Census - "Religion" question

secretsam

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Cuts both ways perhaps. If you dont ask the question, the status quo is more likely. If you do ask the question and find that jedi is more popular than the CofE, that might help ultimately reduce the influence of the church.

It is not as bad as the US, but certainly religious observance as a virtue is over represented in politics in my view.

While in theory the CofE has some influence on the way the country is governed I think the practical effects are pretty minimal at least in Westminster . The objections to religious involvement in politics seem to be mostly ideological - it just shouldn't be involved - rather than objecting to any specific malign influence. I agree there's no great virtue in holding religious beliefs, but neither is there in being an ardent atheist.

There are Bishops in the Lords. FFS.

Ben6899

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

I'm afraid I can't help you with that.

mrb123

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Pascal's Wager then...

ddraver

But whosoever shall deny me before an internet form, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Nothing that a short stay in Purgatory won't fix.

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

orraloon said:

First.Aspect said:

It is not as bad as the US, but certainly religious observance as a virtue is over represented in politics in my view.

That's observance of certain brands of religion not others, natch.

Sure. Any weird religions like Islam are viewed as suspicious in the US.

Personally I am predisposed to mistrust any politician who is overly religious, either (a) because they are being incincere about it for political gain, or (b) because they actually believe in a god.

I was shocked when it came out that Blair/Bush prayed together to confirm their decision to invade Iraq.

It is beyond my comprehension that so much power could be in the hands of two men who sought confirmation from a made up friend.

Pross

capt_slog said:

kingstongraham said:

Ben6899 said:

What do we think the majority answer will be, this time around?

No religion.

Imagine.

It isn't hard to do

vincesummerskRoxcBTr

Strangely the UK is pretty much a secular country in which any politician is unlikely to be voted in if they look religious but has a state religion in the C of E. But the USA has no state religion but politicians need to look religious in order to get the bible belt vote!
Government and education should all be strictly non religious and I think allowing religious based schools is wrong and will store up problems for the future.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

orraloon said:

First.Aspect said:

It is not as bad as the US, but certainly religious observance as a virtue is over represented in politics in my view.

That's observance of certain brands of religion not others, natch.

Sure. Any weird religions like Islam are viewed as suspicious in the US.

Personally I am predisposed to mistrust any politician who is overly religious, either (a) because they are being incincere about it for political gain, or (b) because they actually believe in a god.

I was shocked when it came out that Blair/Bush prayed together to confirm their decision to invade Iraq.

It is beyond my comprehension that so much power could be in the hands of two men who sought confirmation from a made up friend.

Blair became catholic part way through his term, didn't he? Because of frog-face. He then got quite into Crusades. I do not think it was a coincidence.

yorkshireraw

They need to know how many people will be allowed to attend the Catholic Church next to my house, twice every weekend, to mass-gather in an indoor setting. Because that's allowed.

Meanwhile I haven't seen my mum who lives alone in over a year, and I can't ride a bike outdoors with more than 1other person.

As for politicians who claim to have strong faith - Jacob Rees Mogg being a prime example - just look at their voting records on supporting the poor and unfortunate. Utter 'see you next tuesday's, all of them.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

orraloon said:

First.Aspect said:

It is not as bad as the US, but certainly religious observance as a virtue is over represented in politics in my view.

That's observance of certain brands of religion not others, natch.

Sure. Any weird religions like Islam are viewed as suspicious in the US.

Personally I am predisposed to mistrust any politician who is overly religious, either (a) because they are being incincere about it for political gain, or (b) because they actually believe in a god.

I was shocked when it came out that Blair/Bush prayed together to confirm their decision to invade Iraq.

It is beyond my comprehension that so much power could be in the hands of two men who sought confirmation from a made up friend.

Blair became catholic part way through his term, didn't he? Because of frog-face. He then got quite into Crusades. I do not think it was a coincidence.

I don't for a moment think that either Bush or Blair went to war based on their religious beliefs. They may have attached a fig leaf of piety to their decisions in retrospect.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Why are all anti-religionists so literal?

As an aside, I was reading something the other day that pointed out that belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis was relatively low before the advent of Darwinism and it has since increased - in other words it's a reaction to a challenging of the political authority of the church.

secretsam

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Why are all anti-religionists so literal?

"Gospel truth"

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Love > most things.

She even voted Tory once. I still married her.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Why are all anti-religionists so literal?

Religion, or more properly the church, as a moral code and a form of social glue is fine.

Brief in fairy tales is more problematic.

secretsam

LOL
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/census-to-be-redone-after-leaving-out-question-on-what-you-call-a-bread-roll-20210324206465

singleton

First.Aspect said:

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

I agree that children should question what their parents tell them on topics like this.

As a child I was told there was no God. I questioned that and spent some time looking into the claims of the bible and I came to the conclusion that what my parents told me was wrong, and I am an active Christian.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Why are all anti-religionists so literal?

Religion, or more properly the church, as a moral code and a form of social glue is fine.

Brief in fairy tales is more problematic.

It depends what you think the 'fairy tales' are for.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Why are all anti-religionists so literal?

Religion, or more properly the church, as a moral code and a form of social glue is fine.

Brief in fairy tales is more problematic.

It depends what you think the 'fairy tales' are for.

To communicate the moral code and persuade people to follow it. And cough up some cash...

Pross

Is there an agnostic option? I'm not certain enough either way and find people who unquestioningly believe either way to be equally intriguing. Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the origins of life as much as others. I bet there are a lot of aethists who, on their deathbeds, have a slight niggling question of "what if I was wrong".

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Why are all anti-religionists so literal?

As an aside, I was reading something the other day that pointed out that belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis was relatively low before the advent of Darwinism and it has since increased - in other words it's a reaction to a challenging of the political authority of the church.

What political authority?

elbowloh

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Why are all anti-religionists so literal?

Religion, or more properly the church, as a moral code and a form of social glue is fine.

Brief in fairy tales is more problematic.

Only works when those preaching that moral code actually follow the bloody thing themselves...

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

No as in, at the pearly gates.

Don't take this the wrong way, but does this sort of thing create ongoing friction in your marriage?

You strike me as a person capable, mostly, of rational analysis.

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

Why are all anti-religionists so literal?

Religion, or more properly the church, as a moral code and a form of social glue is fine.

Brief in fairy tales is more problematic.

It depends what you think the 'fairy tales' are for.

To communicate the moral code and persuade people to follow it. And cough up some cash...

The bold bit, yes; but in a lot of the stories, the 'fairy' bit is pretty incidental. For the latter two, I blame Constantine.

elbowloh

singleton said:

First.Aspect said:

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

I agree that children should question what their parents tell them on topics like this.

As a child I was told there was no God. I questioned that and spent some time looking into the claims of the bible and I came to the conclusion that what my parents told me was wrong, and I am an active Christian.

I was also told there was no god, however my mum also sent us to Sunday school, not sure why.

We also had RE lessons and had daily prayer and hymns in school, as is law.

I read the bible probably more than a lot of Christians I know and came to the conclusion that there is no god/gods.

I never really got past:

1) the epicurean argument
2) why one god over the all the over gods that are believed around the world / have been believed in throughout history.


I have no problem with the question in the census. It's all about using the data to plan what services are needed to be provided for and, like it or not, what percentage of the country believes in what religion does inform that decision making.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

Is there an agnostic option? I'm not certain enough either way and find people who unquestioningly believe either way to be equally intriguing. Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the origins of life as much as others. I bet there are a lot of aethists who, on their deathbeds, have a slight niggling question of "what if I was wrong".

Firstly, not many I couldn't have thought. Secondly, would one naturally think tthis at all, in the absence of prolonged societal pressure? Thirdly, make your mind up. 🙂

First.Aspect

singleton said:

First.Aspect said:

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

I agree that children should question what their parents tell them on topics like this.

As a child I was told there was no God. I questioned that and spent some time looking into the claims of the bible and I came to the conclusion that what my parents told me was wrong, and I am an active Christian.

Interested to know what persuaded you.

I was sent to Sunday school and church, because my dad wanted to get us into a particular middle school. I do not recall my parents being strongly biased either way, however. The more I looked at the issue and questioned it, and the more I was taught about science (in parallel to being taught that there was an omnipotent presence somewhere in orbit, and having to pray at assembly each morning) the less sense it made. It was quite evident to me based on all of the wankers I was at school with, and the odd abusive teacher, that there wasn't much in it other than some poorly translated stories.

lesfirth

singleton said:

First.Aspect said:

At best, anyone who actually believes in an after life with plentiful olives and citrus fruit, and a permanent vanilla sky, has probably not questioned things they were told as a child quite enough.

I agree that children should question what their parents tell them on topics like this.

As a child I was told there was no God. I questioned that and spent some time looking into the claims of the bible and I came to the conclusion that what my parents told me was wrong, and I am an active Christian.

You are very lucky to be able to make your own decision. The overwhelming majority of any followers of any faith were brainwashed as children into believing that they should follow their parents in the correct faith and that the billions of other religious followers had got it wrong.

DeVlaeminck

I'd rather they didn't ask the religion question - it does imply that your religion is more important than say whether you are a vegetarian or whether you have a full driving licence.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

Is there an agnostic option? I'm not certain enough either way and find people who unquestioningly believe either way to be equally intriguing. Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the origins of life as much as others. I bet there are a lot of aethists who, on their deathbeds, have a slight niggling question of "what if I was wrong".

Firstly, not many I couldn't have thought. Secondly, would one naturally think tthis at all, in the absence of prolonged societal pressure? Thirdly, make your mind up. 🙂

How could you possibly answer this question? Where or when has there ever been a society which does not exert some form of pressure on its members to conform? Some form of religious belief can be observed pretty much everywhere there are or have been people.