And this exposes their inner doubts about their own faith. Theists are in perpetual battle with their own rational minds. Delusion feels good - but the truth is always the truth.
It is also more difficult to read all the write in answers than it is to read the listed answers. However they do the data transfer from the paper questionnaire to the computer, a scanner or by hand, this type of question would be more difficult to do. Not defending their decision, because someone who is truly curious would find a way. Just saying I think some laziness on the Bureau’s part is a factor as well. But I’m also not surprised that the Catholics are involved in the decision making process. They shouldn’t have any more influence than anyone else. But they’re losing their privilege and it makes them sad.
I want to live long enough to see the Vatican having to sell its treasures. The hoard is impressive and extensive, from ancient writings to paintings and marble statuary. And gold, and gems, and priceless art created over the centuries.
And, no matter how much they try to cling to power, without congregations they'll eventually fade away. Trying to claw back their former glory won't serve them well if their pews are buttless.
"Sell it's treasures"? How about that treasured tablet where a young girl named Mary laid out her plans to avoid being stoned to death by inventing a guy named god/jesus? That treasure?
Any list will slightly bias responses towards things on the list, because people are lazy. Note that the new trial version doesn't escape this issue, in some ways it makes it worse: it would skew *towards* no religion for exactly that reason, because now anyone who doesn't fit that label has to do the work of filling in their identity, and even that trivial effort ask will alter the results. So many won't bother, and the new version of the survey would lkely undercount religious folks of various denominations.
So, obviously, I'm somewhat defending the current list. Assuming it captures all the most common choices.
One way surveyors could somewhat mitigate this effect is to rearrange the order of entries or even use slightly different lists. After all, you're handing this thing out to millions of adult Australians. That way, statistically, you might get an idea how many people are answering 'no religion" because they really feel that way vs. those who answer it because it's the first box they come to on the list that is 'close enough' to what they think. And the same thing with Catholic etc. - rearranging the order and seeing how it impacts the level of response may give you a better feel for how many people are 'doing the work' of finding the box that accurately reflects their belief, vs. how many respondents are just checking the first approximately right box they read.
I think framing the question as the two parts is more neutral and there’s no reason there can’t be a list under the yes option where fewer people need to write in.
Does the person have a religion?
_ no
_ yes, please mark the best fit
_ Catholic
_ Protestant
etc.
Of course there can be more and even an “other” with a fill in space.
I think assuming everyone has a religion as the original question does is presumptuous, at best. The way the Catholic Church is discussing it makes the motivation behind the question a little manipulative. Of course everyone has a religion, and you are weird if you don’t because our culture is 100% based on Christianity somehow.
I do see your point, but there are better ways of gleaning the information without an implied bias from the folks collecting it. Maybe this isn’t it, but the original isn’t it either.
That makes good sense for an online or phone survey, because you can give them the first question and then if they say 'no' you don't even show them the second one. Prevents confusion, saves their time and yours. But for a paper survey, they're going to see the whole thing, you're just adding complexity and verbiage where it isn't needed (IMO).
Actually randomizing the order makes sense. The article didn't mention if that was done. People tend to mark the first box rather than search down a list. This has been demonstrated over and over again in multi-candidate election lists, which is why those lists are commonly randomized.
Huh. I guess I spoke too soon (from Berkeley, Calif privilege.) As I recall, there was a state statue or something about that, having to do with voting, a while back. It did make a difference. But, yeah, you know all them lefty social scientists, whadda they know?
An option would be to transition across the next few censuses. For example, the question could be 'Does the person have a religion?', if the answer is yes 'What is the person's religion?', then list the standard ones from the previous census and have Other for write-in responses. The following census, the list may be reduced or expanded depending on responses from 2026, and eventually transitioned to write-in responses.
This way the data is comparable from 2021 and beyond while making it clearer for those who want to say No religion.
Exactly this. They are losing power and influence and they don't like it. If they can maintain their undeserved position by artificially skewing the data, they will.
Precisely. My suspicion is that attendance at mass is declining roughly as much as it is in Protestant churches. Add that to the ongoing issues regarding child sexual abuse by priests in the church, never mind other unrelated skirmishes, and the RCC is NOT in a good way.
OT : My sister and me spread DM's ashes yesterday, yet it still doesn't feels real for either if us. We thought about going to a restaurant DM wanted to try but didn't get to for her no birthday.
I can only tell you that it does get better. I’ve lost a lot of people in the last five years. Put your attention on your love and not your loss. It really does help.
It's been 6 years. It took a while to feel "real". I still have dreams where I talk to my mother and it still feels wrong when it occurs to me that she's not there.
It will take time, and if France's health system will pay for it, there are professionally-led groups to explore the grief and maybe help bring acceptance.
I read a book when I was probably 10 or 11 years old, so more than 60 years ago, the premise of which was that ghosts stick around as long as people remember them, and then head out to the great blue yonder. I’ve always liked that idea. Though I generally speaking do not believe in spooks or ghosts or spirits, my late partner, who died to 29 years ago, sure seemed like he was hanging around for several years after he passed. I said that if anybody was going to stick around, it would be him. I was not the only person that had experiences of him.
My first reply got lost in substacklandia. I lost Dad while in the military. After his funeral I returned to bas just as wed went on a 4 week field exercise. It left me little time to grieve. Mom died just after my divorce. That was much harder.
It never goes away but it does get better. I still dream about my parents – didn't realise other people did as well, although it's kind of stupid not to.
OT but what the hell. The Christian Post the other day had an opinion piece by Richard Land, who is/was an evangelical poohbah. His column was that it is immoral to deny the children of undocumented immigrants access to public education. Great so far! Why is it immoral? Because it is wrong to punish one person for someone else’s crime.
I was flabbergasted. Has Land not read the bible? Punishing innocent people is the whole basis of his religion.
"It's their parents' responsibility to get them food, not mine. I want my tax dollars used to pay for jet fighters so badly designed our allies wouldn't buy them without alterations. Children shouldn't choose to be born into poor families."
WHY do we allow the Waltons and others to pay workers so little they end up on welfare anyway? IF we put people on welfare to work, how many jobs will that remove? Technology is now making people obsolete. Anymore, people are not cost effective. We keep eliminating jobs and some day it will all collapse into another worldwide depression.
People have been claiming that technology is making people obsolete since the birth of technology. The labor market adapts. AI is not going to replace people in the long run. People still need to be able to check the AIs work. It will be a tool to make jobs easier, but it’s not going to replace people. AI has no imagination. AI art is much of a muchness. It’s the imagination of people that make it something. I see a lot of AI art on DeviantArt these days. The only really interesting part is the stories that people tell to go with it.
From my own experiences with AI art, it takes dozens if not hundreds of tries to get something close to what was in your head, if it will do it at all.
I’ve been using it for code generation and I still had to design how the code would fit together. It often gets details of the 3rd-party code wrong, so you need to read all the documentation yourself. If I were writing in a language I knew well, it would probably be easier to do it all myself.
As usual management is jumping on the latest bandwagon without understanding its limitations because they only listen to salesmen. Things will correct, but it’s going to be an uncomfortable period.
I see that where I work. The c-suite says "this will bring us the most profit$" and then they leave it up to the middle managers and the grunts to figure out how to make it work.
A place I worked decided what they wanted the profit to be. Then the numbers would trickle down to the various departments. The sales people in my department were told they needed to increase their sales 20% over the previous year. No one told them how that could be done.
Both parents were gone in my 20's. It is not easy at any age. Dad died while in the military. As soon as I got back to base my entire company was sent on a 4 week fieold exercise. It probably was best because I had no time to think, let alone grieve.
People are idiosyncratic about how they identify. The point of the open field is to allow people to write down what they want. It's not the place nor is such a survey any sort of authority on what counts as religion and what doesn't. If a respondent wants to put down Jedi or Vegetarian or Humanist, they can. It is helpful? Probably not AS helpful as ticking the no religion boxes. But it still tells the Australian government that those people do not/no longer consider themselves part of one of the major religions, and it is simple enough to lump those folks into a 'not a member of any major religion' when doing data analysis.
Using humanism as an example of religion is just wrong. A question about beliefs or moral codes would be appropriate. Humanists aren’t just atheists. Humanism is orthogonal to religion.
Yes, in the free form fields people can put whatever they want and that’s fine, but neither atheism (with a no religion option) nor Humanism is an appropriate example of a religion.
You’ve already made clear your opinion that the question is fine as is. You’re entitled to it, but I’m not going to spend the day arguing with you about it. I think you’re wrong and I’m not the only one.
Changing the list of examples is fine by me. But I think the question designers should take a practical rather than philosophical approach to what to use. I.e. the examples should first and foremost be things that encourage people to write down their true religious self-identification. I.e. what *that person* considers to be their religion. IMO the designers should only secondarily (or not at all) worry about whether the example fits with some technical definition of a religion.
Because the point of giving examples in the question text is to help and encourage people to answer the question, truthfully. It is not to nerdsplain to them what they should and should not count as their religion. If some respondent religiously identifies as a humanist, you want them to write that down. You want their true belief answer, even if it doesn't fit into some philosophical or intellectual religious category box.
It's asking for their religion *as they see it*. What they think about religion themselves. It is not asking for their religion as cdbunch sees it. Yes?
It's important to let that self-identification happen if you want accurate population data.
As an example, there's a heck of a lot of nonbelievers in the US who do not and would not call themselves atheists. So if cdBunch designs a survey that only allows such people to answer atheist or some religion (using the logic: cdbunch doesn't care what they call themselves, that's technically atheism), they're not going to answer, your sample will be biased, and any policy you create from it will based on an incorrect count of people. OTOH, if you give them other ways to express their non-religiosity, you can always lump them (and the humanists, etc.) in with the atheists in data analysis, not a problem. Your count becomes more accurate and thus the policies you derive from it more reflective of reality.
As they see it. But it’s not asking for that. If it wanted that it shouldn’t be asking about religion at all. It’s getting biased answers as it is and policy based on that data may not serve the needs of the populace.
Humanists are both religious and not, therefore it does not fit into a question about religion, which was my point.
You complain that I’m imposing my definition of religion, but you’re trying to render the question meaningless with yours. If the word religion has no meaning then the question is meaningless.
Now tell me your opinion again, though you’ve beaten that horse to death up and down this thread looking for argument. I’m done.
I see it took until 2024 before Australia finally got around to recognizing "Aboriginal Traditional Beliefs." Over 900 different groups, each with their own unique/distinct beliefs, practices and even languages/dialects.
Meanwhile in this country, Farron reports that since the time Trump was sworn in as dictator...er, POTUS, there have been 7 aircraft crashes. What was Trump's response to those 7 crashes? He fired more air traffic controllers.
Trump doesn't need to stand on Fifth Ave. and shoot people. He's getting people killed with every step he takes.
IIRC, he said he was going to dismantle FEMA before the election, while he was lying about Biden's response and trying to blame Harris for it. He did claim he was going to put something "better" in its place, but I'm sure it will end up like Trumpcare, vaporlaw.
If they're surprised by that, well, they have only themselves to blame. Trump made it very clear what he'd do and who would be suffering under his 'leadership'; complaining about it now is just too little too late.
I'm sure it was. I remember watching the news not long before the election and a Latino man saying something about Trump not being the bigot people said he was; I have no doubt his face either was or will be eaten. To Trump, *everyone* is 'other people' that he doesn't care about. Anyone claiming at this point that they didn't know who Trump is either wasn't paying attention or refused to do their own thinking, and I don't have much sympathy left for either group right now. Their crocodile tears do not impress me, as I very well know they'll go right back to their hateful, selfish, cruel voting habits the moment they think they can get away with it.
I realize you were probably just yanking my chain a bit, Lynn; my frustration is boiling over right now. There's been something of a spate of vote-regret type videos in my feed, and I find I am completely underwhelmed with the current round of teary 'but this isn't what's supposed to happen!' whining from conservatives who insisted, yet again, on voting for the current White House resident.
This is the basis of CRT. The poll designers CANNOT even understand what is wrong because they are so steeped with the ideas of religion. Can the fish separate itself from the water?
My religion: Atheism. Going to Not-Church/Temple/Mosque/Etc. with my fellow Atheists, doing Not-Worship stuff with full ambivalence towards any non-existent god(s), and so on.
My favorite TV channel: Off. That's good old-fashioned family entertainment.
Religion is a comfort blanket of delusion. The delusion is strengthened by higher numbers of believers and threatened by fewer numbers of believers. As a junkie needs their drugs, theists need societal affirmation. Non believer are a challenge the delusion and the effectiveness of their drugs.
I would be curious as to just WHO is structuring this survey and what their own religious bents or biases are. Answer THAT question and we might learn why this particular survey question is structured the way it is.
In other words, just how UNBIASED is the organization doing the survey?
OT: Guy who makes the sign of the cross before he kicks the ball is a skeezy perv (allegedly):
"The number of massage therapists accusing Ravens kicker Justin Tucker of sexually inappropriate behavior has now more than doubled.
Last month, six massage therapists at high-end spas said Tucker repeatedly exposed himself, brushed two of them with his exposed penis and in several cases left what appeared to be ejaculate on the massage table. Shortly after The Banner published its investigation, three more women came forward with similar allegations. Now, seven additional women are sharing their accounts, bringing the total to 16 women at eight Baltimore-area spas. Two spas have said his behavior was so egregious that he was banned from returning."
Yeah, see my comment on the Saints helping the Catholic Church hide their ahem “indiscretions”. Football is rife with sexual assault, domestic violence and other heinous crimes that are swept under the rug or excused because this rock with lips can throw a ball good. Not only don’t the owners of the teams and coaches care, but the fans cheer this behavior. It seems they’d all do it too, given the opportunity to get away with it. “Don’t ruin his life for a few minutes of action” as it were.
Some years ago I saw Aida at the Rome Opera House. The tenor was gigantic. He had a great voice, but he was so big that he barely moved around the stage. I described him as “a refrigerator with a voice.”
I always thought it had to do more with the brains rather than physical qualities, but both are part of the reference. Some of the guys aren’t necessarily that big, but they’re solid and pretty dim.
I saw the Nutcracker ballet with an ex-NFL player in it (I wish I could remember who). While certainly graceful and talented, I wouldn't have exactly called him mobile.
As if his "few minutes of action" (sexual assault) don't have consequences for the person he assaulted. And nobody cares because he can throw a damn ball.
I would say you forget I was raised on another continent, speaking another language, growing up with different cultural references. I sm sure DM wouldn't have understood either, and she was your age.
""The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan and the name of the first chapter[1] in his Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964.[2][3] McLuhan proposes that a communication medium itself, not the messages it carries, should be the primary focus of study.[4] The concept has been applied by others in discussions of technologies from television to the Internet."
I thought for sure that we were going to learn that these masseurs were male. But it doesn’t surprise me to find out that they were female. Any shop that wants his business can simply provide him with a male masseur— maybe. That should solve all problems for everyone.
My best friend and I were recently in Japan. He wanted to get a massage in the room. The first thing the Japanese masseuse said to him was “no sex. No sex. No sex.” he had to assure her that he was gayer than the last Sunday in June in San Francisco.
Catholic bishop attempts to equate religion with culture and tradition, forgetting that there are cultures and traditions that have nothing to do with religion. He wants the RCC to be seen as such an integral part of his society that people think of Catholic as part of being Australian. Oh how wrong he is.
I wonder how many of Australia's aboriginal peoples have been persuaded of the "truth" of Catholicism. If any worldviews are uniquely Australian, it would be theirs. But I don't think there's an agreed-upon name for them, so they didn't make the cut of terms that would be specifically listed on the form.
According to Gemini: The British treated Australia as a colony of settlement, not conquest. They took over Aboriginal land on the assumption that the land belonged to no one.
If the catholic church had its say, the options would have been:
- catholic
- pagan
- heretic
- apostate
And this exposes their inner doubts about their own faith. Theists are in perpetual battle with their own rational minds. Delusion feels good - but the truth is always the truth.
More like Catholic prefilled out.
It is also more difficult to read all the write in answers than it is to read the listed answers. However they do the data transfer from the paper questionnaire to the computer, a scanner or by hand, this type of question would be more difficult to do. Not defending their decision, because someone who is truly curious would find a way. Just saying I think some laziness on the Bureau’s part is a factor as well. But I’m also not surprised that the Catholics are involved in the decision making process. They shouldn’t have any more influence than anyone else. But they’re losing their privilege and it makes them sad.
I want to live long enough to see the Vatican having to sell its treasures. The hoard is impressive and extensive, from ancient writings to paintings and marble statuary. And gold, and gems, and priceless art created over the centuries.
And, no matter how much they try to cling to power, without congregations they'll eventually fade away. Trying to claw back their former glory won't serve them well if their pews are buttless.
"Sell it's treasures"? How about that treasured tablet where a young girl named Mary laid out her plans to avoid being stoned to death by inventing a guy named god/jesus? That treasure?
I don't understand that one. Can you explain it please?
The Catholics don't want baby Jesus to cry. They only like real babies crying.
For food, shelter, and parents who have time for a little attention.
Any list will slightly bias responses towards things on the list, because people are lazy. Note that the new trial version doesn't escape this issue, in some ways it makes it worse: it would skew *towards* no religion for exactly that reason, because now anyone who doesn't fit that label has to do the work of filling in their identity, and even that trivial effort ask will alter the results. So many won't bother, and the new version of the survey would lkely undercount religious folks of various denominations.
So, obviously, I'm somewhat defending the current list. Assuming it captures all the most common choices.
One way surveyors could somewhat mitigate this effect is to rearrange the order of entries or even use slightly different lists. After all, you're handing this thing out to millions of adult Australians. That way, statistically, you might get an idea how many people are answering 'no religion" because they really feel that way vs. those who answer it because it's the first box they come to on the list that is 'close enough' to what they think. And the same thing with Catholic etc. - rearranging the order and seeing how it impacts the level of response may give you a better feel for how many people are 'doing the work' of finding the box that accurately reflects their belief, vs. how many respondents are just checking the first approximately right box they read.
I think framing the question as the two parts is more neutral and there’s no reason there can’t be a list under the yes option where fewer people need to write in.
Does the person have a religion?
_ no
_ yes, please mark the best fit
_ Catholic
_ Protestant
etc.
Of course there can be more and even an “other” with a fill in space.
I think assuming everyone has a religion as the original question does is presumptuous, at best. The way the Catholic Church is discussing it makes the motivation behind the question a little manipulative. Of course everyone has a religion, and you are weird if you don’t because our culture is 100% based on Christianity somehow.
I do see your point, but there are better ways of gleaning the information without an implied bias from the folks collecting it. Maybe this isn’t it, but the original isn’t it either.
That makes good sense for an online or phone survey, because you can give them the first question and then if they say 'no' you don't even show them the second one. Prevents confusion, saves their time and yours. But for a paper survey, they're going to see the whole thing, you're just adding complexity and verbiage where it isn't needed (IMO).
Actually randomizing the order makes sense. The article didn't mention if that was done. People tend to mark the first box rather than search down a list. This has been demonstrated over and over again in multi-candidate election lists, which is why those lists are commonly randomized.
Not in Texas. R/D/L/G always.
Huh. I guess I spoke too soon (from Berkeley, Calif privilege.) As I recall, there was a state statue or something about that, having to do with voting, a while back. It did make a difference. But, yeah, you know all them lefty social scientists, whadda they know?
An option would be to transition across the next few censuses. For example, the question could be 'Does the person have a religion?', if the answer is yes 'What is the person's religion?', then list the standard ones from the previous census and have Other for write-in responses. The following census, the list may be reduced or expanded depending on responses from 2026, and eventually transitioned to write-in responses.
This way the data is comparable from 2021 and beyond while making it clearer for those who want to say No religion.
𝑂𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑦𝑏𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠𝑛’𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑖𝑡’𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑑𝑙𝑦 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑦.
Exactly this. They are losing power and influence and they don't like it. If they can maintain their undeserved position by artificially skewing the data, they will.
Speaking as a recovering Catholic, there are a lot of recovering Catholics out there.
And thus a lot of closed churches.
Precisely. My suspicion is that attendance at mass is declining roughly as much as it is in Protestant churches. Add that to the ongoing issues regarding child sexual abuse by priests in the church, never mind other unrelated skirmishes, and the RCC is NOT in a good way.
Which is FINE BY ME!
They'll still have all those hospitals they run...
And "The Federalist Society" under Leonard Leo. We won't even mention Opus Dei.
OT : My sister and me spread DM's ashes yesterday, yet it still doesn't feels real for either if us. We thought about going to a restaurant DM wanted to try but didn't get to for her no birthday.
I can only tell you that it does get better. I’ve lost a lot of people in the last five years. Put your attention on your love and not your loss. It really does help.
Sending you a virtual hug from 5,000 miles (8,269 km) away.
It's been 6 years. It took a while to feel "real". I still have dreams where I talk to my mother and it still feels wrong when it occurs to me that she's not there.
It will take time, and if France's health system will pay for it, there are professionally-led groups to explore the grief and maybe help bring acceptance.
I still see/talk to my parents in my dreams, even though they both died in the 90s.
Paraphrasing Dr. McCoy from ST II: TWoK "They're really not dead as long as we remember them."
I have always liked McCoy's quote there. I doubt it's original with him, but it's still plenty valid.
I read a book when I was probably 10 or 11 years old, so more than 60 years ago, the premise of which was that ghosts stick around as long as people remember them, and then head out to the great blue yonder. I’ve always liked that idea. Though I generally speaking do not believe in spooks or ghosts or spirits, my late partner, who died to 29 years ago, sure seemed like he was hanging around for several years after he passed. I said that if anybody was going to stick around, it would be him. I was not the only person that had experiences of him.
My first reply got lost in substacklandia. I lost Dad while in the military. After his funeral I returned to bas just as wed went on a 4 week field exercise. It left me little time to grieve. Mom died just after my divorce. That was much harder.
It never goes away but it does get better. I still dream about my parents – didn't realise other people did as well, although it's kind of stupid not to.
OT but what the hell. The Christian Post the other day had an opinion piece by Richard Land, who is/was an evangelical poohbah. His column was that it is immoral to deny the children of undocumented immigrants access to public education. Great so far! Why is it immoral? Because it is wrong to punish one person for someone else’s crime.
I was flabbergasted. Has Land not read the bible? Punishing innocent people is the whole basis of his religion.
On the other hand, some other Poohbah has said that kids shouldn't get government food unless they work. "Are there no workhouses?"
"It's their parents' responsibility to get them food, not mine. I want my tax dollars used to pay for jet fighters so badly designed our allies wouldn't buy them without alterations. Children shouldn't choose to be born into poor families."
WHY do we allow the Waltons and others to pay workers so little they end up on welfare anyway? IF we put people on welfare to work, how many jobs will that remove? Technology is now making people obsolete. Anymore, people are not cost effective. We keep eliminating jobs and some day it will all collapse into another worldwide depression.
People have been claiming that technology is making people obsolete since the birth of technology. The labor market adapts. AI is not going to replace people in the long run. People still need to be able to check the AIs work. It will be a tool to make jobs easier, but it’s not going to replace people. AI has no imagination. AI art is much of a muchness. It’s the imagination of people that make it something. I see a lot of AI art on DeviantArt these days. The only really interesting part is the stories that people tell to go with it.
From my own experiences with AI art, it takes dozens if not hundreds of tries to get something close to what was in your head, if it will do it at all.
I’ve been using it for code generation and I still had to design how the code would fit together. It often gets details of the 3rd-party code wrong, so you need to read all the documentation yourself. If I were writing in a language I knew well, it would probably be easier to do it all myself.
As usual management is jumping on the latest bandwagon without understanding its limitations because they only listen to salesmen. Things will correct, but it’s going to be an uncomfortable period.
I see that where I work. The c-suite says "this will bring us the most profit$" and then they leave it up to the middle managers and the grunts to figure out how to make it work.
And really, really hate to hear that it doesn’t.
A place I worked decided what they wanted the profit to be. Then the numbers would trickle down to the various departments. The sales people in my department were told they needed to increase their sales 20% over the previous year. No one told them how that could be done.
Yes, whenever they mention poor choices, I always say "First choose your parents well."
Since when is Humanism a religion? A philosophy or moral template, maybe, but it certainly isn't a religion.
Humans are the worst. We'd have a pretty nice planet if it weren't for the humans.
Some humans.
Some of my favorite people are humans.
Hear-hear!
Both parents were gone in my 20's. It is not easy at any age. Dad died while in the military. As soon as I got back to base my entire company was sent on a 4 week fieold exercise. It probably was best because I had no time to think, let alone grieve.
People are idiosyncratic about how they identify. The point of the open field is to allow people to write down what they want. It's not the place nor is such a survey any sort of authority on what counts as religion and what doesn't. If a respondent wants to put down Jedi or Vegetarian or Humanist, they can. It is helpful? Probably not AS helpful as ticking the no religion boxes. But it still tells the Australian government that those people do not/no longer consider themselves part of one of the major religions, and it is simple enough to lump those folks into a 'not a member of any major religion' when doing data analysis.
Using humanism as an example of religion is just wrong. A question about beliefs or moral codes would be appropriate. Humanists aren’t just atheists. Humanism is orthogonal to religion.
Yes, in the free form fields people can put whatever they want and that’s fine, but neither atheism (with a no religion option) nor Humanism is an appropriate example of a religion.
You’ve already made clear your opinion that the question is fine as is. You’re entitled to it, but I’m not going to spend the day arguing with you about it. I think you’re wrong and I’m not the only one.
Cheerios is my religion? I am kinda fond of breathing. Maybe TV?
Changing the list of examples is fine by me. But I think the question designers should take a practical rather than philosophical approach to what to use. I.e. the examples should first and foremost be things that encourage people to write down their true religious self-identification. I.e. what *that person* considers to be their religion. IMO the designers should only secondarily (or not at all) worry about whether the example fits with some technical definition of a religion.
Because the point of giving examples in the question text is to help and encourage people to answer the question, truthfully. It is not to nerdsplain to them what they should and should not count as their religion. If some respondent religiously identifies as a humanist, you want them to write that down. You want their true belief answer, even if it doesn't fit into some philosophical or intellectual religious category box.
It’s not asking for their true self-identification. If it was, I might agree with you. It’s asking for their religion.
It's asking for their religion *as they see it*. What they think about religion themselves. It is not asking for their religion as cdbunch sees it. Yes?
It's important to let that self-identification happen if you want accurate population data.
As an example, there's a heck of a lot of nonbelievers in the US who do not and would not call themselves atheists. So if cdBunch designs a survey that only allows such people to answer atheist or some religion (using the logic: cdbunch doesn't care what they call themselves, that's technically atheism), they're not going to answer, your sample will be biased, and any policy you create from it will based on an incorrect count of people. OTOH, if you give them other ways to express their non-religiosity, you can always lump them (and the humanists, etc.) in with the atheists in data analysis, not a problem. Your count becomes more accurate and thus the policies you derive from it more reflective of reality.
Editing your argument without clearly marking the changes is dishonest.
As they see it. But it’s not asking for that. If it wanted that it shouldn’t be asking about religion at all. It’s getting biased answers as it is and policy based on that data may not serve the needs of the populace.
Humanists are both religious and not, therefore it does not fit into a question about religion, which was my point.
You complain that I’m imposing my definition of religion, but you’re trying to render the question meaningless with yours. If the word religion has no meaning then the question is meaningless.
Now tell me your opinion again, though you’ve beaten that horse to death up and down this thread looking for argument. I’m done.
I see it took until 2024 before Australia finally got around to recognizing "Aboriginal Traditional Beliefs." Over 900 different groups, each with their own unique/distinct beliefs, practices and even languages/dialects.
Shit,they only got citizenship in 1967.
Heathen and Pagans have always been considered a subgroup in the WASP world.
Shocking that they would not list the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! May his noodley appendages bless and keep you.
Saucy!
And don't forget the Jedi!!!
RAMEN!!!
Such cruelty from a "loving" god.
https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/86420312_625976928188673_1772970514197774336_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600_tt6&_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=JM24SkorlP4Q7kNvgFDTal2&_nc_oc=Adg0O-o7od9B6Ke8XqGk5P6Fe41TpC6fFjZr2XExuPh-JXpimiq61X4G4XriBRj9J6U&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&_nc_gid=AJqOHkHD5BeJzA5blyej88W&oh=00_AYBliGVMeoIhfIEoLkzdZmLlj4hm1QjJ0LEtNxVinOg49Q&oe=67DC2E43
The lord can suck a root. 😝
"Worship me or I'll torture you forever! Have a nice day. Love, God."
Nothing says "love" like a dose of extortion.
Delivered in a passive/aggressive tone.
"Nice life you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it..."
OT: Yesterday I asked "How does a plane flip over?". Here's the video. Yikes!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/dramatic-video-shows-moment-delta-plane-flipped-after-landing-in-toronto/ar-AA1ziByG?
Meanwhile in this country, Farron reports that since the time Trump was sworn in as dictator...er, POTUS, there have been 7 aircraft crashes. What was Trump's response to those 7 crashes? He fired more air traffic controllers.
Trump doesn't need to stand on Fifth Ave. and shoot people. He's getting people killed with every step he takes.
You saw the one about FEMA ?
IIRC, he said he was going to dismantle FEMA before the election, while he was lying about Biden's response and trying to blame Harris for it. He did claim he was going to put something "better" in its place, but I'm sure it will end up like Trumpcare, vaporlaw.
How mean of you. I am sure he thought about making a concept of a plan.
Thought? Trumpy had an actual thought?
That isn’t a thought just two brain cells wrestling for which one to die next!!!
Yup. Saw it just this morning (currently caught up on both Farron Balanced and Ring of Fire).
Red states getting the screws put to them by the very guy they voted for.
If they're surprised by that, well, they have only themselves to blame. Trump made it very clear what he'd do and who would be suffering under his 'leadership'; complaining about it now is just too little too late.
But-but-but, it was only supposed to happen to those *other* people.
I'm sure it was. I remember watching the news not long before the election and a Latino man saying something about Trump not being the bigot people said he was; I have no doubt his face either was or will be eaten. To Trump, *everyone* is 'other people' that he doesn't care about. Anyone claiming at this point that they didn't know who Trump is either wasn't paying attention or refused to do their own thinking, and I don't have much sympathy left for either group right now. Their crocodile tears do not impress me, as I very well know they'll go right back to their hateful, selfish, cruel voting habits the moment they think they can get away with it.
I realize you were probably just yanking my chain a bit, Lynn; my frustration is boiling over right now. There's been something of a spate of vote-regret type videos in my feed, and I find I am completely underwhelmed with the current round of teary 'but this isn't what's supposed to happen!' whining from conservatives who insisted, yet again, on voting for the current White House resident.
Add those to the thousands who died during his first term due to his bungled "handling" of the pandemic.
And not a single consequence did he face, as SCOTUS has politely absolved him of everything.
From the title song, Dictator for a Day:
"At one I’ll seal that border
And lift the Trump gag order.
One-thirty will be quite the scene
Jamie Raskin on the guillotine.
At two I’ll whack Letitia James
And then I’ll hail a cab.
At two-fifteen I’ll treat Chuck Schumer
To a shooting right on Fifth Ave.
Dictator for a day
Why can’t it be this way?
Good times will be open-ended
With habeas corpus suspended."
Coming soon to streaming (really!).
DictatorForADayShow.com
https://soundcloud.com/rich-hersh/title-song-dictator-for-a-day
Looks like someone didn't put their phone in airplane mode.
This is the basis of CRT. The poll designers CANNOT even understand what is wrong because they are so steeped with the ideas of religion. Can the fish separate itself from the water?
With a few millions years at hand.
My religion: Atheism. Going to Not-Church/Temple/Mosque/Etc. with my fellow Atheists, doing Not-Worship stuff with full ambivalence towards any non-existent god(s), and so on.
My favorite TV channel: Off. That's good old-fashioned family entertainment.
RegularJoe grabs his hoop and stick and goes home.
See what all the nitrates in our delicious Iowa water has done to whatever's left of my thinky bits?
Now please excuse me while I go whittle a stick into a somewhat smaller stick. Yep...... Yep.
If you're really bored you can whittle a log into a toothpick.
Tarnation, he can get him one o' these...
youtu.be/a5g6xm7Eqx8
Religion is a comfort blanket of delusion. The delusion is strengthened by higher numbers of believers and threatened by fewer numbers of believers. As a junkie needs their drugs, theists need societal affirmation. Non believer are a challenge the delusion and the effectiveness of their drugs.
I would be curious as to just WHO is structuring this survey and what their own religious bents or biases are. Answer THAT question and we might learn why this particular survey question is structured the way it is.
In other words, just how UNBIASED is the organization doing the survey?
It sure looks like they're aiming for a predetermined outcome which leads me to think the survey was constructed by Christian apologists.
OT: Guy who makes the sign of the cross before he kicks the ball is a skeezy perv (allegedly):
"The number of massage therapists accusing Ravens kicker Justin Tucker of sexually inappropriate behavior has now more than doubled.
Last month, six massage therapists at high-end spas said Tucker repeatedly exposed himself, brushed two of them with his exposed penis and in several cases left what appeared to be ejaculate on the massage table. Shortly after The Banner published its investigation, three more women came forward with similar allegations. Now, seven additional women are sharing their accounts, bringing the total to 16 women at eight Baltimore-area spas. Two spas have said his behavior was so egregious that he was banned from returning."
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/sports/ravens-nfl/new-justin-tucker-allegations-MILZJRGFJZH7HC3YVE7EW456XI/
The last football player to do that got a 5 year $230 million contract. He was a quarterback though.
Yeah, see my comment on the Saints helping the Catholic Church hide their ahem “indiscretions”. Football is rife with sexual assault, domestic violence and other heinous crimes that are swept under the rug or excused because this rock with lips can throw a ball good. Not only don’t the owners of the teams and coaches care, but the fans cheer this behavior. It seems they’d all do it too, given the opportunity to get away with it. “Don’t ruin his life for a few minutes of action” as it were.
I like “rock with lips”.
Some years ago I saw Aida at the Rome Opera House. The tenor was gigantic. He had a great voice, but he was so big that he barely moved around the stage. I described him as “a refrigerator with a voice.”
I always thought it had to do more with the brains rather than physical qualities, but both are part of the reference. Some of the guys aren’t necessarily that big, but they’re solid and pretty dim.
I saw the Nutcracker ballet with an ex-NFL player in it (I wish I could remember who). While certainly graceful and talented, I wouldn't have exactly called him mobile.
Vince Young, maybe? Alex Singleton? Wil Lutz?
Would have been '03 or '04.
As if his "few minutes of action" (sexual assault) don't have consequences for the person he assaulted. And nobody cares because he can throw a damn ball.
The good news is nobody's underage.
If true, he's lucky he hasn't had HIS balls kicked.
Masseuses have a very strong grip, I think a very strong "massage" would be more efficient.
Is the medium the massage?
?
See the following explanations. I forget that not everybody is as old as I am. Except them. They are as old as I am. Maybe even older. So old.
My husband turned 65 today. I never thought I was going to be married to an old guy.
I would say you forget I was raised on another continent, speaking another language, growing up with different cultural references. I sm sure DM wouldn't have understood either, and she was your age.
It's a wordplay from "The medium is the message."
https://mcluhan.org/the-medium-is-the-message/
""The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan and the name of the first chapter[1] in his Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964.[2][3] McLuhan proposes that a communication medium itself, not the messages it carries, should be the primary focus of study.[4] The concept has been applied by others in discussions of technologies from television to the Internet."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
Two thoughts.
I thought for sure that we were going to learn that these masseurs were male. But it doesn’t surprise me to find out that they were female. Any shop that wants his business can simply provide him with a male masseur— maybe. That should solve all problems for everyone.
My best friend and I were recently in Japan. He wanted to get a massage in the room. The first thing the Japanese masseuse said to him was “no sex. No sex. No sex.” he had to assure her that he was gayer than the last Sunday in June in San Francisco.
𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑒, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝐵𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 (𝐴𝐶𝐵𝐶), 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 “𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡”
Catholic bishop attempts to equate religion with culture and tradition, forgetting that there are cultures and traditions that have nothing to do with religion. He wants the RCC to be seen as such an integral part of his society that people think of Catholic as part of being Australian. Oh how wrong he is.
I wonder how many of Australia's aboriginal peoples have been persuaded of the "truth" of Catholicism. If any worldviews are uniquely Australian, it would be theirs. But I don't think there's an agreed-upon name for them, so they didn't make the cut of terms that would be specifically listed on the form.
How many were persuaded at the business end of a musket?
According to Gemini: The British treated Australia as a colony of settlement, not conquest. They took over Aboriginal land on the assumption that the land belonged to no one.
Links to this:
http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/History_3_Colonisation.html
Exactly my thought.