2011 Census

[Altfish]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

...usually I select `mind your own business' on any form, probably the wise thing to do.

Not on the census it isn't; because much Government policy is set based on the numbers collected.

[Uomo Senza Nome]

Originally Posted by Altfish

Not on the census it isn't; because much Government policy is set based on the numbers collected.

Anything relevant is a legal requirement. Knowing someone religion is for academic interest and serves no purpose in state planning?

In a free, equal society colour, religion or country of origin should be academic. As an example, once an immigrant has UK national status, all interest in their background should cease, because otherwise the headlines are " 1 in 8 are foreign" leading to civil unrest?

[Nathan Dawz]

Just to underscore the diversity of Greater Manchester: In Oldham, 17.7% of the population are Muslims, compared to just 0.7% in Wigan.

Interesting that Greater Manchester is actually more religious than the UK average - 20.8% of Greater Manchester residents ticked 'no religion' (with the figure as low as 15.3% in Wigan) compared to 25.1% for England and Wales as a whole.

[tomegranate]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

In a free, equal society colour, religion or country of origin should be academic.

Agreed, but the census is about the UK, not some hypothetical imagined place.

[Altfish]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

Anything relevant is a legal requirement. Knowing someone religion is for academic interest and serves no purpose in state planning?

In a free, equal society colour, religion or country of origin should be academic. As an example, once an immigrant has UK national status, all interest in their background should cease, because otherwise the headlines are " 1 in 8 are foreign" leading to civil unrest?

I disagree, just taking the religious question, it helps justify the following policies...
■Increase in the number of faith schools
■The continuation of collective worship in schools
■The public funding and support of ‘interfaith’ and faith-based organisations above the support offered to secular organisations
■Suggestions of an increase in the role of faith in Britain under the coalition government
■The appointments of government advisors on faith
■Contracting out public services to religious organisations
■Keeping the 26 Bishops in the House of Lords as of right
■Continued high number of hours dedicated to religious broadcasting
■Specific consultation at government and local level with ‘faith communities’ over and above other groups within society
■Continued privileges for religious groups in equality law and other legislation

Those are quoted from a BHA website, I know it's biased, but that doesn't devalue the point.

[Schooner]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

Anything relevant is a legal requirement. Knowing someone religion is for academic interest and serves no purpose in state planning?

In a free, equal society colour, religion or country of origin should be academic. As an example, once an immigrant has UK national status, all interest in their background should cease, because otherwise the headlines are " 1 in 8 are foreign" leading to civil unrest?

Its very interesting that,but dont you think that someones background is important,after all someones past is usually a pointer to their future.
I have no axe to grind on this but if we are letting people into the country willy nilly as we are,would it not be better if we knew something about them.

[heatonparkincakes]

Originally Posted by Uomo Senza Nome

When push comes to shove we are tribal.

Uomo senza esperenza ala La Mosca, I suspect you will be in a tribe of one.

These figures are really purely for embattled civic and national planners, than the preserve of pondering politicians or furious forumistas.

But they are only for the immediate future. For instance, no one would have imagined in 1990, that 500 k Poles would decamp from rural Polska to inner city England or that the UK Muslim population would be expanding by an astonishing rate.

[future.architect]

Originally Posted by Altfish

Seconded

Thirded!

[LNGCats]

Originally Posted by Schooner

Its very interesting that,but dont you think that someones background is important,after all someones past is usually a pointer to their future.
I have no axe to grind on this but if we are letting people into the country willy nilly as we are,would it not be better if we knew something about them.

As someone born abroad, with quite differing views to many of the natives, what criteria would you use to block people like me from entering?

[future.architect]

Originally Posted by Altfish

I disagree, just taking the religious question, it helps justify the following policies...
■Increase in the number of faith schools
■The continuation of collective worship in schools
■The public funding and support of ‘interfaith’ and faith-based organisations above the support offered to secular organisations
■Suggestions of an increase in the role of faith in Britain under the coalition government
■The appointments of government advisors on faith
■Contracting out public services to religious organisations
■Keeping the 26 Bishops in the House of Lords as of right
■Continued high number of hours dedicated to religious broadcasting
■Specific consultation at government and local level with ‘faith communities’ over and above other groups within society
■Continued privileges for religious groups in equality law and other legislation

Those are quoted from a BHA website, I know it's biased, but that doesn't devalue the point.

Exactly why it is important for those of us with no faith not to keep it a secret.
The government really has no mandate for faith schools and bishops in the lords for instance.

[VDB]

Hang on a second. I appreciate everybody's views and I respect that some people are Atheist and I absolutely don't want to challenge that view.

Before I start, I literally have no religion. I was never baptised.

I seriously believe that religion is pretty vital to society. It gets bad press, yes, but over the years it's done far more good than bad. I'm not saying that everybody should become Monks, but religion does keep society together. It keeps that sense of community that unfortunately doesn't exist anymore in our big cities. It keeps a relatively ordered society - crime is obviously condemned in religion and so you'll never find anyone who's orthodox burgling a house.

Anyway, religion isn't a bad thing is basically what I'm trying to say. As I said, I'm not out to convert anyone or make Atheists into Monks, but it is, in my view, a pretty important thing to have. In fact, I'd go as far as promoting Buddhist methods of meditation because it helps clear the mind and makes people better focused on work and all that sort of thing.

Sorry for the sloppy essay, I'm a little tired.

[Schooner]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

As someone born abroad, with quite differing views to many of the natives, what criteria would you use to block people like me from entering?

A criminal record maybe, and also perhaps people who have no intention of intergrating, although i have to say I didnt mention anything about blocking anybody.

[future.architect]

Originally Posted by VDB

crime is obviously condemned in religion and so you'll never find anyone who's orthodox burgling a house.

Sigh, you have so much to learn. Instead they just kill their own kids for various petty and imaginary reasons.

You don't need religion to be moral. Just look at Japan, Iceland, Norway ect. All lovely civilised places.

Yet if you look at murder rate for instance, the countries with the highest rates tend to be the most religious. Japan, Iceland, and norway have almost no murders.

[Altfish]

Originally Posted by VDB

.... but religion does keep society together. It keeps that sense of community that unfortunately doesn't exist anymore in our big cities. It keeps a relatively ordered society - crime is obviously condemned in religion and so you'll never find anyone who's orthodox burgling a house.

Is that why I am sat watching fighting on the streets in Belfast and Cairo on the news? Is that why I am seeing bigots in skirts ranting against same sex marriage and abortion.
In a quaint English village the church may be the centre of cohesion in the community, especially if the pub has closed, but that is because historically it was the only meeting place for its residents.
In towns and cities we now have pubs, social and sporting clubs that are far more important to most people because they meet their needs not their fears.

Religion is dying out, it'll take a long time, but good riddance.

[VDB]

As I said I respect all your views and I'm not trying to make you all monks.

But the stuff you see on the news in Belfast and Cairo and what not is a very small minority of the religion they represent. Sadly, it's just all the media ever portrays.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blinkered. When religions clash the scene can be as violent as when two rival football teams clash. But these are the people themselves and not the religion. The religion itself would condemn any type of violence, so is it the religion's fault or the person who's fighting's fault? And, if religion wasn't what they were fighting for; would they be fighting for something else?

The disruption in the Middle East is, bluntly, down to the fact that Jerusalem is a key city for all three major world religions; ergo they all reckon they should govern it for their various (legit) reasons.


I can see why people think if you got rid of religion then you eradicate the problem altogether; but if it wasn't religion then people would be fighting over something else. It's human nature to have wars and conflict. In the Middle East, it wouldn't be a war over religion, it'd be a war over borders. And in Belfast, it wouldn't be a war over Catholics and Protestants, it would be a conflict over football teams (obviously a blunt statement).

As I said, I'm not out to convert anyone. I'm just trying to make the point that religion isn't all bad.

And plus I think it's fair to say I'm pretty unbiased, as I said I have no religion and I was never baptised. (I actually swing more towards the ideas of Islam than anything else)

[Slow Burn]

Originally Posted by VDB

Anyway, religion isn't a bad thing

History and the majority of major conflicts throughout world History would make most wise men call you an idiot. I won't do that but this view of yours is very misguided and shows badly exposes your naivety VDB

[tomegranate]

Originally Posted by VDB

I have no religion

And yet you've not murdered anyone recently, I'm guessing?

I appreciate the pains you're taking to show respect to other views VDB, but the problem is you seem to be suggesting that people can't live moral, proper lives and be community-minded and upstanding citizens, without being religious. Which to people without religion is pretty flippin' disrespectful.

"you'll never find anyone who's orthodox burgling a house"

Perhaps, but how many Catholic priests - the most apparently holy people? - were found abusing children? I know this is a caricature but I think your position that religious = moral is completely naive and simplistic. I don't believe that religion causes the worlds problems (and the idea that religion causes wars is also false, you're correct in that - it's often just the excuse), but I don't agree that is the solution to them either. I don't believe religion causes people to be moral, but I don't think it stops them being evil either. Look at it this way - Hitler and Stalin might not have been religious, but every other evildoer in human history probably would've considered themselves to be, to some extent.

[iheartthenew]

It's easy to get morals and religion confused. We've been brainwashed to believe religion makes us good as a means of control and influence. In reality the are mutually exclusive, though confused as being dependent as the originate from the same place, they (both religion and morals) are constructs of the human mind reinforced by society.

[Conor]

Originally Posted by VDB

I can see why people think if you got rid of religion then you eradicate the problem altogether; but if it wasn't religion then people would be fighting over something else... And in Belfast, it wouldn't be a war over Catholics and Protestants, it would be a conflict over football teams (obviously a blunt statement).

The main reason for conflict in NI is nationalists v unionists. It just so happens the majority of unionists are protestant and vice versa.

[Aaronj09]

Originally Posted by VDB

As I said I respect all your views and I'm not trying to make you all monks.

But the stuff you see on the news in Belfast and Cairo and what not is a very small minority of the religion they represent. Sadly, it's just all the media ever portrays.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blinkered. When religions clash the scene can be as violent as when two rival football teams clash. But these are the people themselves and not the religion. The religion itself would condemn any type of violence, so is it the religion's fault or the person who's fighting's fault? And, if religion wasn't what they were fighting for; would they be fighting for something else?

The disruption in the Middle East is, bluntly, down to the fact that Jerusalem is a key city for all three major world religions; ergo they all reckon they should govern it for their various (legit) reasons.


I can see why people think if you got rid of religion then you eradicate the problem altogether; but if it wasn't religion then people would be fighting over something else. It's human nature to have wars and conflict. In the Middle East, it wouldn't be a war over religion, it'd be a war over borders. And in Belfast, it wouldn't be a war over Catholics and Protestants, it would be a conflict over football teams (obviously a blunt statement).

As I said, I'm not out to convert anyone. I'm just trying to make the point that religion isn't all bad.

And plus I think it's fair to say I'm pretty unbiased, as I said I have no religion and I was never baptised. (I actually swing more towards the ideas of Islam than anything else)

Religion poses good values, and helps many people in times of crisis, but I have never benefited from it, and over the course of human history, religion has caused war after war, pain, suffering, bloodshed, murder, homicide, genocide, suicide - the list is endless. As you rightfully pointed out, these are people, not the religion it self, but people do these things in the name of their religion - whether it is taken out of context or not. And many religious have primitive beliefs and are harsh to specific groups of people (such as females or homosexuals). Of course, I would never vote to eradicate religion - people have the freedom to be whatever they want, but I just don't like it, and want nothing to do with it, and if religion vanished today, I would not shed a single tear, humanity would probably progress at a faster pace - did you see that Family Guy episode where they go into an alternate dimension, where Christianity didn't exist?