Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015
vexen

Census: If you don't believe in Christianity, don't put Christian!

If you don't BELIEVE in Christianity, be it Catholic, Church of England, etc, don't put that down on the census as your religion. If you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead to absolve all humans from the original sin caused by Adam and Eve, then you're not a Christian! The question is about YOUR beliefs, not about what you think your family have put down historically!
Tags: ,

  • 1

The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

I'm all for truth and honesty in religon. That's why I'm such a vocal agnostic. So don't take this as disagreement with the genral principle just the specifically anti-christian bias this campain has taken from the out set.

Here's what I predict if the campain is a success:
Lots of people who previously claimed to be Christians and who are what you might reffer to as "Cultural Christians" or "Secular Christians" list them selves as atheist.
Secular Jews, Muslims and Hindu's who have not been targeted in the way the Christians have ignore the whole thing and put Jewish, Muslims and Hindu.
The press ignore the atheists and write a report based on the popular proportion of different religons in relation to each other. The headlines will go something like "Muslims now out number Christians!!!" or "Muslim invasion swamps UK!!! Christians Driven Out!!! British Culture Under Threat!!! Will Your child be forced to grow up Muslim!!!"
The BNP, English Defence League and any non-aligned bigots that fancy having a go will have a feild day.

Like I said I aproove of honesty and the basic concept of a campain to get people to answer the cencous honsestly and actually think about what they are saying before they say it. Unfortunatly Due to a certain amount of prejudice and bigotry in the secular socioty causing a particular vendeta against Christians in particular the campain they launched will result in nothing of the sort. Sad really, They were nearly on to something good there.

Re: The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

There's truth and honesty in religion? That's a new one on me...

Re: The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

More than there is in flipant oneliners.

Re: The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

Marcony, you make a great contrarian ya'know :-)

Re: The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

Thankyou.
You know I actually found myself Saying I agreed with them the other day. It was novel and enjoyable, but bloody hard work.

Re: The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

I thought he said he's all for truth and honesty in religion...: who isn't?!

Good to see you around, old friend.

Re: The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

Certain elements of the press are of course going to comment on the rise in Islam or other faiths - that's a given, and I think it's worthy of comment. But the number of atheists or non-Christians should also reflect the facts, and I think this is a worthy campaign for that reason.

Also, just because a campaign is (justifably) targeted at a faith group who unfairly boast a greater number because people weren't too troubled to accurately state their agnosticism or atheism last time, does not mean that the millions of other 'religious' people in the country might not read the campaign and answer the census accordingly. One step at a time.

Re: The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

Because of the UK's history there is a specific bloating of Christian numbers because for a thousand years the general assumption has been that if you believe in God, you are therefore a form of Christian. (In reality of course, theists come in all shades and colours, but in popular opinion not many can articule this).

Because of this specific skewing of stats, I think a god-specific campaign is the right approach.

This absolutely does not mean that the BHA (whose campaign it is) does not consider the same idea (of self-reporting accuracy) to be relevent to others, just that it is best to take things in steps, rather than attempt to de-habitualize everyone at once!

For example; there are a proportion of non-religious Muslims (secular Muslims, cultural Muslims) who follow ethnic practices but who do not believe in the philosophical sense; the time will come when they follow the same trend as secular Christians and reform Jews, and begin to openly realize that they are non-religious, despite their culture. The time for that has not yet come!

Re: The Law of Unintended Conciquences.

The thought strikes that for a cencus that is not only honest but informative they should have asked people to use the phrase "Secular Christian" to describe themselves if they don't actually belive in the existance of a deity.

(Psst, not all Christian groups believe in original sin. ;P)

Yeah but this is all targeted at those who don't know if they're supposed to or not! Trust you to come along with pesky things like accurate facts! x

You know me, I can't help it. ;) And you did have to choose a particularly contested aspect of Christian theology - though I can't think of any aspect of Christian theology that isn't reasonably hotly contested in one or other corner of the Christianiverse, except possibly "Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the four canonical gospels of the Christian Greek scriptures, is said to have taught some spiritually important things." :P

In general, one is treading water (and murky theological water at that - not the sort of place non-adherents necessarily want to go) when one states that belief in statement a is required for membership in religion S. Perhaps it would be more accurate and useful to discuss what ticking 'Christian' - or any other religion - in the census will indicate to policymakers, and asking readers to consider whether or not that is actually the message that they want to send. Of course, on that basis, many religious people may also wish to tick 'No religion'. :)

Nothing - nothing! - connected with Human beings, categorisations, behaviour, religion or politics, is ever simple is it?

Er and regarding your "except possibly" statement: Know that the word "Nazareth" - as in, "Nazerene", is indeed disputed historically and may actual be one of quite a few different words; the connection to a place called Nazareth was only a later assumption.

And... those four canonical gospels... don't portray A (singular) Jesus at all; in working out contradictions in detail and style, many have emphasized different Jesus-of-the-Bibles. The debates between those who prioritize different gospels have been heated! If you try to merge all of them, some parts just have to give!

I think the Borg should come save us from all this Human individuality and freethought, it is making the world of sociological statistical analysis a nightmare!

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account