Australians urged not to pledge ‘Jedi’ as their religion in Census

I just don't like people screwing with scientific data. It ruins what good that data might do.

Sure but what business does the gov't have knowing or even caring about religious affiliations.... neither Australia nor NZ are theocracies. Shouldn't even be a question.... ditto for the US...

Avalonslight wrote: Sure but what business does the gov't have knowing or even caring about religious affiliations.... neither Australia nor NZ are theocracies. Shouldn't even be a question.... ditto for the US...

I believe it has to do with government funding/resources and where it goes.

Plus it's just good to have an idea of the rough numbers. That way when people say "The US is a Christian nation!" we can say "Hold your horses there, let's look at the numbers before we make any claims like that" and that kind of thing.

I don't think they can make it mandatory, or at least they shouldn't, but if you feel like you want to list your religion you can. No harm in that.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

Avalonslight wrote: Sure but what business does the gov't have knowing or even caring about religious affiliations.... neither Australia nor NZ are theocracies. Shouldn't even be a question.... ditto for the US...

I believe it has to do with government funding/resources and where it goes.

Except that in these countries, religious organizations aren't supposed to receiving any government funding? :huh: yknow separation of church and state and everything....

And I don't see how a statistic such as x% Christian, x% Muslim, x% Non Defined Religious or what have you... x% non religious.... how do those affect funding?

Brenna wrote: New Zealanders were urged the same at the last census. But they at least offered an explanation along with it. When they do the counts no matter what religion you pick you're counted as "religious". The initial push back (from the kiwis at least. I'm not sure if the Aussies did it for the same reasons) was that we didn't think we should have to disclose whether or not we had a faith of any kind and that it was not only invasive but also irrelevant.

So putting Jedi kind of defeated the point. Except that some of us put Jedi as a serious answer. And said so on our forms.

I think this response sums up the issue rather well.

The question on the census is specifically about religion. Many people don't think it is the government's business, so they went along with a popular answer meant to make this point. It had nothing to do with Jediism specifically.

It also doesn't matter how you choose to define "Jedi". The question rules out any Jedi who do not practice Jediism as a religion because it is specifically asking to identify your religion. The question does not apply to a Jediist or someone walking the Path without religious belief or implications. As an example, I would not answer the religion question with "vegetarian" because that is a lifestyle choice, not a religious one.

The part that could be considered offensive is the current campaign asking people not to claim Jediism, when it is in fact a religious faith practiced by parts of the population.

Avalonslight wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote:

Avalonslight wrote: Sure but what business does the gov't have knowing or even caring about religious affiliations.... neither Australia nor NZ are theocracies. Shouldn't even be a question.... ditto for the US...

I believe it has to do with government funding/resources and where it goes.

Except that in these countries, religious organizations aren't supposed to receiving any government funding? :huh: yknow separation of church and state and everything....

And I don't see how a statistic such as x% Christian, x% Muslim, x% Non Defined Religious or what have you... x% non religious.... how do those affect funding?

Religious organizations may ask for grants/funding for things such as schools, clinics, soup kitchens or other charitable aspects of their religion. Donations alone may not be enough.

Goken wrote: Plus it's just good to have an idea of the rough numbers. That way when people say "The US is a Christian nation!" we can say "Hold your horses there, let's look at the numbers before we make any claims like that" and that kind of thing.

I don't think they can make it mandatory, or at least they shouldn't, but if you feel like you want to list your religion you can. No harm in that.

Third party, non governmental organizations do this all the time. I don't see that as a justification for government knowing your religion, not given the history of governments and religions across the planet.

As for mandatory, the one time I've had to do the census so far, I had a lady show up at my apartment and state all questions were mandatory and failure to answer them accurately could be construed as a criminal offense. Including the religion ones.... so...

Leah Starspectre wrote:

Avalonslight wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote:

Avalonslight wrote: Sure but what business does the gov't have knowing or even caring about religious affiliations.... neither Australia nor NZ are theocracies. Shouldn't even be a question.... ditto for the US...

I believe it has to do with government funding/resources and where it goes.

Except that in these countries, religious organizations aren't supposed to receiving any government funding? :huh: yknow separation of church and state and everything....

And I don't see how a statistic such as x% Christian, x% Muslim, x% Non Defined Religious or what have you... x% non religious.... how do those affect funding?

Religious organizations may ask for grants/funding for things such as schools, clinics, soup kitchens or other charitable aspects of their religion. Donations alone may not be enough.

True.... but at least here, no such money may be used in faith based practices. Something like running a soup kitchen doesn't require religion. Any certified organization could do that. But that same religious organization couldn'the use that money to run religious classes. I'm not sure that having a percentage of religious practices is necessary for that, and since it can't be used for religious purposes anyway..... And to me that still doesn't justify the government being able to attach a religion to each person's name.....

Because when your governing people you need to know what buttons can be pushed on who for specific cultural effects. You need to know the most common moral denominators so you can gauge what you can get away with. You need to know which group has the most power so they can be pandered too.