鈥楴o religion鈥� census push
The Atheist Foundation of Australia (AFA) has erected billboards across the country urging Australians to mark 鈥楴o religion鈥� on their census forms in August.
AFA president David Nicholls said he hoped the signs would help the public think about how they filled out the census question about religious affiliation and how that information could be misused to influence public debates.
鈥淭he question on religion asking 鈥榃hat is the person鈥檚 religion?鈥� is a leading one and it could sway people to mark their religion of baptism or early youth and not their present stance, which may be devoid of any faith,鈥� Nicholls said.
鈥淭his can cause a distortion of census statistics whereby religious people appear to be more numerous in society than they really are. Public policy can and does reflect these figures, which … unfairly favours religion.鈥�
Nicholls said that despite only seven percent of Australians regularly attending church, policy on voluntary euthanasia, GLBTI equality, abortion, religious education in state schools, stem cell research and other areas were continually interfered with by politicians following Christian dogma or seeking to appeal to a religious constituency.
Billboards have been erected in Melbourne on the Western Highway at Ardeer and at North Road, Huntingdale, and at seven other locations around the country.
info:
@Margie:
Lets break this down. The difference between a man and a woman is their different chromosomes. This results in a difference in physical appearance and sexual function. Sure, there’s a bit of overlap.. a head, a torso, two arms, two legs, a brain, a heart, a mind, a soul.. ignore those bits; they’re unimportant. The difference in sexual function is paramount. It creates a potential for the differing organ sets to slot together in an attempt reproduce.
You propose a special term for a marriage between two people of the same sex.
How about we open that requirement up for other couples according to the above definition too:
Special Term #1
This is what we will call it for straight couples where there isn’t a penis/testes/prostate AND a vagina/uterus/ovaries configuration.
But marriage doesn’t appear to require the involvement of a full set of reproductive organs. Both women and men who’ve lost sexual organs through genetic variations, illness or accident can marry. What is stamped on their birth certificates seems to be enough for the law, provided they are different letters. How odd.
Special Term #2
This is for straight couples who don’t or can’t have penetrative sexual intercourse.
There is no sexual act that is asked of in the vows. Men who cannot sustain an erection can get married. Women who have vaginismus can get married.
But with our new terms they cannot actually “marry”. Gosh, that’s a bit unfair, isn’t it? She’d picked out such a lovely dress and everything. Shame.
Special Term #3
What will we call it for couples who can’t have or don’t end up with children?
Marriage law doesn’t detail the necessity to try to have children. And people who are infertile get married all the time. Obviously many religions ask that people don’t try to have children before marriage so those that marry and then can’t successfully reproduce would also have to be bumped down to Special Term #3. How long should we give them to try to have kids before we bump them? 1 year? 5 years? No luck? Bump.
Special Term #4
For homosexual couples.
It doesn’t matter how dedicated, trustworthy, loving, generous or compassionate the members of the couple are towards one another: If they can’t fit the mould they’re out of the marriage department.
And while we’re at it we might as well do away with divorce too. That sure as heck isn’t traditional.
Here’s another one:
Special Term #5
For the people who question why others might want the same rights and privileges as they enjoy.
@Margie
For a start, this article has nothing to do with gays or the gay marriage debate. Second, the tradition argument is completely invalid. The fact that ‘traditionally’ marriage has been between a man and a woman, at least in some countries, it does not follow that it should always be this way. If your argument were valid then surely all traditional laws ought to remain the same, for example, woman’s rights should be revoked because ‘traditionally’ woman never had rights. Also, traditionally African Americans never had rights, should we revoke their rights based on tradition?
I think it would serve you well to use the brain that God gave you.
Margie, the word Marry comes from the Romans.. who allowed same-sex marriages! One of the Roman Emperors even married another man. The word Marriage was a pagan word, a Roman word. Same-Sex Marriage was banned by suppossed Christians when they forced their religion onto everyone else in Rome, even though imposing christianity is against the tenets of christian faith. Gay people want marriage back, something that some bad christians stole from them. Same-Sex martiage is older than christianity itself.
[…] Source: […]
I do not think it is the governments business, especially when not all of the community is counted.
@Andre – questioning what you think from time to time is probably a good thing yeah? It’s an opportunity to re-evaluate your current position and determine if you’re retaining it or refuting it.. A sound step forward either way!
@Glenn It was more to do with the “Not religious now?” website here: .
And the AFA did what I’m guessing it set out to achieve – make me nervous and cranky, and question what I think. God love atheists.
@Greg – I’ll admit that my criticism of the Observer was a little unwarranted – I was in Keyboard Warrior Mode rather than Reasoned Argument Mode at the time :P
On what the AFA says, I suppose there is an element of truth in saying that the Nicene Creed is accepted as an affirmation of faith by most Christians. That being said, numerous Christians would not take the Creed as literally what they believe. What I found offensive was the AFA ‘defining’ Christian beliefs into 12 dot points.
I’m probably making life hard for myself by being too philosophical. That or I’m too busy being offended. (Quite possibly the latter :P)
@Andre – if you’re referring to this : then please highlight and point out exactly where the AFA provides a definition on what a christian is. Sounds to me like reading the answers has shaken your faith a bit, even for a “not even a strong christian”. ;)
Andre,
There is a difference between “promoting” and “reporting”. If SO reports on a murder, it does not mean they promote people murdering.
Let’s have a look at what the website says. “There is a wide variety of Christian faiths and denominations, and the particular beliefs of one group are not necessarily shared by another… However, almost all Christian faiths and denominations share the basic tenets of the Nicene Creed.”
Of course, you can give yourself whatever label you feel like, however, according to many Christian authorities, the Nicene Creed is a holy text that is recognised as truth. One must presume you are of a denomination that does not acknowledge the Nicene Creed, which are few, which is why the website says: “almost all” instead of “all”.
If you are of denomination that acknowledges the Nicene Creed, and yet you, yourself do not acknowledge the creed, one must ask why you identify yourself in such a way, given that the Nicene Creed is very central to most denominations.
Have a great census!
I find it truly hard to understand why Gay people are so set on using a term for their relationship that has traditionally meant the union between a man and a woman. Why would they not prefer “parnership” or other special term that denotes their official relationship, which rightly should have the same rights under law and equal opportunities. Why this obsession to be using a term that has strong religious roots and long established social conventions that do not fit your different situation? Could someone please explain?
@Andre. I’d be very interested to know what you found offensive about the AFA’s FAQ’s?
People who travel and book into hotels, could ask management beforehand, to remove any Bibles before they enter their hotel rooms. Visitors don’t want their stay or holiday ruined by violent Biblical stories. Psychotic stories about voices from burning bushes, and women mysteriously being turned into pillars of salt. There is the unbelievable joke of Noah’s Ark. Thousands of people would have had to be employed just shoveling animal shit off the boat anyway.
There is one documented story left from the ancient Israelites, about two men wanking each other off after a deal or bargain was sealed. A good mens shed story. That is something I would go to church for.
I think the Observer needs to look a little more carefully into who they promote. I was actually offended by some of the ‘answers’ given to questions on the AFA’s site – and I’m not even a strong Christian. They provide a narrow-minded definition of what a Christian is – as if someone can define a whole religion in three sentences and a few dot points. Poor journalism Observer, poor.