If you're not religious - for God's sake say so!

[louisiana]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The actual 2001 census question:

>

> "10 What is your religion?

> * This question is voluntary

> * Tick one box only

>

>

> I don't call that a leading question,

This is a leading question. (I design questionnaires, forms and complex interactive systems, and advise on national democratic systems, so have considerable experience on this issue.)

People will tend to read and start to process the question before they look for 'their answer' among the possible responses. The question assumes the respondent has a religion.

Of course, the order in which the possible responses are listed will have an effect on results; people will tend to pick the first from the list that they find reasonably accurate (where there are grey areas, as there are here, and so more than one response possible in principle), and most will read top to bottom and/or left to right.

There are various ways you can significantly alter the results achieved.

I've seen how the census data on religion can be used: the religion stats regularly get an outing in relevant planning cases in Southwark, for example. Televangelist-style churches use it as one of their justifications for taking over our remaining D2 (leisure) buildings. I went to a meeting of such churches last year where the 2001 religion stats were quoted and many in the audience seemed to find it incomprehensible that there were people in Southwark that did not belong to any church.

[The Minkey]

A really interesting point, PeckhamRose - thanks for posting. I hadn't considered how the response to the religion data might be used.

"Local authorities use census data when making decisions about resource allocation and the types of organisation which they want to deliver services.

The 2001 figure stating that 72% of the population are ?Christian? has been used in a variety of negative ways, such as to justify the continuing presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, to justify the state-funding of faith schools (and their expansion), to justify and increase religious broadcasting and to exclude the voices of non-religious people in Parliament and elsewhere.

If the 2011 census creates a similarly inaccurate figure, it may lead to further discrimination against non-religious people and greater privileging for religious groups and individuals."

[Ridgley]

I don?t agree Minkey, I think nowadays Christians are more so discriminated especially in the work place there have been high profile cases to proof this.

[SeanMacGabhann]

er.. no there haven't

there have been high profile cases which prove bugger all

Nurse: I'm not allowed to wear a crucifix - it's discrimination!!

Interested Party: Are other religions allowed to wear their metal objects dangling from their necks whilst working in the hospital?

Nurse: no but it's still discrimination!!

[Ridgley]

Yes it defiantly is, there some work places where you cannot wear certain Christians items but they allow other faiths to wears them only because it has been in the papers recently things have slighty changed I know first hand.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not convinced ridgely, but if you drag out the articles in question we can see

I dtill say the articles in many cases are not allowed because of what they are made from, not what they represent. But I'm happy to be corrected by facts

[Huguenot]

If Christians feel oppressed in the UK I'd say it was more to do with wanting to be a victim rather than actually being a victim.

[Huguenot]

If humanism isn't a religion, it certainly has many of the trappings.

It has a deity (humanity) that is worshipped (in the sense of demonstrating devotion).

It has a dogma (rationalism) that is considered exclusive (it excludes mysticism).

It has an organisation (the society) that attracts congregations.

It provides a moral and ethical framework upon which to live one's life.

It's evangelical.

So it's certainly ironic that a humanist society would call for people to declare themselves non-religious.

I agree with the sentiment though.

[Ridgley]

What I meant is high profile case, like the BA employee Nadia Eweida and Nurse Shirley Chaplin highlighted some Christians are being discriminated. My main point is either you allow religious dress or jewellery or you don?t have any at all in the work place.

And to say Christians wanting be victims is silly - you have not met the type of Christians I know they give as good as they get

[SeanMacGabhann]

Ridgeley - you have completely ignored the point I've made

they were not discriminated`against because of religious apparel.

"My main point is either you allow religious dress or jewellery or you don?t have any at all in the work place.

"

That is not what those cases were about - they were about the jewellery interfering in some way with the work. Now there is a debate to be had on how silly or not those rules are on health and safety grounds , but it isn't about religion

If I belong to a non-Christian religion which promoted the wearing of metal skulls around our necks, that too would be banned, don't you see?

If Sikhs had something similar, they too would be prohibited

Them claiming it was about their faith is a complete red herring and makes Huguenot's point - if you cry victim when you aren't, peolpe will think you like it

[Huguenot]

Sure, but I meant that some people 'want' to be a victim so that they have an excuse to go on the attack.

Nurse Shirley Chaplin was given the opportunity to wear her crucifix either pinned to her uniform or on her security lanyard. She refused. She claimed muslims could wear headscarve. All the hospital wanted her to do was not wear it around her throat where it became a security risk when she leaned over patients. That's not discrimination, that's a stroppy difficult nurse.

As for Nadia Eweida, she flouted a ban against jewellery that applied to all staff. By definition it cannot be discriminatory if it's applied to all staff. It actually would have been discriminatory if she had permission to wear it because of her religious beliefs - it would have been discriminatory against people without religious beliefs. She was given the option of wearing it under her uniform and refused. She claimed that muslims were allowed to wear headscarves, and BA pointed out that everyone was allowed to wear headscarves. She was just a stoppy difficult stewardess.

Both women were unreasonable, and both of them wanted to be perceived as victims so they could go on the attack. In my opinion both of them were trying to incite religious conflict by claiming muslims were getting 'favours'.

[Jeremy]

What Sean and Hugo said. Why should employers relax their rules for certain individuals?

How about the Kirpan (Sikh ceremonial dagger). As a bladed weapon, it is illegal to carry them in public places in the UK. In this discrimination against Sikhs?

[Ridgley]

Like I said before, you either allow all, religion in the workplace or you don?t that is the fairest way.

[Huguenot]

It wasn't an argument about religion in either case. Both were arguments about jewellery.

Both of them were allowed to continue wearing their adornments - the nurse on her tunic, and the stewardess under her uniform.

Neither of them were willing to compromise because both of the were trobulemakers trying to incite religious conflict.

[Keef]

Totally agree with Huguenot's last post. As he points out, these employers DID make allowances for all religions, and treated everyone equally. Also, a crucifix is a religious symbol, whilst the headscarf is worn for a practical reason defined by the religion. It is a very different thing.

[Brendan]

I also don?t know of any Christian denominations where adherents are obliged to wear a cross. Otherwise in a society like Britain, largely Christian for well over 1000 yrs, it would be the norm and there would be all sorts of allowances made for it.

I went to a Christian school. We weren?t allowed to wear jewellery. If I decided to wear a crucifix and give some spiel about it being my right as a Christian the headmaster*, faced with such smartarsery, would have got very unchristian indeed with the employment of his stout stick.

*Anglican priest he was and all.

[PeckhamRose]

A small point. The Sikhs said they thought it was unfair they had to wear helmets because they want to wear turbans.

It was accepted that they should be exempted.

The facts as I understand it from the few Sikhs I know is that they don't have to wear turbans; they just don't cut their hair so they use turbans to keep all their hair in place. Well I have longish hair, I tie it up and put the helmet on it but they conned the government to let them not wear helmets. I think that's brilliant. I am envious, I love riding without a helmet.

But you see my point - the government bend over backwards to please religious folk, even when it means commonsense loses.

[Brendan]

So just wear a turban. They aren?t going to pull you over and make you prove you?re sikh are they?

[Keef]

The turban is there to hold their long hair, but it is also one of the 5 K's that the men traditionally wore.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

The deal is not cutting the hair - not wearing a turban, so I think their exemption is somewhat dodgy. Don't see Monty Pannesar not wearing a helmet - he uses a patka.

[Mark]

Just to go back a bit, louisiana, what's the best i.e. non-leading way to ask that question in a questionnaire?

[HAL9000]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The actual 2001 census question:

> ...

> "The religion question was voluntary, and

> 4,011,000 people chose not answer it

Ironically, the adherents of one religion listed as an option would normally refuse to answer that question because of a religious prohibition against being 'numbered' (revealed in the Book of Numbers).

Perhaps the next question should read:

Does your religion prohibit the census of its congregation? Tick one box:

☐ Yes

☐ No

☐ Refuse to answer on religious grounds

[louisiana]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just to go back a bit, louisiana, what's the best

> i.e. non-leading way to ask that question in a

> questionnaire?

First, you need to establish what you are trying to find out.

Are you trying to find out whether people have a religion/'belong to' a religion or none? Or whether if they have a religion, what that religion is? Or whether they practise a religion? Or whether they were born into a religion (parents)? Or....? There are many possible angles.

I would suggest that the drafters have kept the question deliberately woolly in order to pick up as many adherents as possible (perhaps people 'who identify with' a particular tradition). To my mind, more concrete is preferable; otherwise the question arises: what are you really counting?

[mockney piers]

A yes prime minister classic on how to ask questions to get the answers you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

[PeckhamRose]

If I remember rightly the BHA wanted

"Do you have a religion?" which is an open question.

"What religion are you?" is a closed question.