›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Australian Census 2006

thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
edited August 2006 in Everything Else
99 years from now, an advanced space culture (from space) will crack open the Australian Bureau of Statistics time capusle and it shall be revealed that, indeed, Dale Prince was a member of that brave religious sect known as the Pastafarians. w00t! Take that, creationism in science classes!

How about the other Aussies on the forum? Did you register your protest?

Comments

  • KieyKiey
    you are protesting the census?
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    Take that, creationism in science classes!
  • deaf-mutedeaf-mute
    I just put in 'Agnostic'. I didn't really feel like a $1000 dollar fine.
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    I put 'no religion' the ancestry question was dumb, I lost the booklet and had no idea how far back they wanted me to go. AND they should have had a question about pets. As if there wasn't a question about pets!

    I cheated and did mine on Saturday.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    I just put in 'Agnostic'. I didn't really feel like a $1000 dollar fine.
    I won't pay the fine! I'll go to jail for my fake faith, I will!

    At least I'm not alone, Scott from Tripod was on the radio this morning talking about how he put Jedi in the religion section for the second census in a row.
    AND they should have had a question about pets. As if there wasn't a question about pets!
    Damn, I thought pets were considered people! Rover was my household's Person 4! Oh teh embarrassments!!1!1
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Believe it or not, the census is not some evil government enterprise. It is an important tool for historical purposes as well as social service purposes. I wouldn't exactly be proud of lying on the census. While you may not personally see the need for the question, it wouldn't kill you to think of the greater good.
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    But I always find how many people wrote 'Jedi' as their religion an interesting historical statistic.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    The greater good requires I be truthful about my religion? How is that? For historical purposes, making a statement such as I did is, in my opinion, far more significant in social and historical terms than simply stating the religion I was born into but to which I essentially no longer belong. In 99 years, historians will be able to infer my general religious views by the answer I gave (hardly the answer of a deeply religious person, wouldn't you agree?), and by comparison to my immediate family, and the community in which I live. A richer answer by far, claiming to be a Pastafarian asserts my views on a specific issue, which will be, at the very least, a point of interest to researchers in the future. There's no lie in it - it reflects my views on religion better than blindly reciting a meaningless, predictable answer.

    I made great pains to ensure all the questions were answered very carefully, including the religion question. So, don't be so quick to judge, kilarney. And don't patronise me by assuming I don't understand the purpose of a census. I do.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    But I always find how many people wrote 'Jedi' as their religion an interesting historical statistic.
    Precisely. Those people clearly don't consider themselves associated with any real religion: they use that answer to proclaim their affiliation with a subculture far more relevant to their lives: geekdom.
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    Pasta be with you all.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2006
    The greater good requires I be truthful about myreligion?
    The greater good requires you to be truthful. If you don't practice a religion, say so. If you prefer not to answer, then say so. Why make it harder on folks just because you have a beef with a question? A census is a very good thing. If you don't want to participate, that's your choice. Don't provide misinformation, however. That's just juvenile.

    By the way... you're talking to someone who has used many census results to do extensive geneology. So if you stop to think about it, it isn't just a government thing. Your descendants benefit too.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    OK, you clearly didn't read my post thoroughly enough. I said I answered every question carefully. Despite what you might think of my answer to the religion question, all the rest were answered extremely accurately. On the whole I do take the census seriously. And don't call what I did juvenile, pal. Let's not descend into ad hominem attacks here. It was considered and rational, despite your differing opinion.

    If you could provide for us all a reason why explicitly stating my religion actually matters, rather than making vague statements about the "greater good" and how what I've done makes things harder for people somehow (which is, again, only your opinion), I'd be fascinated to hear it.
  • deaf-mutedeaf-mute
    I find it funny; The UK government Likes the Jedi thing, because it gets people to actually Do the census. Down here the census is compulsory, and so they hate it (the Jedi Phenomenon). There is more to it, but I'm being simplistic.
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    The question is optional anyway, so even if you write something stupid they'll just stick you in the pile with the people who choose not to answer. I get that the census is important but can we stop talking about 'the Greater Good' *cue angelic music* like the ABS is some sort of God.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2006
    Thane,

    Surprised to see that you are so defensive. I trust you can figure out why accurate answers are important without my explaining it.

    In any event, I will give you one specific example. As someone who has done extensive genealogy, I have learned a lot of important information about my ancestors from the census. Often, this is the only means I have of obtaining information about certain people. If the answer is not truthful, then you've hurt your descendant's ability to learn about their ancestors. Learning about one's ancestors is not trivial - at least to me. So there's just one example of many.

    The defense of your position, please?

    I really do believe that there is a certain naivete amongst users of this forum as it pertains to government. I have no problem with having a viewpoint opposite government as long as it is rationalized. What I've seen is a lot of anti-government banter prior to any rationalization. It's tedious. While I don't always agree with Rym or Scott, I do appreciate the thought they put into their opinions. I just wish others would do the same.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • tuttle88tuttle88
    The religion question, being optional, is the only time on the census that you can have some fun and let future generations know that we had a sense of humour.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    Thane,

    Surprised to see that you are so defensive.
    I am defensive because you have called me a liar and labeled my actions "juvenile". So yes, I'm defensive.
    In any event, I will give you one specific example. As someone who has done extensive genealogy, I have learned a lot of important information about my ancestors from the census. Often, this is the only means I have of obtaining information about certain people. If the answer is not truthful, then you've hurt your descendant's ability to learn about their ancestors. Learning about one's ancestors is not trivial - at least to me. So there's just one example of many.

    The defense of your position, please?
    Read my fourth post in this thread, please. I've stated my position clearly, and I'm not going to repeat myself.
    I really do believe that there is a certain naivete amongst users of this forum as it pertains to government. I have no problem with having a viewpoint opposite government as long as it is rationalized. What I've seen is a lot of anti-government banter prior to any rationalization. It's tedious. While I don't always agree with Rym or Scott, I do appreciate the thought they put into their opinions. I just wish others would do the same.
    Where did this diatribe against anti-governmentalism come from? I have a problem with creationism in schools, not the census. And my views on government have no relation at all to this discussion.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Read my fourth post in this thread, please. I've stated my position clearly, and I'm not going to repeat myself.
    I read the post and I re-read the post. I see an unstated major premise. Can you please flesh out your argument?

    Perhaps I am confused. Are you indeed a Pastafarian? The question didn't ask for your view on religion, it asked for your actual religion. So be honest, are you a practicing Pastafarian? If so, I will gladly retract my comment that you were untruthful in your answer.
    And my views on government have no relation at all to this discussion.
    Uhh... you do realize that the census is a governmental function, no? By definition government is relevant to this discussion.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    Perhaps I am confused.
    That would be consistent with everything else you've said here.
    Are you indeed a Pastafarian? The question didn't ask for yourviewon religion, it asked for your actual religion. So be honest, are you a practicing Pastafarian? If so, I will gladly retract my comment that you were untruthful in your answer.
    Ah, perhaps therein lies the source of your aforementioned confusion. Let's ask dictionary.com for their definition of 'Religion', shall we?

    Emphasis mine:
    re·li·gion
    n.
    1.
    a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
    Can you honesly tell me that definition four does not align with the cause, principle or activity of strenuous and consistent opposition to teaching creationism in classrooms? Point three may also work in this case, but I'm not going to rely on it: Having spiritual leaders like Pastors Len Guini and Al Dente hardly adds to my side of the argument, does it? Regardless, my belief in the movement of Pastafarianism is grounds enough to claim it as a religion for the purposes of the census. After all, Humanism is offered as an example of an 'other' religion on the form, and as I'm sure you know, humanism shares very little in common with most "traditional" religions.

    Can a person claim to be a Christian while only believing in the value of the teachings of Jesus, and not believing all the supernatural stuff? Of course they can, many people who claim to be Christians (in my experience) do. And can someone reasonably claim to be a christian if they hadn't set foot in a church since the last census? Absolutely! The same goes for my belief in Pastafarianism (which has no churches, BTW), a belief which is based solely on the principles under which the religion was founded, and not on all that supernatural spaghetti stuff. Call me a bad Pastafarian, but that's just how I am.

    Now, how about that retraction?
    Uhh... you do realize that the census is a governmental function, no? By definition government is relevant to this discussion.
    Let me put it this way, my views on government had no impact on my choice to answer that particular question in that particular way.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    You say you "believe in the movement" of Pastafarianism. You also cite definition number four. Using this definition, you should not have selected Pastafarianism. A "belief" alone does not satisfy the definition. Absent something more, I stand by my position that you were not being truthful when you selected Pastafarian as your reigion. I understand that you may have had your reasons, I'm just saying that I find it rather childish. Nothing personal - it's fine for folks to disagree! You certainly have every right to think that I am wrong!

    I was looking for a good debate, which clearly isn't where this thread has gone. Therefore, I'm going to let this thread lie. You know my opinion, so there's really nothing more to say.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    Well, if you were looking for a good debate, you should have made your argument less personal and more abstract. Calling someone childish, among other things, is bad form, and you should have known better. Anyway...

    I AM TEH WINNAR!!1!!
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    Well, if you were looking for a good debate, you should have made your argument less personal and more abstract. Calling someone childish, among other things, is bad form, and you should have known better.
    Ad hominem?
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    Ad hominem?
    Argumentum ad personam.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited August 2006
    To set the record straight, here is my final comment on the matter:

    1) You have an issue with teaching creationism in school.
    2) In some sort of convoluted connection, you felt that choosing "Pastafarian" as your religion on the census was a protest against teaching creationism in school. Any attempt on fleshing this connection out has been futile.
    3) You did not choose agnostic or athiest. In my opinion, selecting one of these responses makes a clear statement not subject to ridicule.
    4) I stated that choosing Pastafarian was juvenile. I did not say that you were juvenile. For all I know, this action was totally ouy of keeping with your personality.
    5) Having received no clear answers from you, nor genuine debate (see below), I chose to cease any attempt at debate. You relished in this, stating: "I AM TEH WINNAR!!1!!" Needless to say, I won't be debating you in the future. Make of this what you will.

    ** Example of the lack of genuine debate: You claim that you selected Pastafarian to protest government sponsored teaching creationism in public schools. A couple of posts later claim that your views on government had nothing to do with your selection. At least one statement must be false.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor

    ** Example of the lack of genuine debate: You claim that you selected Pastafarian to protest government sponsored teaching creationism in public schools. A couple of posts later claim that your views on government had nothing to do with your selection. At least one statement must be false.
    You said you were going to "let this thread lie". And yet, here you are, limping over the same tired ground. Your posts are just a mess of contradictory statements and half-assed high-school debating tactics. If you a) can't have a discussion without resorting to "playing the man", b) don't have a sense of perspective or humour about such an minor topic, and c) can't seem to be able to comprehend written English, I'll be glad to not have any further dealings with you.

    Oh, also...

    image

    You get NOTHING! You LOSE! Good day, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY!
Sign In or Register to comment.