Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But not being religious is like not believeing in Santa isn?t it? I don?t need to belong or support Santadoesn?texist society ? or to be preached at to do so


I can just counter any pro-santa arguments as they arise


Creating a society around not believing in God just gives ammunition to those who say not-believeing in God is just another form of religion

If 'most' people don't believe but our taxes and gov't philosophy is still geared around religion, would that be representative? Of course we can lead good lives without god. In fact local councils do this more successfully (create a society without special regard to the idea that everyone has faith) than governments. And Santa doesn't demand lots of money and insist on special treatment (though marketing companies do that for him). However, I have yet to hear a representative of Santa have a Thought For The Day so may be that should be changed! I'll write to Radio Four immediately.


Yes please everyone follow the links.

My personal view is that the least I fill in on any form put to me the better.

To give your religion openly could be seen to others as not of their faith.

How true can a returned form be?

Many just object to giving their details and put the opposite.

Whatever you disclose will at a later date become Public general knowledge.

I don't really subscribe to the whole Humanist thing either - I don't feel the need to belong to an organised belief system. But in this case, the message is a good one. I've never understood why some people automatically classify themselves as C of E (or whatever background they're from) rather than what they actually believe.

There is a point though to this when you consider that no-one really has ever measured the level of Atheism. We monitor for various religious preferences (and that data might be accurate or not) and then just make the assumption that everyone else is of no religion. I think it would be interesting to know what the level of Atheism/ Agnosticism is and within that what the thinking is. I'm sure for example that a humanist may have a different view/ philosophy to that of say Richard Dawkins.

I also think far more people have faith than any survey shows.

"then just make the assumption that everyone else is of no religion".

That's the problem with the census. People just put CofE because that's what they're habit is or their parents did.


It's an interesting concern.


It's better in court than in government. I have to go to court about 5 times a year for work and they always ask if you have faith, rather than "what is your faith?" (making the assumption you have one, which is something the government does).


My word in court is taken no less seriously because I have merely promised to tell the truth, yet I stand against those who promise to God they'll speak the truth and lie blatantly in front of me!

Well quite....faith is a cultural label not a way of life (for many people) and the census question aids that. It's a good point because I've done it too. Ticked the CofE box because that's the culture I was born into. I don't do that now because I don't know what my religion is or if I have one. I do have spiritual belief but it fits no religion I know of, although someone told me my views might be those of a Quaker (at least they didn't say Scientology)! So there you go.....maybe I do have a religion after all....do they even list Quaker on the census form?

The actual 2001 census question:


"10 What is your religion?

* This question is voluntary

* Tick one box only


- None

- Christian (include Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)

- Buddhist

- Hindu

- Jewish

- Muslim

- Sikh

- Any other religion, please write in

[two ten-character spaces provided]" http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/censusform.asp


"The religion question was voluntary, and 4,011,000 people chose not answer it (7.7 per cent)." http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp


I don't call that a leading question, and if 70+% of the population choose to tick the Christian box, who is to gainsay them? There are already available statistics - even cited within the Examples of Census Data Use PDF doc http://www.humanism.org.uk/_uploads/documents/Howthecensusisused.pdf (191kbyte) available on the BHA site - as to the much lower figures of actual attendance/participation. So I don't think anything is being hidden.


Paradoxically, if there had been a 'humanist' slot in the 2001 census, I'd probably have ticked it. If one turned up in the 2011 census I might not, if I thought it might be thought to place me in the BHA camp.

Query.


If the results of the census show that the majority of people in this country are non-religious that makes 'believers' a minority. As such, doesn't this strengthen the arguments and justification for faith schools, ie to protect minorities from discrimination?

That all depends what, culture you are brought up in there are plenty of minorities that still attends churches on Sundays and Saturdays and they are full as well as other faiths like Islam Judaism. My husband and I are spiritual although I don?t attend church regularly and he does not regularly attend a synagogue.


As for faith schools that and individual choice, I don't feel it is discriminatory at all.

There are several books devoted to what Humanism means.

When asked, I merely say that the difference is humanism is conscientious atheism, ie. you're consciously aware you are living life without a religion, and consciously trying to live a good life, too!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...