Everything But....

Well now, this list is just chock full of disappointment...

No Luciferianism,
No Discordianism,
And they left out the baddest of them all, no Cult of Cthulhu...

The old ones are not impressed....

I think it was Alfred Bester who once checked into a hospital and was so outraged that they wanted him to designate a religion, he considered jotting down "Druid." But then someone pointed out that they would probably call in a tree surgeon.

uhh wow...

How about one line that says:

RELIGION?____________________________

No wonder they took away your guns!! :laugh:

Best thing I've read all day! 581-585 are good, but I'd be too tempted to answer the question "What is your religion" with the offering of, "religion"...yet, "yes" or "na" are also interesting submissions...somewhat impressive that they would put together such a list, most likely something they had an intern do.

I'd be most tempted to throw a fit though...like really, y'all A) asked me my religion as if that matters, then gave me a list to choose from that has 1,800 options, bu then C) don't even have JEDI on there? Sheesh...get with the program!

Or just pencil it in with a note that you want to speak to a supervisor about them not including it...?

Either way, too fun...but also, wow, no.

Quick Update (Not about my path to becoming Robocop)


So it turns out the ABS....in their infinite...bureauness.... have this

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/89DC8E0AFCF09BD3CA25697E00184AC7?opendocument


Which appears to be where the hospital pulled their "Data" from.

As you can see - it is dated from our 1996 census, which might explain why Jedi (or pastafarianism) didn't get a mention.



Anyway, if you want to kill some time, and really enjoy reading government copy where they have lots of words, lots of data, and basically come to the conclusion of nothing, the site is a great read to click through...


If you can't be bothered clicking through, I will at least share with you the ABS "Definition of Religion" which is delightfully indecisive

ABS wrote: Precise definition of the concept of religion, or of what generally constitutes 'a religion', is difficult, if not impossible, because of the intangible and wide-ranging nature of the topic. Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense. This method of defining religion in terms of a mixture of beliefs, practices, and a Supernatural Being giving form and meaning to existence was used by the High Court of Australia in 1983. The High Court held that "the beliefs, practices and observances of the Church of the New Faith (Scientology) were a religion in Victoria". As part of the ruling, it was stated that:

"For the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold:

first, belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and

second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion."

Although the above definition may be regarded as useful in going some way toward describing the nature of the entities included in the classification, it is by no means all-inclusive. Some of the entities included in the classification do not fit the definition, but are regarded, either universally or widely, as religions. Such entities are included to ensure that the classification is comprehensive and useful, and to make the classification widely acceptable.

For instance, Buddhism is universally accepted as a religion although it does not acknowledge a personal God. Similarly, Confucianism is regarded as a religion, even though it involves no belief in the supernatural, because it provides the moral code of its adherents. However, not all philosophies which involve beliefs about the nature of life or codes of behaviour are accepted as religions. For instance, Marxism is regarded as a religion by some because it is based on a coherent set of beliefs, but it is more generally regarded as a political philosophy and is, therefore, excluded from the classification.

Thus, the extent of opinion in regard to what constitutes a 'religion' (particularly the opinion of the adherents), practical considerations, and generally-held notions about the nature of philosophies, organisations and institutions all play a role in defining religion or identifying the concepts that underpin religion. These elements complement the more stringent notions of belief, practices and a Supernatural Being included in the definition of religion.

Although the classification is intended to classify entities defined as religions, its base level units (that is, the categories at its most detailed level) are not all of the same order. Factors such as the number of adherents in Australia and the organisational structure of particular religions have made it expedient to include different sorts of religious entities as the categories at the finest (most differentiated) level of the classification.

The base level units therefore describe: groups of religions, religions, and subsets of religions, such as, religious denominations, administrative and organisational groupings, groups of churches, churches, and breakaway groups. All these entities, while not necessarily constituting discrete religions, are comprised of one or more subsets of the spectrum of world-wide religions. They are described here as Religious Groups in that each is composed of a group of people who share common religious beliefs and practices, or belong to organisations that are unified by a common religious theme. Thus, the base level entities in the classification are termed Religious Groups and the classification is called The Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG).

Edit: If nothing else, some of the options tell us how some people feel about filling in the Census

JamesSand wrote: As you can see - it is dated from our 1996 census, which might explain why Jedi (or pastafarianism) didn't get a mention.

Nice find!!! I just looked at the 2016 version, and it looks like they cleaned it up a lot. No Jedi unfortunately, but also no nonsense entries or small religions either... down to about 130 choices,

Well and what gets me is would say that 75% of those are probably more organizations than actual religions. Some aren't even religious organizations (I'm fairly certain 'British' was one of the choices if I remember correctly)

Well and what gets me is would say that 75% of those are probably more organizations than actual religions. Some aren't even religious organizations (I'm fairly certain 'British' was one of the choices if I remember correctly)

Apparently Census night 1996 was a Tuesday....so most people should have been sober....


I've never managed to actually be in Australia for a Census, so I can't say I'm contributing much to the data.

In any case, I believe an entry of "Jedi" or "Jediism" gets you a tally mark in the "No Religion" category, as it's not recognised here.

JamesSand wrote: In any case, I believe an entry of "Jedi" or "Jediism" gets you a tally mark in the "No Religion" category, as it's not recognised here.

I think its 'Not defined', rather then 'No religion'. Here is a thread had back at the time of the last Oz census.
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/jedi-in-the-news/115488-australians-urged-not-to-pledge-jedi-as-their-religion-in-census

I'd have thought the ABS would store 'all' the answers 'somewhere', in it's pure as received form- and that categorization schemes were just for reporting statistical information. So if enough people started being Jedi it might eventually get up on its own maybe.... but doesn't help when people make fun of it. Can we argue religious discrimination :silly: