Ticked off
Not sure whether I should be alarmed, puzzled, or pleased – but I find myself agreeing with the British Humanist Association, at least to a certain extent. I found their previous advertising campaign on the side of buses mildly amusing and mildly offensive in equal measure. Their current campaign, though, set to launch in advance of the UK Census next month, makes a reasonable point.
The BHA are concerned that people may tick a box on the question below indicating a historical or inherited religious affiliation rather than an active participation.
- Image: BBC
In the light of this, they are set to run another bus advertising campaign with the slogan “If you’re not religious then for God’s sake say so.”
Whilst I might query the exact wording, I have to applaud the sentiment. It seems to me that I spend much of my time both in and out of the pulpit arguing the case for active participation in faith rather than historical affiliation with religion. I would far rather that someone who never enters a church ticked “no religion”, than that they ticked “Christian” out of some sense of nostalgic loyalty to the traditions of their forebears. Out of such honesty a clean platform for preaching the Gospel is hewn.
Of course there are many complex issues here, and the shades of meaning in this question may be felt differently by Christians in different traditions. However, an honest appraisal of the religious landscape in the United Kingdom could be helpful to all those of us who seek to contribute to it.
My trouble with buses is that I’m rarely certain about exactly which route goes where – all the while assuming that the driver knows exactly where he or she is going. Where is this advert going, do you think?
Hoorah for this post Richard. I agree… it’s like that “dreaded” question “are you religious”… and not wanting to give that pat answer ‘no, I have a personal relationship with Jesus’, which may be true, but makes people want to hit you!
Spoken from the heart Bex – thanks.
Fantastic post and great thoughts.
My brother-in-law recently admitted to his Christian family that he is an Atheist. My response?
“It’s not like we were opperating under the assumption that you were a devoted Christian. You haven’t gone to church willingly in years. As far as I’m concerned you may as well have been an Atheist all along.”
Honesty as the best policy all round, I guess
Given the current state of Teddington it seems unlikely that anyone knows where the busesare going…!! I think I agree with your post… I wonder how many who *never* darken church doors wld self describe as Christian, and how many occasional attendees/seekers/journeyers might feel alienated by a “you can’t use our label” approach. I’m largely of the “belong then believe” camp more than “believe then belong” …
Belonging then believing seems to be the way to go. Overall, I think its best to take time over how you “self- describe” (useful term) – even if the self-description is “I’m searching….”
I have a feeling that this trend is probably even worse in the US. Christianity is still so engrained in the fabric of our societies (especially in the southeast). On top of the issue of inherited religious affiliation, there is also still a social standard of Christian importance. For instance…
Politicians often visit churches during campaign season to be seen as in touch with Christians, businesses oftentimes advertise that they are a Christian establishment to attract Christian clientele, Christian values are regularly cited in public forums in order to refer back to a widely-accepted standard of decency and morality.
I’m not sure if all of those things are exclusive to the southeast US, but I have a feeling that they are a lot more common here than in other places.
While I agree with the sentiment of “If you’re not religious then for God’s sake say so.” It’s the use of the word religious that always grates. Should all of the options be prefixed with various sub-divisions such as feel an affinity for, practising, having a personal relationship, like to follow so can use moral high ground? These general categories for me never seem to hit the nail on the head and never will as it is less about religion and more about personal faith; especially when not viewed from the position of statistician.
If you check the BBC news story, you will see that someone from the National Office of Statistics says it cannot be given any further distinction as it would be too complicated. I share your sentiment, though…
A couple of things here. 1) Whether anyone goes through church doors is no measure of their personal relationship status. Like for the traditionalists that you mention Richard, that would be “Churchianity”…. A building can be seen with eyes, and walked into with legs and feet. A preacher can be heard with ears, and a congregation met, multi-sensorily. Thus none of them require faith! but 2) when one’s heart has been “touched” by the deep and beautiful meaning of the gospel and the knowledge of the infinite and unconditional love of God, one knows one is part of a spiritual unity unseen, unheard, and tragically unfelt by so many.
The meaning of religion cannot be nutshelled, yet nuts have been trying to do so for a very long time. it is both complex and simple at the same time. in it’s highest for it is love centred. And there are a few simple truths that the whole world ought to know, for tehy have the power to make mankind convert, from within his own heart.
As you say, the meaning of such complex things “cannot be nutshelled”
Just seen this and have to congratulate the BHA for once! It’s far better than the ridiculous ‘add Jedi Knight’ idea last time round. Mind you, what’s the bet that there will be a lot of people tracking out the age old ‘further erosion of Christian Britain’ card once this becomes common knowledge.
Probably – but I would prefer that to a false notion of Christian Britain based on misleading stats
My parents had me christened as a child into the Church of Scotland, but I have never been a church attendee, except for major events, other peoples weddings, funerals etc. Last census time I did put ‘Jedi’ – feeling an affinity, given that my birthday *is’ May the Fourth (sometimes referred to as ‘Star Wars Day’). However, having searched for a self ‘label’ for many years, not quite agnostic nor athiest, I have come to decide I am a Humanist. My faith is in humans (and no doubt is put to the test as often as the Christian faith is!) I do know people who when asked will describe themselves as ‘christian’, as I once did, merely through historical link, but no personal faith. I think it’s good that this issue is raising awareness, and hope that people will put their true belief, or lack of it, on this census – I would genuinely like to see a more accurate result emerge from this, particularly if this is to be the last census in this format.
I welcome the campaign. There will probably also be people who would automatically put Jewish or Hindu because they were born to parents of that faith so it isn’t just about showing the decline of Christianity.
A more interesting question would be ‘what faith were you brought up in?’ followed by ‘Do you still follow it?”
Now THAT would be an interesting question – but how honest would the answers be, I wonder?
Good we have some consensus on this! We atheists occasionally feel a bit maligned by the assumption that most people believe in god or gods, so therefore policies need to reflect a deference towards religious beliefs. But a properly functioning society should reflect the fact that we are diverse; indeed many Christians (churchgoing and pillars of their congregations) are in fact atheists who nevertheless identify as Christian. I suspect atheistic Christianity is a lot more common than is realised. Sadly I don’t think this census will capture that data…
Like you say – it is vital to a healthy society that diversity is recognised, honoured,and even celebrated. Thanks for your comment
What a reasoned, pleasant, and very British discussion. The greater issue here, of course, is that Governmental policy decisions that affect all of us will be based upon census information. As such, it’s of course in the democratic interests of everyone to ensure that the information compiled is as robust as possible.
I have to say that it is great to live in a country in which, generally speaking, we are all perfectly free to have our beliefs. It is a great credit to British churchgoers and British Christianity in general that it avoids any attempt to create the kind of repressive religious climate seen in other parts of the World.
Hopefully, once we have accurate census data that honestly records the general Godlessness of the UK, then we can begin to partially roll back the unnecessary provision of faith schools. After all, Jesus said to be ‘in the World, not of the World’, which to me certainly suggests that he wanted children to go to comprehensives!! 🙂
Like you say, the privilege of disagreeing is something we often take for granted in this country!
Pingback: The Church Sofa Weekly Roundup: The "Looking At" Edition | The Church Sofa
I don’t agree with the campaign, I’m afraid. Of course everyone should answer the census questions accurately – but do we need a campaign to tell us that?
When looking at religious stats there are three dimensions – religious identity, religious belief and religious behaviour. They all operate independently. This question is about religious identity – since the whole census is about identity.
Far from being a rogue poll on religious identity, the 2001 results were very much in line with the annual Integrated Household Survey which asks the question “what is your religion, even if you are currently not practicing”. The last result from 2008-9 was 72% Christian.
The census question is what it is, but it does have value in its own right, although of course it should not be taken out of context.
When the BHA and others complained about the religion question ahead of the 2011 census, the ONS looked at the complaints and said that it was important not to change the question so that we could see the change from 2001 to 2011 without distortion. This campaign is an attempt to distort the numbers and give the impression of a change which hasn’t really taken place.
The real issue I have with the BHA campaign is that they claim that the results of the census religion question have a direct impact on public policy in a number of areas (including allocation of NHS and police resources, education policy and many other areas), and so argue that they need to reduce the number of people who seem to be religious in order that they can then argue for the abolition of faith schools etc.
However, the link they draw between policy decisions and the census question is utterly spurious, and the campaign is not about getting a full understanding of religious identity, but really about playing politics.
But how can one have “religion, even if you are currently not practicing”. I haven’t “practiced” religion for over thirty years, but I was born into a catholic family, baptised and attended catholic schools. Does this, despite my “not practicing” mean I’m a catholic? Absolutely not. I do not believe in it, therefore I do not practice, therefore the IH survey was meaningless since it asked the wrong question. The 72% result bears this out, since all the indications are that religious faith is way below this level. What we do need it an honest answer – so if one is not religious (like me) one should say so and not be diverted by questions of practice or of loose allegiance. That is the honest position.
How come my wee ‘icon’ thing looks like a swastika?? I didn’t chose this? Am I just being paranoid??
Thanks for your comments Paul. Like you – I am a huge fan of honesty when it comes to faith & practice. And no, by the way, I didn’t see it as a swastika!
Paul
You can go to church every week and not believe, and you can believe with all your heart and not to go church. Practice and belief are not necessarily connected. Identity is something else again. Clearly you do not self identify as a Christian – fair enough, but that doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t.
For many (around 20% of the population judging by various surveys and statistics) they consider themselves Christian even though they don’t go to church – and who are we to say they should not?
@churchmouse, I think you are mistaken here; if the stats from the 2001 question were erroneous (and there is plenty of evidence of that) then it is bananas not to attempt to redress that by getting people to give their actual views. There are very very many people in UK who actually *fear* declaring their apostasy, and a more accurate trace of that in the census record can only help these people and others whose views have been marginalised. I’m not saying the contributors here are guilty of this, but a lot of theistic Christians whinge about being an oppressed minority. Well, prove it by getting people to answer the question honestly, and if they have grown beyond the belief stage, you’ll have your evidence. 🙂
Heliopolitan
I don’t agree that the figures were erroneous. They match very closely the results of the ONS’s Integrated Household Survey, which showed over 70% called themselves Christian last year, when asked the question “what is your religion, even if you are not currently practicing”. This question was specifically designed by the ONS to measure religious affiliation, as is the census question.
If you compare them to other measures of religiosity, such as religious belief or religious practice then you do indeed get different results, depending on what you are comparing it to. But that does not make one result wrong – it is just measuring something else.
Hmmm. For some reason my hyperlink doesn’t come up with the iPhone. http://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com – thoughts welcome 🙂
Pingback: Testing out Week 1 of #bigbible
Pingback: Poor stupid people who need to be told what to think « Nick Baines's Blog
Lots of good Christians, do not belong to organized churches. Which does not mean that they do not believe. I don’t believe that their is any such thing as cultural Christianity, just Churched or un-churched or never-churched.
People are free to believe whatever they want and militant secularists still believe in something, whether it is a deity or a set of moral principles, or they would not be so militant.
For many (around 20% of the population judging by various surveys and statistics) they consider themselves Christian even though they don’t go to church – and who are we to say they should not?”
Can they not also consider themselves Christian without needing funding for faith schools?
For me the key question here is about honesty and integrity. No-one should feel obliged to call themselves Christian on account of their parents’ wishes or their heritage. It is something we ‘buy into’ or not, on a personal basis. Wonder what the census will reveal?