher IMO.

The global list that you are not aware of is called common sense.

Where are the pro-religious (Esp Christian) articles on the punch ? ? ?

@ IceTray - Yes, but most people don’t realize this. (as written in revelation)

@TChong - lol

Tina says:

10:34am | 09/08/11

@ Dan

I dont understand why people are so sensitive when it comes to religion and every opinion voiced is a direct attack or insult. You are not feeling insulted when someone says he prefers chicken over lamb do you? It is an article that is supposed to encourage conversation - and as long as you behave yourself all opinions will be posted and respected.

Tubesteak says:

10:34am | 09/08/11

There was a GFC article yesterday.

Your argument is invalid.

Aaron says:

10:46am | 09/08/11

Enough about the bloody GFC. Panic has caused panic which is causing the current downturn. If we ignore it, it’ll go away….. Kinda like K-Rudd

fml says:

11:14am | 09/08/11

Stuff the articles on the GFC, i want more on KFC.

John says:

02:31pm | 09/08/11

@Chris_D you can’t dislike the article too much - you’ve commented on it 10+ times!

Chris_D says:

04:17pm | 09/08/11

@John, I’ve replied to other peoples comments mostly, such as yours.  but that doesn’t make the articles any better.

Chris L says:

09:55pm | 09/08/11

Wow! You consider people not following your religion to be an active “attack” on it?! I recomend you grow a few more layers of epidermis.

gra gra says:

11:28pm | 10/08/11

For Dan. One day you lot suggest that journos should report the facts, and the next day you want a pro-god article. Make up your bloody mind.

kricket says:

01:05pm | 09/08/11

isnt that what agnostic means? That you think there is something/ someone that is a higher being but you’re not sure who/ what it is?

Jane2 says:

04:14pm | 09/08/11

Not quite if you go for the dictionary definition

D/ [Websters]: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Ie, an agnostic person is someone who cant make up their mind one way or the other

Chris_D says:

11:05am | 09/08/11

@Ghost, classic!  Well said.

father, son and the holy.. says:

01:09pm | 09/08/11

Are you eight years old or something Ghost?, what you’ve written here sounds like something you’d hear from a child in a school yard that doesn’t like the state of play. You could simply ignore the “fuckwits”, answer the census question question truthfully, and not worry about what everyone else is saying, that would be the mature thing to do wouldn’t it?

Mayday says:

09:58am | 09/08/11

Thanks Tinker Bell…you are obviously a “good fairy.”

Chris_D says:

11:08am | 09/08/11

@Tinker Bell….. Yawn…...

People choose to believe for any number of reasons.  The suggestion that they are not sane simply because they have a faith/belief system which you don’t believe in says more about your mental state than theirs.

John says:

02:36pm | 09/08/11

He’s encouraging people to make up their own minds. It says be truthful, not “tick no religion even if you’re religious”. Read the article again, Einstein.

TChong says:

09:37am | 09/08/11

please allow him to introduce himself, hes a man of wealth and taste.

marley says:

10:10am | 09/08/11

Logic fail.  The stats will indicate 2% Muslims or thereabouts, whatever any non-Muslim chooses to answer.  The only difference will be that the number of Christians might go down and the number of atheists might increase.  But that won’t affect the percentage of Muslims in the total population.  Unless of course all the Christians and atheists convert to Islam.

James1 says:

10:38am | 09/08/11

I will definitely fill mine in accurately then.  If it leads to local Muslims having a place to pray, then I am all for it.

Thanks for raising that consideration - it is very considerate of you to factor in the ability of Muslims to pray in their local area.  You have a kind heart.

Anna C says:

11:07am | 09/08/11

“I will definitely fill mine in accurately then.  If it leads to local Muslims having a place to pray, then I am all for it.”

Tell me James1, will you still feel the same way when property prices in your area fall because of it?

fml says:

11:17am | 09/08/11

Why are you worried about my area?

James1 says:

11:28am | 09/08/11

Very much so Anna - then perhaps I could afford to buy.  But I don’t see what that has to do with Muslims praying…

James1 says:

11:33am | 09/08/11

Also Anna, I should mention, on our block of 15 houses, eight are owned in lived in by Muslims.  Our street is definitely an unusual one.  Last quarter, property prices in our suburb went up 3.5 percent, bucking a trend across the rest of Canberra of price stagnation.  A house across the road (purchased by Muslims, as it happens), just sold for $650 000, after being bought for $520 000 just five years ago.

Anna C says:

11:54am | 09/08/11

fml says:11:17am | 09/08/11

“Why are you worried about my area?”

Fml, I wonder whether you will still feel the same way when you have to deal with the noise coming from minarets issuing a call to pray to Muslim worshippers in your area 5 times a day?

fml says:

12:08pm | 09/08/11

Anna C,

councils have laws that prevent buildings that dont fit into the “look” of the suburb, so any minaret is highly unlikely, do you know how many mosques with minarets are in australia? the majority are just normal buildings that comply with council regulations.

I wouldnt mind if there is a mosque with a minaret, be good to have something different, maybe throw in a Buddhist monastery, Japanese gardens and hindu temple. I dont find it quite as offensive as the hoi polloi.

Anna C says:

12:32pm | 09/08/11

“I wouldnt mind if there is a mosque with a minaret, be good to have something different.”

Enjoy then fml enjoy. I’ll stick to the sound of church bells thank you very much. The Arabic language isn’t exactly known as the language of love ... it sounds like someone trying to clear their throat. But each to their own I guess.

marley says:

01:23pm | 09/08/11

The Arabic language sounds like someone trying to clear their throat?  Err, have you ever listened to Dutch or Polish?  Arabic is melodic in comparison.

And it’s actually quite easy to keep the noise level from the minarets down - you insist that there be no tape recordings of the call to prayers, and no amplification.  So the imam has to climb up to the top of the minaret, shout his calls, and clamber down again.  Keeps the noise level well within acceptable limits.

James1 says:

01:41pm | 09/08/11

Maybe Anna’s knowledge of Arabic is drawn from Team America: World Police.

If not, given that spoken Hebrew and Arabic sound quite similar to the untrained ear, one can’t help but wonder if she would say the same things about Jews…

Anna C says:

02:23pm | 09/08/11

I see that the PC Police are out in force again. Take a bow James 1, fml. Are you two into tag team wrestling or what?

fml says:

02:49pm | 09/08/11

What about persian churches then Anna?

The persian language has been described by goethe as the language of love. If someone with the linguistic ability of goethe can see that surely you can too?

PC?? id say more apathetic. If someone wants to build a place of worship i dont see why they should just because of one upstart in the suburb. Place of worship, chippie or car yard, it dont bother me none, my undies wont get in a not.

James1 says:

03:00pm | 09/08/11

Can’t respond to arguments, and instead resort to attacking the messengers, I see.

Would you care to answer my post though?  What are your thoughts on the Hebrew language?  I would be very interested to hear, after your cutting and insightful analysis of one of the other great literary and poetic languages.

Anna C says:

03:50pm | 09/08/11

“What are your thoughts on the Hebrew language?”

James1, I’m not a particular fan of the Hebrew language either. Now that you mention it I’m also not fond of listening to Russian, Afrikaans, Dutch and many other languages. What’s you point?

James1 says:

04:12pm | 09/08/11

I wasn’t making a point.  I was just basking in the reflected glory of your high-level analysis of some of history and modernity’s greatest languages.  I am but the muse to your knowledge of linguistics and aesthetics.

Jazet says:

09:53am | 10/08/11

A district quite close to home has an extremely high number of disgruntled citizens which have been angrily demonstrating for some time over the building of a council approved muslim worship centre.  Strange that this area appears to have a lot of support in their cause to hinder the progress of the development.  I am sure Census information was taken into account in the planning approval guidelines - Can only assume there must have been a lot of muslims ticking their faith’s religion box but many others ticking no religion.  Bit late to protest after the fact.  Personally I would prefer the sound of churchbells on a Sunday morning rather than the several times a day call to prayers.  It is your call - The drone or the bells. 

The discussion (replies?) above about personal preferences on languages personally leaves me for dead.  If anyone wants my 2c worth on that one (and they probably don’t) then I must say I would prefer English as I am not fluent in any other languages. 

Have a nice day everyone!

monkeytypist says:

11:08am | 09/08/11

Some people might suggest that the point of the census question was to find out the truth about what Australians believe, rather than what they feel like saying.  But hey, if you’re not concerned about such a petty thing as “truth” then by all means encourage people to do whatever they want.

Ripa says:

01:29pm | 09/08/11

@monkeytypist
What are you talking about ?
Australians will fill the form out honestly WITHOUT self interest, petty threats by the likes of gomez. We dont need him telling anyone how they should answer.

monkeytypist says:

04:04pm | 09/08/11

@Ripa “fill out the form honestly” isn’t the same as “fill out the form however you want”.  It seems to me you’re quite irate at Gomez for encouraging people to be truthful? What is wrong with that, specifically?

Ripa says:

02:32am | 10/08/11

@monkeytypist
It is exactly the same, however it maybe not be, compared to your manipulative two faced standards but to the rest of us being in touch with how we feel is honesty.

marley says:

10:14am | 09/08/11

I was a bit puzzled too.  The Census lady told me about the on-line option, and said it could be filled in ahead of time if you knew who was going to be in the house on the day.  I don’t suppose it’s any more fallible than a paper census which we fill out a couple of days ahead, though.

fml says:

11:18am | 09/08/11

Aisle 8! Wanton strumpet is my favorite. Do i have to shower them with trinkets?

iansand says:

07:32pm | 09/08/11

Got caught up at work.  Didn’t even make Woolies, let alone aisle 8.  When is the next census?  Roll on the strumpets!*

*iansand acknowledges that this may have been expressed a little better.

monkeytypist says:

12:40pm | 09/08/11

. . . thanks for playing, RyaN.

James1 says:

10:57am | 09/08/11

Reading fail.  The author mentioned Islam.

Chris_D says:

11:20am | 09/08/11

@P.Darvio, so if you don’t actually believe in a religious text you cannot claim to believe in a God?

Paul Williams says:

11:39am | 09/08/11

@ChrisD - You should be marking No Religion. This does not necessarily mean you are not spiritual, or do not believe in a God. Perhaps it is poorly worded or explained, but No Religion in this census covers everything aside from people who practice organised religion (i.e., texts)

Chris_D says:

05:26pm | 09/08/11

@Paul, yes, true, no argument here, but I was actually refering to P.Davrio’s statement that “around 70% of Australians have no belief in a GOD or cannot claim to believe in a GOD (because they don’t actually believe in their respective religious text).”

No drama, it was just an observation.

Jim says:

11:05am | 09/08/11

God has a sense of humour??

fml says:

11:20am | 09/08/11

Sorry mate, that mirror was most probably made in a factory.

VVS says:

11:22am | 09/08/11

Or more like “a face only a mother could love”...

But I joke… even Chongy’s mother would blow chunks at the sight… ha!

Sorry I couldn’t help myself after you lobbed up that dolly.

Michael says:

12:10pm | 09/08/11

That’s fear not hate, similar and often go together hence the mistake.

Matt F says:

01:07pm | 09/08/11

I didn’t know Rob Oakeshott posted here

ibast says:

01:13pm | 09/08/11

Pfft.  Who want to live forever?

Gomez12 says:

01:16pm | 09/08/11

Wait, I’m a highlander too…...

PW says:

11:44am | 09/08/11

@Claire. You do not have to specify. Simply tick ‘No Religion’!!

James1 says:

11:47am | 09/08/11

The police in Northern Ireland have a 50-50 policy.  50 per cent must be Catholic, and 50 per cent must be Protestant.  If you are an atheist, you must identify as either a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist.

My point?  The situation you identify could be worse.

Mattb says:

12:14pm | 09/08/11

Claire, your making a mountain out of a mole hill there. It’s not that difficult, you answered your own question in your post when you wrote-

“I’m not religious and I don’t know what to tick”

There, see it, ‘I’m not religious’, you wrote it, why confuse yourself with all the other questions your asking yourself. Just mark the box beside ‘no religion’, go to bed and wake up tomorrow to the same life you have today. Easy.

Claire says:

12:36pm | 09/08/11

I’m not losing sleep over my census form, I should have stated before, i will gladly tick no religion tonight on my form.  What i’m saying is there is confusion surrounding what to select and no wonder, the concept of religion on the census form is not in line with the way many people view religion any more.

marley says:

01:15pm | 09/08/11

If that’s how you feel, that’s fine.  That’s what you’re supposed to do.  But if you were baptized, but no longer believe in god or the Christian religion, you should put down “no religion” because that’s being honest.  What you shouldn’t do is lie about your religious views because some half-wit sent a scary e-mail about mosques on every street corner.

Kika says:

02:16pm | 09/08/11

Yep - agree. People should put what they want to put down and shouldn’t be coerced either way - by atheists or religious alike. It’s a personal thing.

PW says:

12:59am | 10/08/11

Leah, Christian isn’t even one of the options.

Tina says:

01:27pm | 09/08/11

I agree. Religion is a complex one to answer and as long as they dont put a definition on the form, people should answer what feels right.

But I think that only applies for the religion question. When it comes to “are you male / female” it really annoys me when people ask for other categories because they “feel” they are something outside of “male” or “female”. But its not about your feeling, just look down your body and tick what you see.

fml says:

02:58pm | 09/08/11

All the article is doing is educating people to the effects of their apathy and education is a good thing, right?

dw says:

04:48pm | 09/08/11

perhaps fml - yet the title is more like a command.

the only ‘education’ being provided is Frank’s criteria on how we are allowed to view ourselves. By doing this, he falls to the same depths as any religious organisation that tries to ‘educate’ us. He is corrupting the results of the census by trying to influence us.

fml says:

02:56pm | 09/08/11

Can you suggest where i can get a decent mongolian beef just like kublai used to make?

Cynical_Me says:

04:02pm | 09/08/11

Rotfl!

Nice comeback FML

Frank Gomez says:

01:43pm | 09/08/11

I am not a government employee. I teach ethics in a volunteer capacity at a local public school. All I am really suggesting is that people fill in the census form accurately. How is that unethical?

The Cricket says:

03:50pm | 09/08/11

It’s unethical to urge people to answer a census question accurately and honestly?!?

Are you serious?

TheRealDave says:

03:51pm | 09/08/11

Its unethical because he wants people to think for themselves which is the antithesis of religious teachings…..

Dan says:

04:22pm | 09/08/11

@ Frank Gomez

” All I am really suggesting is that people fill in the census form accurately. How is that unethical? “

I call BS

Your soul aim is to lower the christian count by making people believe they are not really religious because they don’t go to church every weekend (even if they have religious beliefs) . You have planted a seed and hope for the outcome you desire.

That is not ethics….... it is sneaky.

malohi says:

10:36pm | 09/08/11

“You have planted a seed and hope for the outcome you desire.

That is not ethics….... it is sneaky.”

Really? no comment on the irony of this comment coming from a defender of religion to an ethics teacher… Federal budget, chaplaincy, school kids… Not even a peep from the gallery?

John the Zombie says:

03:38pm | 09/08/11

simplereally you are a joke. This is the true problem with athiest is that they cant accept they are a minority and are happy condem those who believe in religion, just read your statement.

If we follow your Athiest writers article yesterday then I do believe you are been racist. Even this author is a racist based on yesterdays article.

marley says:

07:16pm | 09/08/11

Okay - you feel like an Anglican, by all means tick that box.  But if I feel like an atheist, and tick that box, how is that promoting sharia law?  The whole point about atheists, or, as I prefer to think of myself, secularists, is that we don’t want any form of religious law, education or instruction intruding on governance.  Go and enjoy your services in your church or mosque or temple or gurdwara, but don’t expect your religious values to intrude on secular law.

LC says:

07:50pm | 09/08/11

A. I seriously doubt it would be enacted merely from more people choosing “no religion”. “Islamic”, maybe. But not “no religion”

B. State-enforced Sharia law would go against S.116 of our constitution. Extra-judicial criminal acts justified under Sharia law are prosecuted.

Next scare tactic please…

monkeytypist says:

04:19pm | 09/08/11

It’s quite accurate that people have many different and unique views on religion - however, what matters for the census is what the Australian government takes from the data.  The Australian government doesn’t respect all of these niceties, it simply says “X million people say they are Catholic, so therefore the Catholic Church deserves X million dollars of public money”.  Unfortunately, the people who are marking the answers are not asking the government to budget public money for religious causes explicitly, but that is how their data is interpreted.  That’s why it’s so important for people who aren’t actually adherents to a religious organisation to claim that they are.  It affects public policy - so it’s morphed far away from being a private moral decision.

wearestardust says:

05:37pm | 09/08/11

Surely you are joking.

Timmy says:

05:50pm | 09/08/11

Didn’t some wacko with a gun in another country talk about Christian Atheists in his Manifesto?????

alterans says:

06:18pm | 09/08/11

Interestingly, one of the few contributions of early Christianity to Roman law was a ban on other religions. It took Europe until the enlightenment to lift this ban, if not longer. Funny, it took Christians almost 2000 years to embrace religious tolerance. If this is a Christian value, they are surely slow learners.
I am also very surprised that Christians do not believe that Jesus was resurrected. Christians do not believe that Mary was a virgin. Christians do not believe that he was gods son, because Christians believe that god doesn’t exist in the first place. Because that what I am believe, and apparently I am still a Christian.

alterans says:

06:19pm | 09/08/11

Interestingly, one of the few contributions of early Christianity to Roman law was a ban on other religions. It took Europe until the enlightenment to lift this ban, if not longer. Funny, it took Christians almost 2000 years to embrace religious tolerance. If this is a Christian value, they are surely slow learners.
I am also very surprised that Christians do not believe that Jesus was resurrected. Christians do not believe that Mary was a virgin. Christians do not believe that he was gods son, because Christians believe that god doesn’t exist in the first place. Because that what I am believe, and apparently I am still a Christian.

Graham - Christian Athiests says:

06:40pm | 09/08/11

wearestardust,  no I am not joking.
There are millions of Christian Athiests and Christian Agnostics in this country. They are people who either don’t believe in God or who are open minded either way, but they believe in the principles of living and relating as taught by Jesus Christ, and they believe in a society based on those principles - that is our society.

wearestardust says:

05:50pm | 09/08/11

No matter how many times Christian apologists (it always seems to be Christians) characterise it otherwise, putting correct answers in the census is not anti-Christian.  It is being correct.  Not politically correct.  Just correct.  Or do you want people to lie on their census forms?  I think Jesus had something to say about things like that.

How have I been harmed by Christians?  I presume you launched straight into commenting without reading any other comments.  Basically I and every other citizen is harmed by being subject to rules imposed to please sectarian religious influences. 

Look: if you don’t want to be gay, don’t be gay.  But don’t tell my son he can’t be married or our gay friends that they should have less access to IVF.  You don’t want to play R-rated games?  Fine, don’t play them, but don’t tell me what I can’t play.  You don’t want to look at certain internet sites?  FIne, don’t look at them, but don’t filter my internet thank you.  You want your kids to have chaplaincy support at school?  Fine, you organise that, but don’t make me pay to have all children subject to the program. 

I’ve already posted to this effect: people of all faiths and none can and should contribute to the public space, and I welcome that.  But it is not anti-christian, or anti-religion, to insist that everyone be on the same footing and that no group be especially privileged due to their beliefs.

mel says:

06:06pm | 09/08/11

ha ha ha, jenni, you’re funny! I’ve never been threatened by a muslim (even though I’ve travelled and worked in a few muslim countries), nor would I think 99.9% of Australians (which leaves 0.1% that have, 23,000 people. That still sounds like a lot!). There have been lots of nasty christians though.

Alterans says:

06:22pm | 09/08/11

If giving presents at Christmas, and eating eggs with Easter is all you do about religion, you are not a Christian. Neither is a Christian tradition. If you want to claim to be a Christian, you should at least know what Pentecost is, and celebrate it too.

marley says:

08:28am | 10/08/11

Oh for god’s sake.  I want a secular society in Australia - not a Muslim one and not a Christian one.  If I tick the no religion box, it will decrease by one the number of Christians, increase by one the number of secularists, and have no effect on the Muslim figure at all.

LC says:

01:23pm | 10/08/11

So asking merely that people think for a moment about exatcly what their beliefs are before filling out a census to ensure accurate results is akin to economic totalitarianism which is what socialism is?

How does one come to that conclusion?

marley says:

09:58am | 10/08/11

@Nick - the question about number of children a women has had is to give a picture of changing fertility/birth rates over time.  It’s got very little to do with family structures, or mother vs fatherhood, it’s about postulating population growth/decline.  And for obvious reasons, the rate of births per woman is the basic statistic on which those calculations will be based.

Ted B says:

10:12am | 10/08/11

Maybe the more important questions about birth rate is how many are barstards and how many marriages/partners has she betrayed. Time to understand the slut factor.

Nick says:

12:33pm | 10/08/11

Thanks Marey, I guess I forgot that the purpose of the census is extremely constrained - perhaps by legislation?  In the narrowest sense of making vague predictions about population dynamics based on age specific fertility rates for women the exclusion makes sense.  In terms of understanding social dynamics (eg second pulses of parenting, parental ages etc) for the purposes of providing or predicting the need for services and support it seemed a ridiculous omission.

I’m solely responsible for the full time care of two toddlers and routinely feel excluded from activities, support programs, health programs, community discussions and the like.  The fact that they intentionally didn’t collect data relating to fatherhood when it would have been so easy to do it felt like a slap in the face.

marley says:

08:23pm | 10/08/11

@Nick - I’m not going to question that the census has its limits and you’ve identified one.  On the other hand, an awful lot of people think it’s too intrusive already.  So I’m not sure how many more questions they can put in about family structures and responsibilities without getting even more protests.

But the figure about fertility/birth rates is an important one, and one captured by censuses in most countries. If women are having fewer children (regardless of who is the father or with whom the children are living) then that is a major demographic issue - aging populations not being replaced. 

And that’s when governments start to look at where their long term plans for medicare and hospital facilitiies are going; what funding strategies are going to be needed to finance pensions and aged-care homes (because there aren’t the children to do it), not to mention long term labour shortages, which leads into immigration issues.  Knowing fertility rates are dropping is something that engages the government in very long-term planning. Or should do, anyway.

What you’re describing is of course important too, but not really what the census is designed for.  You need help short term, and the census is more “big picture.”

I hope you don’t feel I’m dismissing your point, which I agree is a real one - just one I don’t think the census was ever designed to address.

Jake says:

08:57am | 11/08/11

The authors assertion is backed up by opinion polls.

Your assertion that the polls are biased and your claim to know what most Australians actually think is not backed by anything.

Funny how easily you can criticize someone else’s data but you’re more than happy to claim absolute knowledge yourself without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

I wonder if that’s because you’re one of the minority that feels forcing a person to live in pain and suffering when they want to die is upholding their rights?

Jake says:

08:50am | 11/08/11

Churches do receive tax free status in Australia.

The government does use public resources to fund religious programs. Take for example the school chaplaincy program which spends $165 million of public money to have chaplains at schools. Not to mention funding for religious schools.

The government may not be paying your power bills for you, but if you believe for a second that public money is not being spent on religious causes, you’ve got your head in the clouds.

OMG says:

12:25pm | 11/08/11

School Chaplaincy is not a religious program. Again you are just looking for something to be angry about. A friend of mine is a school chaplain and whilst one of the men at the school was trying to have him barred because of his religious beliefs that same man’s wife was approaching the chaplain for help with their son’s problems. People want to be angry and want to hate the church without bothering to think what that might mean and what it might actually cost them. There is no-one else out there to take on the chaplaincy/counselling burden. But go ahead and cut of your nose to spite your face, it’s your nose.

Buddha says:

06:53pm | 11/08/11

Look at how many private schools (mostly religious) receive government funding over state schools.  All I’d like to see is equality ... to use the above example, I think a state school should get the same money per student as a private school gets.

I’m an athiest, but that’s me, you can believe in whatever you want and I have no problem with that.  However, I don’t push my beliefs on anyone, so I don’t want others pushed on me.  When a private school gets more funding than a private school, the government is saying that private school children are more important than state school children.

OMG says:

08:40am | 12/08/11

Buddha I don’t pretend to know about school funding. It is not something I have ever had to deal with but are you sure private schools are getting a higher level of funding per student than public schools or is that just another case of having heard something that suits your argument which gives you something to be angry about?

Jake says:

10:23am | 12/08/11

@OMG
“School Chaplaincy is not a religious program. Again you are just looking for something to be angry about.”

No, you’re just trying to find some angle to make the government funded provision of religious advisers a secular exercise - it’s not. The money would be far better spent acquiring people with accredited psychological qualifications - regardless of their religion - rather than anyone with religious experience.

School chaplaincy is a religious program. School chaplains are sourced from a religious background only. Secular councilors are not permitted under the funding program unless a religious chaplain is not locally available.

As it currently stands, if there is a local pastor with no more than a high-school education and a local non-religious councellor with a degree in child psychology, the school is obliged to employ the pastor if they want the position funded by the program.

Enjoy the following quotes from the official NSCP guidelines (http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolChaplaincyProgram/Documents/nscp_guidelines.pdf) :

“Access to advice, support and guidance about ethics, values and relationships may already be available at schools through existing services, such as counsellors, youth workers, social workers and psychologists. While the Program complements these services, there are also clear differences between this Program and existing services, which include the focus on spiritual and religious advice, support and guidance.”

“The objectives of the National School Chaplaincy Program are to assist schools and their communities to provide greater pastoral care, general religious and personal advice and comfort to all students and staff.”

“School chaplains will deliver services to the school and its community through ... providing general religious and personal advice to those seeking it, comfort and support to students and staff, such as during times of grief;”

“In particular circumstances, secular pastoral care workers may be employed under this program.”—Gee that’s big of them isn’t it?

Oh how foolish of us to think that this was a religious program. After all, there may be some specific circumstances under which you’re allowed to hire someone who isn’t religious for the role.

I think you need to get your head around what this program actually entails because it is absolutely religious in nature. This money would be better spent getting qualified councellors into schools - ignoring their religious affiliation - rather than paying the local vicar who is probably about as in-touch with children as my dead grandfather.

OMG says:

12:07pm | 12/08/11

Jake – where are you going to get all of these secular counsellors? They don’t exist. It is only because the church cares enough, and always has, that it has the people to put into these positions. Are you angry that the government should assist in paying for this help or just angry that the help doesn’t agree with your view of life?
If you would like I can point you towards someone who can help with your feelings about your dead Grandfather. You might like to start with a Chaplain.

Jake says:

09:56am | 12/08/11

As much as Judeo-christianity would love to claim authorship of such novel ideas as not killing people randomly, not stealing from others, and respecting your parents, these ethical principals pre-date Abrahamic religion by centuries.

How do you suggest any civilization would survive if it was not frowned upon to kill indiscriminately? Eastern culture seemed to do just fine without the 10 commandments. Australian Aboriginals did all right for 40,000 years until the christians turned up (with their values in tow).

The problem with the suggestion that christianity is inextricably linked to these ethical principals is all the dogmatic rubbish that comes with it. Sure, stealing is a bad idea, but who cares if you covet your neighbors wife? I covet all kinds of things (although not specifically *my* neighbors wife since she’s a harpy) but I don’t do anything bad as a result. It’s not like I can control that anyway. If my neighbor gets a new boat I can’t just stop myself from being jealous any more than I can stop myself from finding his wife attractive (which I don’t - harpy)? It’s an involuntary reaction. I can on the other hand stop myself from stealing his boat or sleeping with his wife (harpy) and that’s the important factor. What sane person thinks it’s reasonable to dictate what others should and shouldn’t think about?

So which of the Judeo-christian values would I get rid of first? Well lets start with their attitude toward homosexuality. It bears no relevance to me where two consenting adults choose to hide the salami so why on earth would I deem it a bad thing if two guys want to get biblical with each other? Hillbillies and council estates can keep the population up.

How about pre-marital sex? Keeping the sabbath holy? Oh here’s one, taking the lords name in vain. Yeah I think we can drop that Judeo-christian value without society erupting in an explosion of swear-driven madness. And on the Judeo side of the equation, I’ll be just fine eating pork and oysters thank-you very much. Hygiene standards have come a long way since the bible was drafted.

We don’t need Judeo-christian values, just values - ditch the dogmatic religious part. We don’t need to presume the existence of god to live in a civil society. Instead of looking to bronze aged values to decide what’s best for us, we should be ditching all the mumbo-jumbo and concentrating on what values make sense today. Some values will still be relevant - like not killing indiscriminately - but some won’t - like not mixing chicken and milk - and there may be some values that the bible doesn’t address at all because they weren’t issues 2000 years ago.

Because you seem - by my reckoning at-least - to assume that any morality or social order come direct from god you think that the reduction of religion in a society would necessarily result in an increase in disorder, but that’s not what history tells us. If that were the case, there would only be christians and muslims (and their many sub-genres) left on the planet because the rest of us would have murdered each other and descended into utter chaos thousands of years ago.

Morality and social behavior are acquired traits and are one of the many products of evolution. That’s why Lions don’t eat each other, even when they get hungry. Because if they did, then they would ultimately die-out as a species… Or are they getting it from the bible too?

“the Jueo-Christian ethic that has - at least since the time of Martin Luther - been a force for great good in the world”

The greatest force of good in the world is, and has always been, good people - not their religion. If you want to claim religion is responsible for all the good religious people have done, then you’ll have to also accept responsibility for all the evil that ‘s been done in the name of god.

I don’t personally blame religion for the crusades, just evil people who used religion to manipulate the populace. Likewise, I don’t thank religion for the good things people do. Good people will do good regardless of their beliefs.